Wildman and Burton (1981) observe that instructional design methodologies have made sense of the complex task environment facing teachers. The design of instruction needs to consider the individual components of instructional systems hence the need for well thought out and empirical instructional strategies. The authors explored the possibilities (and problems) of integrating what is known about the psychology of learning with what is known about designing instructional systems. Discrepancies between teaching practices and curriculum theory have been an issue of concern for more than 50 years (Tyler, 1957). It seems a priori that the decisions that a teacher makes in the design of instruction depend to varying degrees on the implicit assumptions made about what, how, and why people learn.
Suggestions for avoiding potential mismatches between the theory to use and instructional design are helpful. In this study it is important to discuss strategies that promote integration of learning in order to guide teachers appropriately.
In looking further at the pedagogies for integrative learning, the frameworks and taxonomies discussed below share common features that support integrative learning. Some of these frameworks subscribe to the cognitivist tradition, for example, Bloom’s and Gagné’s while Ausubel’s and Biggs and Collis’s are more linked to the constructivist tradition.
2.3.7.1 Bloom’s Taxonomy
According to Bloom the process of learning fits into one of three domains: Cognitive, Affective or Psychomotor (Forehand, 2005). Of note is that learning in the three domains is intimately integrated. The domains influence each other in that, for a student to master skills (psychomotor domain), there is need for underlying knowledge (cognitive domain) of the procedural steps. When students are motivated and possess positive attitudes (affective domain) towards the procedure they are likely to perform it at a high standard.
To ease the workload of preparing annual comprehensive examinations Bloom initiated the idea of a framework of educational objectives for each of the domains (Krathwohl, 2002). The objectives were based on behaviours that teachers could observe. Of note is that in the taxonomies learning objectives are classified in a range of progressive levels and this enables observation of cognitive, psychomotor and affective behaviours as they improve from simple to complex. This also made it possible for teachers to design learning opportunities that facilitate observable progression of learning leading to the attainment of desired competencies. From these taxonomies Bloom became one of the leading authorities in the design and classification of educational objectives.
About 45 years later, Bloom’s Taxonomy was revised based in part on the structure of educational objectives, in part on advances in cognitive psychology, and in part on numerous other attempts to classify educational objectives in keeping with developments in education (Anderson, 2005; Krathwohl, 2002; Moseley et al.,
categories are hierarchical in their degree of complexity. This has educational implications in that teachers need to consider improving cognitive performance through the alignment of learning objectives, assessment and instruction (Moseley et al., 2005).
Figure 2.5: Revised Bloom’s framework (adapted from Moseley et al., 2005:105)
The cognitive domain taxonomy is an integrated hierarchical structure which suggests that movement up the levels of cognitive skills is contingent upon mastery of the one or ones below. This implies integration since learning is building on previous knowledge and increases in complexity in a continuum from lower order to higher order cognitive skills. A student who displays the ability to apply or analyse has mastered the material at the levels of remembering and understanding (Forehand, 2005). It would seem that the lower order cognitive skills correspond with the surface approach to learning while higher order cognitive skills are applicable in the deep approach to learning strategy. For integrative learning, teachers need to promote learning opportunities that facilitate movement from lower order to higher order cognitive skills.
Create Evaluate
Analyse Apply Understand
Remember C ogn
iti ve p roc ess d im ens ion
Lower order cognitive skills Higher order cognitive skills
2.3.7.2 Gagné’s Types of Learning
Similar to Bloom, Gagné’s types of learning are hierarchical with the most complex type at the top. There are five domains of learning: “…motor skills, verbal information, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies and attitudes” (Moseley et al., 2005:47).
Gagné (1972; 1984:384) refers to these domains as outcomes of learning which are categories within which generalisations can legitimately be drawn, according to both reason and empirical evidence; also evidence of when and how learning occurs.
Gagné advises that for his type of learning to occur learning opportunities need to be interactive and different from traditional methods. Interactive methods of teaching are at the centre of the 21st century theories of adult learning. These methods facilitate integrative learning. Amongst Gagné’s types of learning the possession of intellectual skills demonstrates integration of prior learning. Cognitive strategies require problem-solving skills and Gagné advises that these cannot be taught effectively using traditional methods. Verbal information or “declarative knowledge is dependent on the recall of internally stored complexes of ideas or schemas”
(Gagné, 1984:379-383).
2.3.7.3 Ausubel’s Learning Theory
According to Moseley et al. (2005:67) Ausubel is a strong proponent of meaningful learning and claimed that rote as opposed to meaningful learning is more likely to take place when:
The material to be learned lacks logical meaning
The learner lacks the relevant ideas in his/her cognitive structure
The individual lacks a meaningful learning set (a disposition to link new concepts, propositions and examples to prior knowledge and experience).
Ausubel sees the development of conceptual understanding as the goal of education and, therefore, it is important for:
…teachers to present new learning in such a way that students can relate it to their existing knowledge taking into account the complexity of the new learning
Meaningful learning is part and parcel to higher order thinking (Ivie, 1998) and this is the type of learning that promotes integration.
Ivie (1998:37-39) outlines Ausubel’s Learning Theory and the categories that are pertinent to integrative learning are presented below:
Metaphor: Ausubel views knowledge as representing an integrated system.
Ideas are linked together in an orderly fashion. The human mind follows logical rules for organising information into respective categories. The cognitive structure is hierarchically organised in terms of highly inclusive concepts under which are subsumed less inclusive subconcepts and informational data.
Teaching and learning, therefore, are largely matters of erecting cognitive structures (scaffolding) to hold new information.
Cognitive structure: This category emphasises the learner’s cognitive structure in the acquisition of new information and builds on previous knowledge.
Hierarchy: knowledge is organised in a hierarchical structure, like a pyramid.
The most inclusive ideas at the top of the pyramid are the dominant and most enduring elements in the hierarchy. They possess a longer life span in memory than do particular facts or specific details, which fall at the base of the pyramid.
Subsumption (Assimilation): when a new idea enters consciousness it is processed and classified under one or more of the inclusive concepts already existing in the learner’s cognitive structure, similar to Piagetian epistemology.
Anchorage: the major concepts (subsumers) in cognitive structure act as anchoring posts for new information. The cognitive stability provided by anchoring ideas helps to explain why meaningful learning is retained longer than rote learning. Meaningful learning is anchored; rote learning, is not.
Organizers (abstract ideas presented in advance of a learning: Ausubel (1960) and Ausubel and Fitzgerald (1961) see the role of advance organizers in increasing discriminability of learning and for long-term retention potentials.
The aim of Ausubel’s theory is to facilitate “integrative reconciliation” (Moseley et al., 2005). The categories which seem to embrace Piaget’s cognitive development and Bloom’s conceptions of knowledge acquisition emphasise building on previous learning in an integrated system. The hierarchical structure of knowledge with most inclusive ideas at the top of the pyramid is similar to Bloom’s ideas. The concept of anchorage explains why meaningful learning, that is, “deep learning” is anchored while rote learning or “surface learning” is not.
2.3.7.4 Biggs and Collis’s SOLO Taxonomy
According to Biggs (2002:1), teaching and learning take place in a whole system, embracing classroom, department and institutional levels and further explains that:
…in a poor system, the components (curriculum, teaching and assessment tasks) are not necessarily integrated and tuned to support learning, so that only
‘academic’ students spontaneously use higher-order learning processes. In contrast, in an integrated system, all aspects of teaching and assessment are tuned to support high-level learning.
Biggs (2002) and Biggs and Tang (2007) suggest that constructive alignment is such a system. It is an approach to curriculum design that optimises the conditions for quality learning.
The ‘constructive’ aspect refers to what the learner does, which is to construct meaning through relevant learning activities and the ‘alignment’ aspect refers to what the teacher does, which is to set up a learning environment that supports the learning activities appropriate to achieving the desired learning outcomes (Biggs, 2002:1-2).
This is so because the teaching methods and assessments are aligned to the learning activities assumed in the intended outcomes.
The SOLO taxonomy (Figure 2.6) describes the level of increasing complexity in a student’s understanding of a subject, through five levels of response.
Figure 2.6: SOLO taxonomy (adapted from Biggs, 2002:3)
The levels are as follows (Moseley et al., 2005:87):
Pre-structural: here students are simply acquiring bits of unconnected information, which have no organisation and make no sense.
Unistructural: simple and obvious connections are made, but their significance is not grasped.
Multistructural: a number of connections may be made, but the meta-connections between them are missed, as is their significance for the whole.
Relational: the student is now able to appreciate the significance of the parts in relation to the whole.
Extended abstract: the student makes connections not only within the given subject area, but also beyond it, and is able to generalize and transfer the principles and ideas underlying the specific stance.
The SOLO taxonomy theory is based on Piaget’s developmental stages and levels of learning. The taxonomy enables teachers to identify the complexity and quality of thinking expected of and produced by students at any given stage, therefore, it can be a useful tool for evaluating learning. The SOLO taxonomy is also a useful tool for promoting integrative learning as the student is encouraged to make connections within and across the levels. In some previous studies, ideas from SOLO taxonomy
have informed the understanding of structural relationships between categories (Trigwell, Prosser, Martin and Ramsden, 2005).
2.3.7.5 Experiential Learning
The theory of experiential learning, according to Kolb (1981:290) maintains that learning is a process involving the resolution of dialectical conflicts between opposing modes of dealing with the world – action and reflection, concreteness and abstraction (Figure 2.7).
Figure 2.7: The experiential learning cycle (adapted from Kolb & Kolb, 2009:299)
Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory can assist learners to understand their unique learning preferences and capabilities (Kolb & Kolb, 2009). Matching these with the demands of learning tasks in a demanding programme like medicine can increase
Concrete experience
Reflective observation
Abstract conceptualisation Active
experimentation
Transform experienceGras p ex p erie n ce
learning effectiveness. According to Kolb (1984); Kolb and Kolb (2009); Wilson, O’Donohue and Hayes (2001); Wirth and Perkins (2008) the attributes of experiential learning that are pertinent for integration of learning are discussed below:
Experiential learning begins when the learner interacts with the environment and this is when the learner gets concrete experience. This engagement can be inhibited by too much workload when the learner scratches the surface rather than has a deep engagement which is necessary for linking with other experiences.
Sensory information from the experience is integrated and compared with existing knowledge and this is reflective observation, watching stage.
Reflection requires space and time for it to take place. As in the first step above, too much workload inhibits reflection which requires stillness and quieting the mind to foster reflection. Information skills of sense making, information gathering and information analysis can aid in the development and expression of the thinking mode of learning.
The thinking mode creates new models, ideas and plans for action. This is abstract conceptualisation where abstract hypotheses are formed. Thinking requires the ability to represent and manipulate ideas in your head so this can be distracted by intense direct emotion and sensations as well as pressure to act quickly. This process of creating new models requires reflection and integration with what is already known as in the process of integrative learning.
In the final stage, active experimentation is when new action is taken. This is a doing stage which requires commitment and involvement in the practical world of real consequences. All the other stages above are tested in reality here. This implies integration of all that was learnt previously in the earlier stages.
The Experiential Learning Cycle is consistent with the works of Piaget and other modern-day theorists who observe learning as having both active and intellectual dimensions.
The theories linked to pedagogies of integrative learning discussed above share very close similarities. They all suggest that learning occurs in a hierarchical and incremental process in domains that are inextricably linked. In general learning objectives in domains of learning are classified in a range of progressive levels starting from lower order to higher order skills. Higher order skills correspond to deep learning and it has been discussed that deep learning promotes integration.
From Bloom’s taxonomies a student needs underlying knowledge in order to master skills. In contrast, the mastery of skills is influenced by attitudes a student possesses towards the skill. Gagné’s hierarchical type of learning emphasises the use of interactive learning experiences that build on and integrate with prior learning.
Ausubel promotes meaningful learning which is synonymous with deep learning.
Knowledge is an integrated system because ideas are linked and build on each other in an organised manner to make meaning (Moseley et al., 2005). Biggs (2002) advises that an integrated system supports high-level learning because teaching and assessments are aligned. Experiential learning is a process of action and reflection as experiences are integrated with new knowledge (Kolb, 1981). The final process is further integration of all learning in previous stages when new action is taken.
However, it would seem that the Experiential Learning Style and some conceptions of learning and teaching are independent attributes. Bradbeer, Healey and Kneale (2004) identified undergraduates’ conceptions of teaching and learning geography and found that the conception of learning that occurred by being taught mirrors the predominant conception of teaching. In addition, Bradbeer et al. (2004) found that the students at lower levels of conception conceived learning as the increase in knowledge and also learning as memorisation for reproduction.