Variabilidad en composición, estructura y diversidad del BSG en fragmentos

It is argued that an educator’s way of being infuses or pervades the learning

environment (Morrison-Saunders 2013) and that ‘conceptions of teaching influence

teaching approaches impacting on students’ approaches to learning, and in turn

affecting learning outcomes’ (Kember 2009, p. 2). So it could be said that being an

‘effective’ educator requires bringing a scholarly approach to the ongoing

development of professional skills and practice and high levels of disciplinary and

‘other contextual expertise’ (Devlin & Samarawickrema 2010, p. 111).

When considering conceptions of teaching, a comprehensive literature review on an

educator’s philosophy of teaching reveals it as, a ‘systematic and critical rationale

107

in a particular discipline and/or institutional context’ (SchÖnwetter, Sokal, Friesen &

Taylor 2002, p. 84). Skelton adds to this description of a teaching philosophy by

emphasising the importance of an educator’s values and personal identity fitting

the environment (2009, p. 109). Context plays a key role in shaping and sustaining

educator beliefs and practices in that an ongoing focus on teaching strategies and

tools for practice often means that context, ideology and values are not discussed

(Fitzmaurice, 2010, p. 53).

It would therefore seem that in developing an educator’s philosophy that is

student-considered, examination of values and beliefs as well as the notions of

‘espoused theory’ and ‘theory-in-use’ are important (Argyris et al. 1985). The

notion of espoused theory encompasses the world view and values upon which

educators believe their behaviour to be based. Theory-in-use is the set of values

that underpins action and determines behaviour: it is the set of values suggested

by the maps educators use to take action in determining pedagogical approaches

employed (Argyris & SchÖn 1974).

However, there can be incongruity between espoused theory and theory-in-use

which may impact on pedagogical approaches chosen by the educator. This

incongruence can be compounded as theories-in-use are predominantly tacit

knowledge, and this knowledge can be difficult to articulate (Virtanen 2013).

Furthermore, educators may not be aware that the maps used to take action may

108

Incongruence in how an educator’s values are applied may arise for other reasons

aside from differences between espoused theory and theory-in-use. There may be

pragmatic issues such as resource constraints within a Faculty, large classes and

heavy workloads, resistance on the part of students to ambiguity and change and

self-defence on the part of the educator which may all create incongruence (Argyris

& SchÖn 1974; Bath et al. 2004; Jones 2009). As Bath et al. (2004) note, self-

defence may occur as some educators perceive graduate attributes as something

that should not be their concern or responsibility. To this Edwards and King (2002)

note graduate attributes are often seen as a competitor to content which may

impact on the educator’s chosen pedagogical approaches.

Incongruence between an educator’s espoused theory and theory-in-use can occur

as educators may profess the value of particular graduate attributes, but how these

attributes are reflected in a learning environment may be different. So while

certain beliefs may be central to an educator’s values, they may not necessarily be

directly enacted in pedagogical approaches, creating a tension between what is

valued and what is practised in pedagogical terms (Jones 2009). Jones found (2009)

that while attributes are valued by educators and seen as part of the structure of

their discipline, they are often not explicit in teaching. In other words, educators

may not be considering how and to what extent graduate attributes, such as

communication skills, are integrated into the learning experience.

In light of the research, and if educators are to create a learning environment that

109

explicit their espoused theories and theories-in-use and discover any

inconsistencies between the two. Opportunities for educators to surface what they

‘say they do and their explanations for their actions’ and ‘what they actually do and

the real reasons for their actions’ may contribute to developing a robust teaching

philosophy that has a student-considered focus (Robinson & Lai 2005, p. 99).

As discussed in Chapter 1 and in 3.3.1 student-considered learning is a pragmatic

term tethered to and consistent with Dewey’s philosophy about the importance of

experience and the student's role in learning from experience (1998). It is therefore

important to consider further what is being ‘‘student-considered’’ in the context of

an educator’s philosophy that may contribute to graduate attribute development.

McCabe and O’Connor (2014) report on a study where educators describe student-

considered learning as a relationship with students premised on an understanding

that:

’You have to let go, stand back and given them ownership … guide them without directing them … without giving them the answer [and] phrase the questions [so they] realise that the direction they are going is not the right direction’ (p. 353).

Another consideration when discussing what constitutes a student-considered

learning environment is how the educator can support students to ‘bounce back’

and restore their equilibrium, show adaptability and transformability (Folke,

Carpenter, Walker, Scheffer, Chapin & Rockstrom 2010). Building such resilience

may indeed increase a student’s self-confidence (Luthans 2002) and may foster The

110

Research suggests an important role for educators in offering students freedom.

afforded through opportunities to innovate, explore and make mistakes, which is

integral to their personal development. Furthermore, Whitehead (1929) says

freedom provides the means for students to alter their behaviours via a shift in their

habits of thought and freedom may also help students to make decisions about the

adoption of new and valuable habits and dispensing of old habits of thought, feeling

and way of being (see 3.2.1). This freedom will be of the most value if educators

encourage students to react to their environment and to for example, apply novel

ideas to problems they encounter, particularly if such problems reflect the dynamic

nature of today’s world (Jones 2007).

The importance of the notion of freedom in student-considered learning is also

noted in the Australian Education Review report of 2010 where it is stated that

‘students involved in self-directed learning make mistakes but in a 21st century

[school] the mistakes are considered a natural and valuable element in learning’

(Moyle 2010, p. iv). It would appear that when there is freedom in the learning

environment, students may interact in such a way as to assist in the development of

independent action and new skills. Adding to the idea that freedom to innovate

and make mistakes is a valuable learning experience, research on the influences of

the contexts within which learning takes place, shows that a deep approach to

learning (as discussed in 3.2.2), is related to what students perceive as ‘freedom in

learning’, which is explained as some choice in what and how to learn (Entwistle,

111

In formulating an educator’s philosophy of teaching, the use of an evolutionary

approach may provide a useful way of considering how interaction occurs between

the student and the learning environment, whilst at the same time being mindful of

identifying any specific causal factors that may impact on the learning process

(Jones, 2007). Jones neatly explains that when an evolutionary process is at play

when students are given opportunities to make an intelligent choice, determining

which ‘profitable’ experiences should be retained and which ‘unprofitable’

experiences dispensed with (Jones 2007, p. 235).

Other literature speaks of risk and uncertainty in learning and to the significance of

freedom for students to make mistakes in a ‘controlled environment’, described as

a learning space conducive to structured yet relaxed interaction (McCabe &

O’Connor 2014, p. 353). Barnett claims (2008, cited in Blackie, Case & Jawitz 2010)

that uncertainty and risk are inevitable aspects of being a student and that these

elements need purposeful consideration by educators in their philosophy. Tangey

(2014) speaks of educators creating supportive student-considered learning

environments and having ‘a real commitment to find pathways for all students to

excel and to provide opportunities for students to overcome setbacks in a dignified

way’ (2014, p. 272).

The literature identifies a number of considerations for developing a student-

considered teaching philosophy and for some educators a pedagogical shift which

poses some rewards and challenges. (Attard et al. 2010; Elen, Clarebout, Leonard &

112

learning environment represents an opportunity to redress a student mind-set that

is sometimes considered ‘conditioned to success through mimicking and

regurgitating [but] … are they conditioned to think for themselves?’ (McCabe &

O’Connor 2014, p. 353). However, a lack of educator readiness, incongruence

between espoused theory and theory-in-use, an unclear educator philosophy and a

lack of confidence may be significant challenges in implementing a student-

considered approach to increase a student’s potential for graduate attribute

development (Kember 2009; McCabe & O’Connor 2014).

Clearly there are a number of imperatives that underpin developing an educator’s

philosophy. From the examination of the literature, a fifth postulate and the first

educator-based factor emerges which can be subject to empirical scrutiny to

confirm/disconfirm the importance of the educator’s philosophy as a justified factor

and component of graduate attribute development.

Postulate 5:

An educator’s philosophy that offers freedom for students to innovate, make mistakes and recover may support graduate attribute development.