One of the most important ideas to take hold in American higher
education in recent years is the idea of "ACTIVE LEARNING"
(Bonwell and Eison, 1991). The central argument of this movement
is that ACTIVE LEARNING (e.g., engaging in discussion,
writing, actually doing something) is more powerful in terms
of creating significant, lasting learning than is passive learning
(e.g., listening, reading).
However, even though the concept of ACTIVE LEARNING is
important, it is ultimately a concept that is focused on how
people learn, not on what they learn. I would like to propose
that the higher education community needs a parallel concept
that is focused on what students learn, and that an appropriate
name for this concept is HIGHER LEVEL LEARNING.
Need for a Better Framework for Generating Learning Goals
Why do we need such a concept? I see both paradigmatic and
pragmatic reasons. In one of the most widely read higher education
articles in recent years, Barr and Tagg (1995) describe what
they believe is a major change that is taking place in American
higher education. This change is a paradigm shift in
which institutions are thinking less about "providing instruction"
(the Teaching paradigm) and more about "producing learning"
(the Learning paradigm). To the degree that this shift is in
fact occurring, it will accentuate the need for a conceptual
framework that will allow educators not just to "produce
learning", but to "produce significant learning."
This is where the practical needs for the concept of
"HIGHER LEVEL LEARNING" appear. When teachers
design learning experiences, they need a framework that will
enable them to formulate significant learning goals. When teachers
and departments evaluate teaching, one of the primary evaluation
criteria needs to be the question of "how much significant
learning occurred?" When innovators create alternative
ways of teaching, potential adopters need to ask: "What
kind of significant learning will this lead to?"
For several decades, many college teachers facing these practical
needs have turned to the cognitive domain of Bloom's taxonomy
of educational objectives (Bloom, 1956), for guidance in formulating
significant educational goals. As valuable and durable as this
taxonomy has been, many educators in recent years have been
calling for a broader array of learning goals, something more
than just cognitive learning.
In the mid-1980's the National Institute of Education urged
universities to produce demonstrable improvements, not only
in student knowledge, but also in students' "capacities,
skills and attitudes." (NIE, 1984) The following year the
Association of American Colleges suggested a minimum required
curriculum, followed by the statement that "we have clearly
placed our emphasis on how to learn." (AAC, 1985)
A few years later a number of disciplinary associations have
issued calls for similar change. A national study of business
management education identified a need for more: leadership
and interpersonal skills, ethics, integration across functional
areas, and linkages between national spheres, corporations and
local communities, and theory and practice. (Porter & McKibbin,
1988) The engineering profession has modified their accreditation
criteria, effective in the year 2000, to require evidence that
students develop: the ability to function on a multi-disciplinary
team, communicate effectively, recognize the need for life long
learning, and understand the ethical character of the engineering
profession. (ABET, 1998) A commission of the National Association
of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges called on colleges
to develop instructional programs that focus on values: "The
biggest educational challenge we face revolves around developing
character, conscience, citizenship, tolerance, civility, and
individual and social responsibility in our students."
(NASULGC, 1997) Individually authored publications have offered
similar statements. After completing a major study on redesigning
higher education, Lion Gardiner noted that society's leaders
in business, industry and government have identified several
important kinds of learning needed by citizens and workers in
the years ahead. (Gardner, 1994) Labeling these as "critical
competencies," the list included a variety of personal
characteristics (e.g., conscientiousness, ethics, respect for
people different from oneself), skills (e.g., communication,
interpersonal team skills, critical thinking, and problem solving),
the ability to adapt to change, and knowing how to keep on learning.
Need for a Coherent Perspective
It is clear that these and many other voices in higher education
feel a need for and are calling for a new look at what students
learn in higher education. However, these various voices each
present a different list of advocated goals--each admirable
and each overlapping somewhat--but each containing something
new and different. What seems desirable in this kind of situation
is to find a model of (perspective on?) learning that can generate
a taxonomy of significant learning that seems at least somewhat
comprehensive. In an effort to respond to this situation, I
have developed a model of learning that addresses two general
questions:
1. What are students learning about?
2. What kind of change is occurring in the learner?
The several possible answers to these two questions have resulted
in the model of learning shown in Figure 1.
The ideas represented in this model serve two purposes: (a)
they confirm the value of what many reformers and innovators
have been doing for several years, and (b) they provide a "map"
for people who are searching for ways of generating more significant
learning experiences for their students.
Components of the Model of Learning
Beginning with the question of "What are students
learning about?", the following five types of responses
seem appropriate.
First, any discipline or course has some kind of PHENOMENA
that it is about. This may be the phenomena of plants (botany),
of people's behavior (psychology, sociology), of historical
events (history), of bridges or rockets (engineering), of literature
(English, drama), etc. Hence, one of the most common things
people learn about in college is about phenomena.
Second, disciplines and courses offer IDEAS about the
phenomena they deal with. Common examples of major ideas are:
evolution (biology), Marxism, (history, economics, politics),
and the Romantic style (Humanities). Ideas organize and give
significance to information and observations about phenomena.
They allow us both to create explanations of why events occur
and to offer predictions of what will happen under certain circumstances.
Third, courses can help a student learn about his or her own
SELF. Students sometimes report that, in particular courses,
they have learned to understand themselves better and/or they
have learned that they want to change something about themselves.
Sometimes this is because of the content of the course, sometimes
because of distinctive ways of learning offered by the course,
e.g., keeping a journal.
Figure 1
Fourth, courses can help students learn about interacting with
OTHERS. Students occasionally find that they have learned
(a) how to understand others, (b) how to communicate better
with others, particularly those who are different from themselves,
and/or (c) how to work with others on a common task.
Fifth, students may learn about LEARNING itself. They
may learn about such things as:
how to perform better as a student in a course (e.g., how
to take notes, prepare for exams, etc.),
how a particular discipline pursues knowledge (e.g., the
scientific method or the historical method), or
how to keep on learning after the course is over [e.g.,
(a) having an agenda, i.e., a clear sense of what they
can or should learn next, and (b) having a clear strategy,
i.e., specific ideas on how they can learn whatever
is on their agenda.]
After addressing the question of what students are learning
"about," we can turn to the question of: What is
"Learning" ? If we define learning as constituting
some kind of change in a learner, then what are the kinds
of change that are possible? Figure 1 above and the commentary
below propose five distinct kinds of change that are possible
in significant learning.
The first and most familiar kind of change is a change in KNOWING.
As used here, this term means that the learner now "understands
and remembers" something he/she did not know previously.
This "knowing" may be about any of the things identified
above: knowing about phenomena, about ideas, about self, about
others, and/or about learning.
The second kind of change involves THINKING. Thinking
can be and has been described in many ways. But here it simply
refers to "applying and using ideas and information."
I find it useful to view "thinking" as a general term
that involves three related but distinct sub-categories of thinking:
Apply and use: This is the "practical thinking,"
the kind used when trying to solve a known problem.
Analyze and evaluate: This is what is usually called
"critical thinking," used when one needs to assess
the relative merits of different ideas, products, or solutions
to a problem.
Imagine and create: This is "creative thinking",
generally used when we want a new kind of product or a new kind
of solution to a problem.
A third kind of change is CONNECTING. In one sense,
all learning is making connections. However, I am referring
to two more limited kinds of connections. The first is when
a learner sees a connection between ideas from two or more different
disciplines, e.g., seeing the similarity between the concept
of "evolution" in physical systems and the evolution
of social systems. The second kind of connection is when learners
make a connection between their educational life, their professional
or work life, and/or their personal life. An example of this
would be a student encountering an idea in the classroom and
then realizing it is applicable to a situation they are facing
in their work or personal life.
A fourth kind of change is DOING. As used here, "Doing"
refers to such things as:
A physical activity (e.g., playing a violin)
A distinct skill (e.g., speaking a foreign language, writing
a computer program)
A complex integrated task (e.g., investigating, analyzing
and reporting on a complex issue)
The fifth kind of change is CARING. This occurs when
the learner changes the way they feel or the degree to which
they value something: positively, negatively, or just differently.
Again, this may involve the way they feel about phenomena, ideas,
themselves, others, or learning.
Adding Significance to Teaching
According to this model, There are two ways that teachers can
add significance to their teaching. One is by helping students
learn about additional things, e.g., about themselves,
about others, about learning. A second way is by helping students
change in different ways, e.g., changing their ability
to think about the subject, their ability to "do"
something, their ability to connect different kinds of knowing,
or the degree to which they "care" about something.
Figure 2 on the following page identifies six general kinds
of significance. The left-hand column labels the kind of significance;
the middle column identifies the key component(s) involved from
the previously described model of higher level learning; and
the right-hand column indicates the special value of each kind
of learning.
FOUNDATION: This is what we hope happens in most courses
now. Students acquire some basic knowledge, something they understand
and remember, about a subject. This information and understanding
is a necessary foundation for other kinds of learning, especially
"Application" and "Integration" learning.
APPLICATION: When students take foundational knowledge
and learn how to think about issues (e.g., with critical
thinking, creative thinking, and practical thinking) and/or
how to do something with it (e.g., engage in a physical
task, engage in a complex investigation), they are learning
how to "apply" that earlier learning.
INTEGRATION: Two major kinds of significance apply here.
The first relates to much of the inter-disciplinary work attempted
in higher education. When students are able to integrate their
understanding of the biological environment, for example, and
relate this to public policy on the environment, they have learned
how to integrate two different realms of ideas. Second, when
they can achieve coherence between two or more realms of their
life, they have learned how to integrate their lives more effectively.
HUMAN DIMENSION: Sometimes a course allows students
to better understand themselves (e.g., who they are or who they
want to be) and/or how to interact with other people (e.g.,
how to understand what others say and do, and how to initiate
productive communications with others). This may happen either
because of the content of the course or because of the way learning
happens in the course. For example, effective use of small group
activities often produces this result. When this happens, the
learning acquires a new kind of significance, one I call the
"Human Dimension."
MOTIVATION: Some courses change the way we feel or care
about something, either the subject of the course, ourselves,
learning, etc. When we care about something, then and only then
do we have the energy necessary to learn about it in a lasting
way. Without this, little of significance happens.
GENERATIVITY: This is an idea that has been around a
while, of helping student "learn how to learn." When
students learn how to learn, they have a greater capability
of learning better, both in their present courses and in subsequent
learning situations. Hence, this kind of learning has the potential
for "generating" (hence the name) even more learning
in the future.
Are these six kinds of significance hierarchical? Unlike
the Bloom taxonomy, these six kinds of significance are only
partially hierarchical. "Foundation" learning, as
its name indicates, is necessary for several of the other kinds
of learning, especially for "Application" and "Integration"
learning.
In many ways, these six categories can operate independently,
yet any one can be linked with any others as shown in the following
diagram.
Using the Idea of "HIGHER LEVEL LEARNING"
How can educators use the concept of HIGHER LEVEL LEARNING?
Individual faculty members can use it when designing courses
and curricula. When deciding what they want students to learn
in a given course or curriculum, the teacher can use the "Taxonomy
of Significant Learning" to make some initial choices about
the kind of learning desired. Deciding whether to focus on Application,
Integration, or Learning How to Learn (or some combination thereof)
seems infinitely superior to the familiar "topical approach"
in which the teacher simply decides what topics "to cover."
Teachers can also use this taxonomy as a criterion for assessing
the relative merits of alternative forms of teaching. What kinds
of significant learning seem likely to be generated, for example,
by Team Learning, Problem-Based Learning, Online Learning, Guided
Design, community service projects, etc.?
There are many ways institutions can use the concept of "HIGHER
LEVEL LEARNING." First, when departments evaluate the
teaching done by faculty, the central criteria could (should?)
be: To what extent did teachers generate significant learning
in their courses? Was it all memorized "Foundation Knowledge,"
or was something more ambitious attempted and achieved? Second,
when assessing nominations for institution-wide teaching awards,
review committees could look for evidence of "HIGHER
LEVEL LEARNING" to recognize truly superior teachers.
Third, accreditation agencies can (as some are already beginning
to do) ask departments or institutions for evidence of the extent
to which "HIGHER LEVEL LEARNING" is being attempted,
supported, and attained. Finally, disciplinary associations
can offer workshops at regional and national meetings, to help
faculty members learn how to teach in ways that promote more
"HIGHER LEVEL LEARNING" in particular subjects
or disciplines.
In conclusion, if we are entering an era in which teachers focus
on the quality of learning rather than on teaching, as Barr
and Tagg suggest we should, then we need a concept about learning
that is comprehensive, flexible, and applicable to different
subjects and teaching situations, one that most people can accept
as being a valid criterion of significant learning. The concept
of "HIGHER LEVEL LEARNING" seems at least potentially
capable of meeting these needs.
REFERENCES
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET),
Inc. (1998) Criteria 2000, 3rd Edition. Baltimore: ABET.
Association of American Colleges (1985) Integrity in the
College Curriculum: A Report to the Academic Community.
Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges.
Barr, R.B. & Tagg, J. (1995) "From Teaching to Learning
- A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education." Change
Magazine, 27 (6), 13-25.
Bloom, B.S. (Ed.) (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.
The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive
Domain. New York: David McKay.
Bonwell, C.C. & Eison, J.A. (1991) Active Learning:
Creating Excitement in the Classroom. AASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report 1. Washington, D.C. George Washington University.
Gardiner, L. (1994) Redesigning Higher Education: Producing
Dramatic Gains in Student Learning. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education
Report 7. Washington, D.C.: George Washington University.
Porter, L.W. & McKibbin, L.E. (1988) Management Education
and Development: Drift or Thrust into the 21st Century?
New York: McGraw-Hill.
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
(NASULGC) (1997) Returning to Our Roots: The Student Experience.
Washington, D.C.: NASULGC.
National Institute of Education (1984) Involvement in Learning:
Realizing the Potential of American Higher Education. Washington,
D.C. National Institute of Education.
Follow-up Note on "HIGHER LEVEL LEARNING"
1. "HIGHER LEVEL LEARNING" and "ACTIVE
LEARNING"
The very idea of "HIGHER LEVEL LEARNING" seems
to require the use of "ACTIVE LEARNING". It
just does not seem possible to achieve HIGHER LEVEL LEARNING
-- passively. Hence an additional essay is appended to provide
some thoughts on ways to use ACTIVE LEARNING in one's
teaching, as part of an effort to help students achieve HIGHER
LEVEL LEARNING.
