Many studies have investigated the role of teachers in higher education and affirmed a comprehensive role in the whole teaching and learning process (Ausubel, 1960;
Ausubel & Fitzgerald, 1961; Boulton-Lewis et al., 2001; Gibbs, 1994; Laksov, McGrath & Josephson, 2014; Ramsden, 1992; Trigwell, Prosser & Taylor, 1994).
Teaching is an art which needs to be mastered (Gage, 1978; Healey, 2000). In a study reported by Watkins, Dahlin and Ekholm (2005) some teachers in higher education did not understand deep learning, which is necessary for relationships and connections, as part of basic courses. This, therefore, meant that such teachers, who held the view that there is basic knowledge to be acquired before understanding, relating and applying can take place, had difficulties in seeing an internal relation between teaching and assessment (p.304).
The role of teachers in successful integration of curricula is central. Yeung and Lam (2007:134) report on the conceptions of teachers hindering implementation of integration. In their study, they revealed that:
….frontline teachers held fairly confused and narrow conceptions of curriculum integration. If teachers were truly expected to develop high-quality integrated programs in the schools they served, the curriculum development agencies should spell out clearly what they want to achieve in the curriculum reform.
Moreover, all the stakeholders, including the officials and the teachers, must have a common platform for communication and deliberation of conceptions toward a curriculum change. As has been revealed in the study, the conception of curriculum integration is more than the technical techniques of linking various subjects… To improve the chance of success in achieving the goal of providing quality integrated programs to the students, teachers need much more professional inputs about curriculum integration.
The above authors emphasise the importance of developing teachers’ conceptions of integration. Many of the conceptual descriptions of curriculum integration held by teachers were narrow or confused. In a study by Gibbs and Coffey (2004) there is evidence that training teachers increases the extent to which teachers adopt a student focus and improve students’ learning. Ling and Marton (2012) remind teachers to be cognisant of the dynamic nature of the object of learning. What the teacher plans to teach may not be what the students learn. As a result, this may explain the variances in what students learn – where some learn well while others do not learn as intended.
Of note is that the object of learning can be influenced or swayed by the effects of the hidden curriculum so that learning occurs by means of informal interactions among students, faculty and others, and through structural and cultural influences intrinsic to the programme (Gaufberg et al., 2010; Genn, 2001a; Genn, 2001b; Genn
& Harden, 1986; Hirsch & Worley, 2013).
Some studies have illuminated the lack of knowledge of the school curriculum by some teachers. In a study by Muller, Jain, Loeser and Irby (2008:782), the researchers report that students experience:
…numerous missed opportunities for achieving true integration because their teachers did not know the curriculum beyond their own lectures, did not communicate with one another, made no effort to discover what content has already been covered or what students would be learning in the future and failed to link their subject matter with the rest of the curriculum.
The above quote sounds like a classic example of the “isolation” level of Harden’s integration ladder. This is the least integrated level where:
…students attend a lecture on anatomy, and then move on to a lecture in physiology with neither lecturer being aware of what was covered in the other lecture (Harden, 2000:552).
Teachers have a role in making integration of learning an object of learning. A study by Pang and Marton (2003) found that students of teachers who consciously included patterns of variation in their teaching learnt better than students of teachers who did not demonstrate such knowledge or skill. Teachers play a role in motivating students and enabling them perceive relevance in their courses by creating clear goals and criteria for success; linking teaching to the achievement of external long-term goals; and identifying and catering for learners’ personal needs such as affiliation or self-esteem (Jordan et al., 2008).
The ability to identify essential detail requires the ability to discern critical aspects of the content:
...when students do not learn, it may not be due to a lack of ability. An object has many aspects, and not all aspects are critical; thus students who fail to learn may be focusing on aspects other than the critical aspects. Alternatively, they may not be focusing simultaneously on all critical aspects and their relationships... (Ling & Marton, 2012:9).
On the whole, in line with Piagetian epistemology, teachers should provide learning contexts that maximise opportunities for disequilibration and cognitive restructuring (Moseley et al., 2005). Fogarty (2009) recommends that teachers make deliberate efforts to integrate learning rather than assuming that students will understand the connections automatically. When the Dundee Medical School introduced an integrated curriculum in 1995, an integrated learning area was established to facilitate integration in the minds of students rather than leaving the whole task to the students to navigate through on their own (Davis & Harden, 2003).
Regehr and Norman (1996:994) emphasise the role of the teacher in influencing the storage and retrieval of information from memory:
…educational strategies to enhance memory should be directed at three goals – to enhance meaning, to reduce dependence on context, and to provide repeated practice in retrieving information.
Regarding integration in the clinical area, the same authors document the importance of making the learning environment (context) and the application environment as similar as possible to promote categorisation and pattern recognition. In the clinical area students need to retrieve their basic sciences knowledge and integrate it with the signs and symptoms from individual patients in order to recognise appropriate patterns for a diagnosis. Regehr and Norman suggest that fostering a match between learning and clinical environments provides a rationale for “community-based education where all instruction takes place in patient care and community settings” (p.995).
A different dimension on the role of the teacher in promoting learning is that of respect as outlined by Goodman (2009). All human relationships call for a measure of respect and, as students mature, they formulate values and ideals that become concretised in their selection of favoured peers and adults (p.15). This may mean that the respect (or lack of) a student has for a teacher could be a factor that lurks in the hidden curriculum with positive or negative effects towards learning.