1.1 A Paradigm Shift?
In this book, we strongly advocate that instructors approach teaching as they would any other discipline in psychology, by using an evidenceâbased approach. The scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) literature is rich with theoryâdriven empirical studies that determine best practices for maximizing learning and fostering both social and intellectual development in students. These studies conclusively demonstrate that a studentâcentered approach, as opposed to a teacherâcentered approach such as lecturing, is by far the most effective pedagogical strategy (Freeman et al., 2014; Johnson, Johnson, & Stanne, 2000). Studentâcentered classes draw on research from cognitive, social, and developmental psychology, and emphasize active learning and collaboration over passive listening. Rather than being the source of all knowledge, studentâcentered teachers play a critical role as facilitators by providing structure, guidance, feedback, and support for students as they take on various tasks (Alfieri, Brooks, Aldrich, & Tenenbaum, 2011; Barr & Tagg, 1995). Such support has been associated with student gains in perceptions of their own personal social development (Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005) and academic skills (Alfieri et al., 2011). Thus, approaching teaching from a studentâcentered perspective is consistent with the mission of a liberal arts education, in that it contributes to the development of the âwhole person.â
We realize that this focus on active learning may require a considerable paradigm shift for new instructors, who are likely to have been educated by teachers who predominantly used lectureâbased teaching in their undergraduate classes. Indeed, when we have asked graduate students in our Teaching of Psychology class to list the qualities of their âbest teacher,â they have tended to describe those of an excellent public speaker (e.g., knowledgeable, dynamic, entertaining, enthusiastic, funny), as well as caring and supportive attributes (e.g., understanding, caring, warmâhearted, empathetic); for similar results with undergraduates, see Keeley, Furr, and Buskist (2009). Relatedly, when asked to describe the tasks they view as most important when preparing to teach, our graduate students tend to focus on having sufficient content knowledge (e.g., preparing slides and rehearsing lectures, selecting and reviewing textbooks and other readings, making sure that one knows the material), rather than on constructing learning objectives (LOs), designing interactive activities and demonstrations, and planning how to best assess whether the LOs have been successfully met. Taken together, these data suggest that although novice instructors acknowledge the importance of establishing rapport with their students, they often equate teaching effectiveness with the transmission of as much content knowledge as possible to a class, in an enthusiastic manner.
Teacherâcentered instruction not only puts a great deal of pressure on new instructors, who may be worried about their skills as dynamic public speakers or their ability to manage potential âincivilitiesâ in the classroom, but has also been shown to be considerably less effective as compared to a studentâcentered approach. A metaâanalysis of over 200 studies in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) classes showed that the grades of students taught using active learning methods were on average half a letter grade higher than among those in lecture classes, with over 50% fewer failing grades (Freeman et al., 2014). Other studies indicate that active learning is associated with lower rates of attrition among college students (Braxton, Milem, & Sullivan, 2000). The overwhelming evidence favoring active learning methods has led Nobel Laureate Carl Wieman to liken lecturing to the archaic practice of âbloodâletting in medicineâ: bloodâletting was endorsed as a therapeutic practice for hundreds of years because patients sometimes got better after its application, likely as a result of other factors (Wieman, 2014). Similarly, students who are taught predominantly in lecture classes do learn, but this is most likely attributable to their activities outside of class, such as reading and reviewing the materials (Wieman, 2014).
Current trends in higher education emphasize learning skills over memorizing content, which can quickly become outdated in our rapidly changing world. In 2005, the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) launched the Liberal Education and America's Promise (LEAP) initiative, which recognized that college graduates need strong intellectual and practical skills in order to enter into and survive in the workforce (http://www.aacu.org/leap). Like the American Psychological Association (APA) Guidelines for the Undergraduate Psychology Major (American Psychological Association, 2013), the AAC&U advocates that undergraduate education should produce improvements in many areas, including critical thinking (CT) and the solving of authentic problems related to realâlife situations, oral and written communication, information and technological literacy, scientific inquiry and analysis, and collaborative teamwork. Developing metacognitive skills about what and how best to learn has also been linked to better academic performance in terms of higher test scores and GPA (Coutinho, 2008; Everson & Tobias, 1998; Nietfeld, Cao, & Osborne, 2005; Young & Fry, 2012). Both LEAP and the APA provide wellârounded visions of what constitutes a good education, by requiring that students are engaged as agents in the learning process, with instructors serving as their guides. The Society for the Teaching of Psychology's (STP's) educational taskforce has also suggested that model instructors use methods that actively engage students in the learning process (Richmond et al., 2014).
We argue that using a studentâcentered perspective puts less pressure on novice instructors, by recognizing that an effective teacher does not need to be extraverted or a standâup comedian. As Bain (2011) reported in his national study of what the best college teachers do, master teachers challenge their students and help them learn how to think, rather than what to think. This means that anyone can become a better teacher. Instructors can learn the best ways to facilitate the development of broadâbased skills (e.g., CT, information and media literacy, communication, scientific inquiry and analysis, collaboration) in their students. Therefore, with training and experience, instructors should be able to engage students in purposeful problem solving, analysis, and discussion of complex issues, while building respectful communities that value diverse viewpoints.
1.2 Setting the Stage for Transformative Learning
Bain (2011) found that the best college teachers across the United States all helped their students to engage in deep learning by encouraging them to think for themselves. In many cases, transformative learning occurred when instructors gave their students the confidence to take risks and learn from their mistakes. Students were able to alter their longâstanding beliefs through knowledge constructed from their own explorations. Although they found classes in which they had to think for themselves challenging, they were motivated to learn because they were able to focus on topics that they found interesting. Echoing the tenets of critical (Freire, 1996), feminist (Brunner, 1992; RobinsonâKeilig, Hamill, GwinâVinsant, & Dashner, 2014; Scanlon, 1993), and intersectional (Case, 2017) pedagogy, Stetsenko and colleagues have advocated for a transformative activist approach to learning that increases the agency of underserved students and leads the way to social change (Stetsenko, 2017). Within this framework, students identify personal issues that impact their lives and learning, and work collaboratively to research potential solutions to problems of inequality, with the goal of promoting both personal and community agency as they make commitments to social justice (PodluckĂĄ, 2017; Vianna, Hougaard, & Stetsenko, 2014; Vianna & Stetsenko, 2017).
