Kathleen Horgan1 and Deirdre O’ Rourke2
Development Education & Participative Learning Methodologies (PLM) at Third
Level
Teaching is about making some kind of dent in the world so the world is different
than it was before you practised your craft. Knowing clearly what kind of dent
you want to make in the world means you must continually ask yourself the most
fundamental evaluative question of all – ‘What effect am I having on students and
their learning?’” (Brookfield 1990, pgs 18 – 19)
Introduction
Maximising Development Education input and impact at Third Level provides numerous
challenges to both the higher education teacher and student especially in terms of
delivery and activity in large lecture settings. Participative Learning Methodologies
(PLM) are easily employed in small tutorial or study groups where classes of up to 30 or
40 students are manageable for running development education workshops. The difficulty
and challenge arises when the numbers of students is so great and the physical size and
structure of the lecture theatre so imposing that anything other than note-taking and
lecturing seems an impossibility. This goes some way to explaining why Light and Cox
(2001) describe the lecture, as synonymous with Third Level education. These issues,
combined with the additional planning time required for interactive lectures, the
possibility that students will not engage due to the ‘unusualness’ of the situation, and
overloaded timetables mean many higher education teachers eschew PLM in favour of a
‘straight’ lecture.
1
2
Faculty of Education, Mary Immaculate College, Limerick
Lecturer in Development and Intercultural Education, Mary Immaculate College, Limerick
1
The idea for this paper arose from a series of workshops which were organised as part of
a three-year professional development programme designed to support the faculty and
staff of Mary Immaculate College in introducing development education perspectives
into their work. The project was called ‘Educating the Development Educators’. During
the course of the project it became clear that one of the major impediments to the
integration of development education into the higher education curricula was the issue of
large lecture groups (n>100). This paper will focus on addressing the main challenges
involved in bringing development education, which by definition involves the use of
participative learning methodologies, into the large lecture theatre.
This paper will begin by outlining the importance of development education through
PLM within Higher Education. Findings will show how this methodology enhances
learning especially in terms of linking academic and practical experiences, provides
opportunities to connect with a larger audience and supports the learning and
development of skills in interactive and group settings. The paper will then address some
of the key issues around how PLM can be incorporated at Third level.
What Constitutes PLM?
Much like development education, PLM is referred to by a multiplicity of names, for
example, peer teaching, active learning, group work, co-operative and collaborative
learning to mention a few. Similarly there is no commonly held definition of PLM, in
truth PLM is easiest defined by what it is not. It is the opposite of the ‘banking system’ of
education where knowledge is transferred directly from the ‘expert’ to the learner. PLM
means getting students actively involved with the learning process. Meyers and Jones
(1993, p13), define PLM as “…any activity that substantially involves students with the
course content through talking and listening, writing, reading and reflecting […].” In
general PLM usually employs one or more of the four key elements as defined by Meyers
& Jones in the above quote - reflecting, talking & listening, writing and reading.
Whatever the term used to refer to PLM, most people equate PLM solely with group
work. However there are subtleties within the category of groupwork which must be
2
observed. Johnson, Johnson & Smith (1991) have identified three different types of
groupwork:
informal - where the learning group is temporary, lasting only the duration of a
single class, such as asking students to work with the person beside them;
formal – where small groups are created to work on a project over more than one
class;
study teams – where groups are created for the span of the semester with the aim
of providing mutual support and encouragement to each other both within and
outside of class time.
In the context of the large lecture theatre informal group work combined with individual
active learning seems the most promising option. We will return to this later.
The importance of delivering Development Education through PLM
So why try and deliver development education to larger classes through PLM? PLM and
development education share core values and approaches such as equalitative and
inclusive learning, student centered methodologies, the development of critical thinking
and interpersonal skills, the linking of concepts and ideas with ‘real life’ situations and
independent and life-long learning. It is not possible within the confines of this paper to
examine each of the areas of commonality in depth; however a number of the most
pertinent areas are outlined below.
Student Centered
If we as development educators embrace the importance of equality and valuing
difference then it behooves us to recognize and value the diversity present within any
group of students. This includes cultural, social, ethnic, linguistic as well as intellectual
diversity. To accommodate intellectual diversity, our challenge is to create a learning
environment where all types of learners can obtain success and feel included. Using PLM
allows the higher education teacher to structure learning experiences beyond the
conventional lecture thereby engaging a number of the various intelligences (Gardner
1983) and providing an opportunity to connect meaningfully with the students.
A Positive Attitude to the Subject Area
3
Engaging with each of the students in this way has many benefits. PLM has been found
to promote positive attitudes towards the subject in which it is employed (Biggs, 1989)
and to generate ‘continuing motivation to learn more about the subject’ (Johnson,
Johnson & Smith 1991, p 42). Clearly, these findings are of significance to development
education in terms of motivating learners and combating the apathy that can set in when
learners confront the frustrating question that often arises when exploring global justice
issues: ‘But what can I do?’
Higher level thinking Skills
Development education also holds that learning is only really complete when learners can
take the knowledge/content they have been studying and make it their own i.e., apply it
and become advocates for change. Research over the last century conducted by a wide
variety of researchers in multiple settings, suggests that not only do students retain more
information through PLM but that
Cooperative learning furthermore resulted in more higher level reasoning, more
frequent generation of new ideas and solutions and greater transfer of what is
learned within one situation to another… (Johnson, Johnson & Smith 1991, p 56)
These points are echoed by Duckworth (1972); who outlines how the usual emphasis on
factual knowledge in lectures can result in a lack of deeper understanding of content. She
states that by allowing students to explore the subject matter in greater depth they are
then more likely to retain and subsequently use the knowledge. PLM, through the use of
simulated cases, role plays, etc. generates a deeper understanding of content, often
enabling learners to connect ‘classroom learning’ to the personal experience or the real
world. PLM not only enhances learning then, but also facilitates the linking of academic
and practical experiences.
Life long learning
Finally learning is an active process in which students assume an increasing-active role,
integrating new found knowledge with their existing knowledge base. The
teaching/learning process ideally involves the higher education teacher encouraging the
4
development of the skills of independent learning and discovery amongst the students.
PLM, through group work and critical engagement with the material, lays the foundations
of life-long learning (Meyers & Jones, 1993).
We have argued above that the use of PLM in the delivery of development education both
complements the message of development education and reinforces its principles. Let us
now look at the possibilities which exist for integrating PLM into large-group teaching.
How to incorporate PLM in the Large Lecture
PLM are easily employed in small tutorial or study groups, the difficulty arises when the
numbers of students are so great that utilising PLM seems impossible. Feedback from
faculty workshops in Mary Immaculate College and a review of the literature available in
the area (Boyle & Nicol, 2003; Cutts et. al, 2004; Hake, 1998; Laurillard, 2002) suggest
that there are four typical difficulties encountered by faculty who attempt to incorporate
PLM into the context of the large lecture. These difficulties centre on:
ensuring course content will be covered,
student resistance to PLM,
the preparation involved and finally
the incompatible design of the traditional lecture theatre with PLM
activities.
Course Content will suffer if PLM are Introduced
‘…the challenge in college teaching is not covering the material for students but
uncovering it.’ (Johnson, Johnson & Smith 1991, p81)
The traditional lecture is still popular as a teaching method in higher education as it is a
useful approach for conveying information. However, as higher education teachers, we
need to identify the objectives for our courses of study and what we wish to achieve
within the available class time. Do we merely want to teach facts and theories which may
be reviewed and revised in future years, or do we want to promote critical thinking skills
that will allow students to assess new knowledge as it unfolds? If the latter is the case
5
then lecturing is not the most effective methodology, courses need to be redefined and
redesigned to include the development of skills and the cultivation of understanding as
well as the promotion of knowledge (Myers & Jones 1993, p.34). Introducing PLM into
large classroom situations involves a shift in focus from “what is being taught to what is
being learned and transfers greater responsibility for knowledge acquisition, organisation,
and application from the teacher to the student” (Cooper, 2002: 54). This provides the
teacher an opportunity to take on a range of different roles including facilitator of
learning, ‘guide on the side’ (Johnson, Johnson and Smith 1991), or role model of the
expert learner.
It must also be remembered that less content covered in class, doesn’t mean less content
covered overall. Content can be covered in assigned readings, core texts, group projects
etc. If PLM are adopted successfully students will be encouraged towards independent
study. Beach (1983), for example, reported that syndicates of small groups of students
engaged in more ‘required’ and ‘non-required’ reading than was the case in a
conventional lecture or discussion format.
Students want ‘passive’ learning
Cutts et. al (2004) report that students often share the ‘Didactic Mindset’ with their
teachers expecting that “in-lecture material simply needs to be covered by the teacher and
their role is one of transcription”. Mary Immaculate College faculty who participated in
the Educating the Development Educators project shared the view that many students are
comfortable with the banking system of education. They stated that many students ascribe
priority to the views of the higher education teacher and devalue their own opinions and
those of their peers. Some faculty reported student resistance to PLM being expressed in
comments such as the following: ‘I came to College to learn from the lecturers not from
the other students.’
The easiest way to begin to tackle the change in attitude needed is to let students know at
the beginning of the semester that you intend to use some PLM, while also informing
them about the learning benefits of these methodologies. For each session ensure that
6
the learning objectives are clear
teaching materials are organized and available
tasks are clearly explained, demonstrated and well-managed
a range of different grouping formats are used encompassing teacher/peer and
self-directed activities.
Lecture theatres are often not conducive to PLM activities
The introduction of PLM into the large lecture theatre can be made all the more difficult
by the physical set up of the classroom which is traditionally teacher-centred and based
on the ‘transmission of information model’ of teaching and learning. Despite these
constraints, PLM can still be used as it does not necessarily require large physical space
or the freedom to move around the room.
If we go back to the four key elements of PLM as listed by Meyers and Jones (1993),
notably, reflecting, talking & listening, writing and reading we can see that each of these
can be carried out by the individual student or by students working as part of an
‘informal’ group.
Looking at the first of these four key elements, reflection, we can immediately appreciate
that reflection allows an idea to mature, gives students the time to integrate new
knowledge with what they already possess, and begins the process of critical analysis
(Dewey,1910). Reflection can be an individual activity or can be carried out with a group
of any size. Reflection can be encouraged in the form of an ongoing journaling process
that encourages learners to examine how they are learning and what personal insights
they are uncovering. Reflection could also take the form of directed reflection within
class time e.g. “How does Neyere’s theory of Ujamaa fit with ideas of empowerment?”
and allowing a few minutes for the students to actually think about it. In-class reflection
can be reinforced by asking the learners to write a summary of their views as an out-ofclass assignment.
7
‘Thinking aloud works because it makes students aware of their thought processes
as they solve problems; it also helps them quickly see when they make errors or
run into a blind alley.’ (Meyers & Jones 1993, p.22)
According to Laurillard, dialogue is a crucial element of learning, and it is the higher
education teacher’s ‘responsibility to create the conditions in which understanding is
possible.’ (Laurillard 2002, p.1.) One way to create a context conducive to understanding
is to introduce talking activities. Talking activities, where one student is required to argue
or explain a theory or position to their partner encourages the ‘talking’ student to think
through the content and to structure their thoughts so that they make sense to the
‘listening’ student. This serves to clarify the ‘talking’ students thinking. It also highlights
any misunderstandings the student may have which can then be amended. Active learning
by the second student in the pair is stimulated through ‘active listening’ where the second
student seeks to clarify what is being said through asking pertinent questions. The
questions they put to their talking partner must assist in eliciting a clear explanation of
the content.
Activities such as ‘Think, Pair, Share’ employ reflection, ‘mindful talking’ and ‘active
listening’ and can be carried out with large groups in confined spaces to great affect.
Discussion or debate among groups if feasible also allows for students to hear the
perspectives of others, which adds to their existing knowledge. The result of these
activities is that the learner more fully comprehends course content. It is essential too that
we as higher education teachers model this process by listening respectfully to questions
from learners and asking insightful questions of students to help them clarify their
thoughts.
Writing, engages the learner in a similar way, obliging them to clarify and examine their
understandings. It also helps knowledge retention through reinforcement,
If the most efficacious learning occurs when learning is reinforced, then writing
through its inherent reinforcing cycle involving hand, eye and brain – marks a
uniquely powerful multirepresentational mode of learning. (Emig 1997, p 125)
8
During the workshop series on development education provided as part of the Educating
the Development Educators project, faculty stated that that one of the problems with
written assignments is that students often write in a specific style, loading their work with
dense terminology and phrases which they believe the higher education teacher expects.
It was proposed that setting written assignments within a hypothetical basis can help to
reduce the problem of terminology-heavy writing and to encourage the students to write
in a clear and direct way. This can help to clarify their thinking and reveal what they
truly understand of the subject. Hypothetical situations could for example be writing a
newspaper article for a local paper. Again such assignments can be set as part of the
ordinary assessment process and to a group of any size.
Critical reading (Hartley, 1998) aims to encourage students to use their higher order
thinking skills, to question what they are reading, link it to other readings, search for
evidence of bias or faulty arguments and be able to identify and deconstruct weak
arguments. Examples of PLM which incorporate critical reading would be setting the
students specific questions to accompany each reading which will help focus them on the
main points. The wisest place to start however, especially in the case of first year students
is to assume that students do not know how to read critically. Therefore a class or tutorial
could be devoted to teaching students these skills, i.e. how to highlight, notate, link key
words and phrases etc. This could be done in the large lecture theatre by distributing a
brief section of text, asking key questions, inviting students to highlight what they
perceive to be the key phrases and then showing them via power point what you, the
teacher, have marked. A discussion ensues (Meyers & Jones 1993, p28).
Finally asking students towards the back of the lecture theatre to move towards the front
of the room also helps create a classroom more conductive to PLM. You can also
structure assignments to include formal group work, meaning the students must meet in
their groups outside of class to work on a set project and with the aid of detailed
instructions engage in cooperative learning.
An example of such a process is provided by Finlay and Faulkner (2005)
9
The reading groups involved the following:
• Groups consisted of 3–5 students.
• Each student did one different reading a week and wrote a one-page synopsis. This
required students to routinely summarize what they read (Maclellan, 1997).
• The undergraduate students returned their synopsis to the lecturer before each lecture.
He made a record of their names, a photocopy for each student in the group and
distributed them in the lecture. Masters students made their own copies and brought
them to the teaching session.
• Time was made available for students to discuss their reading with their group, ask
questions among themselves and of the lecturers. To guide discussions, focus questions
that encompassed all of the articles were displayed to the whole class as a form of
‘guided peer questioning’ (King, 1999).
• In the undergraduate sessions two groups were selected each week to make an informal
presentation using [overheads] with their answers to the focus questions. Common and
contrasting themes were then shared with the entire class. Masters students made
presentations on the overall theme of the day that incorporated the readings.
• Finally, groups organized which readings each student would do for the following
week.
(Ibid, p. 34)
PLM take a lot of preparation time
Many higher education teachers feel that preparing a lecturing syllabus which
incorporates PLM means devoting a lot of time to a demanding and difficult process.
However incorporating PLM into class time does not have to take anymore time than
updating last year’s lectures. It is recommended, however, that PLM be introduced
gradually allowing both the students and higher education teacher time to adjust and
assess the methodology. Once you have begun to introduce some PLM into your class, it
will become increasingly easy to do so.
Conclusion
10
This paper began by showing how Participatory Learning Methodologies are based on
two premises; that people learn in different ways and that learning at its core is an active
process (Meyers & Jones 1993, p. xi). This paper has also shown the learning benefits of
PLM and how much PLM holds much in common with the principles of development
education, among these are a student centred methodology, an emphasis on higher order
thinking skills, greater application of knowledge, deeper understanding of content, a
commitment to life-long learning /motivation to learn combined with a positive attitude
towards the subject area.
PLM can be explored without completely abandoning the lecturing/ listening/note-taking
process. To succeed in creating a participative learning-based course we need to be aware
of our own skills as teachers and gradually build on these, incorporating those
participative learning methodologies which best complement our own unique style of
teaching.
11
12
Bibliographical List
Books
Beach, L. (1983) ‘A Report from America’, in G. Collier ed., The Management of
Peer Group Learning: Syndicate Methods in Higher Education, Guilford: Society
for Research in Higher Education, pp.48 – 54.
Biggs, J.B. (1989) "Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching," Higher
Education Research and Development, 8 (1), 7-25.
Brookfield Stephen, D. (1990) The Skilful teacher: On Technique Trust and
responsiveness in the classroom, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Davis, B.G. (1993) Tools for Teaching, San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Dewey (1910) How We Think, Boston: DC Heath and Co.
Duckworth, E. (1972) The Having of Wonderful Ideas: And Other Essays on
Teaching and Learning, Columbia University: Teachers College Press.
Erickson, B.L. and Strommer, D.W. (1991) Teaching College Freshmen, San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Gardner, H. (1983) Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, New
York: Basic Books.
Hartley, J. (1998) Learning and Studying a Research Perspective, London:
Routledge
Johnson, D.W., Johnson R.T. and Smith, K.A. (1991) "Cooperative Learning:
Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity, Washington, D.C.; Jossey
Bass.
Laurillard, D. (2002) Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational
Framework for the Effective use of Learning Technology, 2nd ed., London:
Routledge.
Light G., Cox R. (2001) Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: The
Reflective Professional, London: SAGE Publications.
Meyers, C. and Jones, T.B. (1993) Promoting Active Learning: Strategies for the
College Classroom, Jossey Bass: San Francisco.
13
Journal Articles
Boyle, J. T. and Nicol, D.J. (2003). Using classroom communication systems
to support interaction and discussion in large class settings, Association for
Learning Technology Journal [ALT-J], 11(3), 43-57.
Cooper, S. M. A. (2002) ‘Classroom Choices for Enabling Peer Learning’, Theory
into Practice, 41, 53 – 57.
Cutts, Q., Kennedy, G., Mitchell, C & Draper, S. (2004) ‘Maximising Dialogue in
Lectures using Group Response Systems’, in IASTED Internat. Conf. on
Computers and Advanced Technology in Education, Hawaii, 16-18th August 2004
[online], available at www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~quintin/papers/cate2004.pdf
Finlay, S.J. & Faulkner, G. (2005) “Reading Groups and Peer Learning,”
Learning in Higher Education, 6 (1), 32 – 45.
Hake, R. (1998) ‘Interactive Engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousandstudent survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,’ American
Journal of Physics 66(1), 64 – 74.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Smith, K.A., (1998) Cooperative learning returns
to college: What evidence is there that it works?, Change 20(4), p 26 – 35.
Emig, J. (1977) ‘Writing as a mode of learning’, College Composition and
Communication, 28 (2), 122-128.
Chapters in Books
Lockhead, J., and A. Whimbey, (1987) “Teaching Analytical Reasoning through
Thinking Aloud Pair Problem Solving,” in Stice, J.E. ed., Developing Critical
Thinking and Problem-Solving Abilities (New Directions for Teaching and
Learning No. 30), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14
Author Information
Dr. Kathleen Horgan is a member of the Faculty of Education at Mary Immaculate
College. In her current work she co-ordinates a programme of Microteaching and
Reflective Practice for undergraduate and postgraduate student teachers. Her research
interests span Environmental Education, Development Education and Teacher Education.
As well as a number of research papers and projects, she has authored the Team Planet
Programme of Environmental and Development Education, and co-authored The World
in the Classroom and Learning to Teach Reflectively.
Deirdre O’ Rourke lectures in Development and Intercultural Education in Mary
Immaculate College, Limerick. Her ongoing work includes the ‘Educating the
Development Educators’ project which is concerned with the integration of Development
Education into the Bachelor of Education programme in Mary Immaculate College and
co-coordinating the Graduate Diploma in Development Education. Her research interests
are in Development Education, Ethical Consumption, Participative Learning
Methodologies (PLM) and Media’s Role in Social Justice Issues.
15