A meta-Analysis of Teaching and Learning

2.2Privileging the autonomous

In spite of the fact that ‘social’ understandings of learning and teaching have been available to South African higher education for some years now, ‘autonomous’ understandings continue to be privileged (Boughey, 2008a). The earliest ‘social’ understandings related to teaching and learning emerged in the mid to late 1980s (Boughey, 2007). In 1988, for example, and in the context of the South African Academic Development movement, Mehl was arguing that:

The questions which are being addressed have changed from how the ‘underdeveloped’ are ‘developed’, to examining the basic underpinning of the institutions themselves. In the process it is becoming clearer that in relation to the realities of present-day South Africa it is not simply a case of students carrying various educational deficits onto the campus with them because of the socio-economic and political dispensation, but rather a case of the universities themselves, as represented by academic and administrative staff, being deficient, if the vision of a non-racial, democratic South Africa is to be realized (1988:17).

Arguably, however, Mehl’s critique of the social structure of the university was lost in the face of more pragmatic concerns which became more and more dominant as the change in political dispensation approached. By the early 1990s, for example, the argument was being advanced that previous initiatives couched under the banner of ‘Academic Support’ and intended to address the issue of ‘disadvantage’ or ‘underpreparedness’ by focusing on the student would not suffice in a new political dispensation where the ‘underprepared’ would soon constitute the majority of the student body (see, for example, Moulder, 1991). Concerns at a theoretical and structural level were therefore relocated in a concern for pragmatism. Although the result of critiques such as Mehl’s and arguments such as Moulder’s was a call for ‘transformation’ in the form of curriculum reform and the development of academic staff who would be able to meet the needs. of the student body in a so-called ‘infusion model’ (Walker & Badsha, 1993), what resulted, as perusal of any of the proceedings emanating from Academic Development conferences in the 1990s will show, were attempts at reform and development which were still rooted in what have been termed above ‘autonomous’ rather than ‘social’ models of learning and teaching.

An example may be useful to illustrate this point. One of the strongest traditions in the earliest South African Academic Support Programmes (ASPs) focused on the teaching of study ‘skills’ and ‘strategies’. Over time, a more theorised tradition emerged related to the identification of ‘deep’ and ‘surface’ conceptions of and approaches to learning (see, for example, Marton & Säljö (1976); Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Biggs, 1987). Deep conceptions of and approaches to learning are associated with attempts to understand, rather than merely remember, and with intrinsic motivation (Fourie, 2003) in that the student seeks to satisfy his/her own curiosity and learn for learning’s sake. ‘Surface’ conceptions and approaches, on the other hand, focus not on integrating new knowledge with existing conceptual frameworks but rather on remembering without necessarily understanding. Surface conceptions of learning are then understood to be extrinsically or instrumentally motivated and are often associated with a fear of failing (Fourie, ibid). Once these two approaches to learning had been identified, the strategies or behaviours associated with them could also be observed. Students adopting a surface approach to learning, for example, tended to simply try to remember words or formulae and then to apply these to problems in a mechanical fashion. A deep approach, on the other hand, would be more likely to result in behaviours intent on integrating new learning into a coherent whole with existing learning.

As Haggis (2003:91) points out, however, although ‘[k]ey researchers in [the] area attempt to make it clear that the ‘approaches to learning framework is ‘relational’ (Ramsden, 1987), and that it accommodates a multiplicity of elements that can only be understood within a context’ (my emphasis), in the literature on higher education elements of the framework have come to be named separately. As a result, ‘deep approaches to learning’ have become ‘deep learning’ and ‘deep and surface approaches have come to be seen as a form of predisposition or ‘learning style’. What began as a conceptual framework which was holistic, cognisant of context and essentially ‘social’ shifted over time to support an ‘autonomous’ conception of learning which located ‘deep learning’ within individuals.

‘Approaches to learning’ research has been, and continues to be, very influential in South Africa as well as elsewhere in the world. In the 1990s in South Africa, it informed numerous attempts to develop curricula which would provide space for students to experience ‘deep learning’ through the inclusion of, for example, small group methodology. In a similar vein, staff development initiatives focused on getting academics to use teaching techniques which would also foster the development of ‘deep learning’ in their students. What is significant, however, is that even though this work was directed at curricula and academic staff, its ultimate focus was still the student who was identified as not practising ‘deep learning’. Even more significant in the context of the argument being advanced in this section of this report, is the appropriation and relocation of the ‘approaches to learning’ work. As already indicated, the initial work on approaches to learning acknowledged the role of context in determining the approach to learning which would be privileged in that it would be perceived to lead to the production of valued knowledge. Over time, the acknowledgement of context was lost in the face of dominant understandings of learning as an ‘autonomous’ and decontextualised process.

2.3Sustaining the social

In spite of the dominance of autonomous models of learning (and, thus, of teaching), a minority of practitioners working in the field of Academic Development in South Africa have consistently drawn on ‘social’ understandings. The fact that a concern with ‘social’ understandings of teaching and learning has not been more widespread needs. to be contextualised within the instability of the field of Academic Development/Teaching and Learning itself.

In the early 1990s, the field of Academic Development/Teaching and Learning grew as a result of funding made available via the Independent Development Trust (IDT). The early 1990s were therefore characterised by high levels of activity in both teaching and learning related research and practice. The development of a more stringent macro economic framework in the mid 1990s in South Africa meant that funding for higher education fell in real terms. In the face of this fiscal discipline, one of the first areas to experience cuts in many institutions was Academic Development. This had detrimental effects for the capacity which had been developed in the field as posts were lost or frozen once soft funding provided by the IDT fell away. The collapse of the South African Association for Academic Development (SAAAD), a professional organisation which had contributed enormously to capacity building, in 1998 meant that the field of Academic Development/Teaching and Learning suffered a further blow.

Although, and as Boughey (2007) argues, attempts to deal with globalisation (evidenced in developments such as the establishment of the National Qualifications Framework and the introduction of Outcomes Based Education) and what Fataar (2003) terms the ‘incursion of market forces’ (evidenced in the need for institutions to become more efficient and goal directed) in the late 1990s, offered new opportunities for practitioners working in the field of Academic Development/Teaching and Learning, dominant discourses in the field shifted from a concern with equity to a concern with efficiency. In this kind of context, it is not surprising that the concern to develop and apply ‘social’ understandings of teaching and learning which characterised much work in the early 1990s tended to be marginalised. As the following sections will show, however, much of the work produced by experienced practitioners in the field continues to draw on ‘social’ understandings of teaching and learning and to develop understandings of the university as a ‘social space’¹.

Some of the major theoretical positions informing their work are now outlined.

2.3.1Gee’s Social Literacies

One of the most influential texts informing South African work located within a social understanding of teaching and learning has been James Paul Gee’s (1990, 2003) Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourse. Key to Gee’s work is his identification of the construct of ‘Discourse’² defined (2003:131) as

a socially accepted association among ways of using language, other symbolic expressions and ‘artefacts’, of thinking, feeling, believing, valuing, and acting that can be used to identify oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group or ‘social network’, or to signal (that one is playing) a socially meaningful ‘role’.

The ability to demonstrate membership of a Discourse (and, thus, to demonstrate mastery of the ways of using language, thinking, feeling, believing, valuing and acting which characterise it) is then defined as ‘literacy’. For Gee, then, the much-used term ‘academic literacy’ would refer to the ability to demonstrate membership of academic Discourses.

Key to Gee’s theoretical position is the identification of primary and secondary Discourses and literacies. According to Gee (1990, 2003) everyone is born into a Discourse and acquires a primary literacy ‘for free’. Membership of secondary Discourses and mastery of secondary literacies are then acquired (not taught) over time. The extent to which one can acquire membership of a secondary Discourse and mastery of a secondary literacy is then dependent on factors such as exposure to the target Discourse and on the ‘distance’ between the primary Discourse and the target Discourse.

The relevance of Gee’s theory to the South African context is not hard to see. Academic communities are characterised by specific ways of using language, thinking, valuing and believing (i.e. ‘Discourses’). These ways of thinking, valuing, believing and using language are related to what the community counts as knowledge and how that knowledge can be known. A ‘scientific’ Discourse, based on positivism, would thus be very different to Discourses located in the social sciences. Students whose primary Discourse shares some of the values, ways of thinking, ways of believing and ways of using language with academic Discourses are privileged in the sense that they already stand on the periphery of the secondary Discourse. Students whose primary Discourse exhibits very different ways of thinking, acting, believing and valuing are likely to find accessing and acquiring academic literacies much more difficult.

Gee’s work has been taken up by a number of experienced practitioners working in the area of academic literacy in South Africa including inter alia Boughey, 2000, 2005(a), 2008b; Foster & Leibowitz, 1998; Jacobs, 2005a, 2005b, 2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2008; Leibowitz, 2001, 2004, 2005; McKenna, 2004; Thomson, 2008). However, although the term ‘academic literacy’ has increasingly gained currency in Academic Development and other teaching and learning related communities, it is rarely used in a way which draws on the theoretical base described above. Most commonly, it is appropriated to describe skills-based approaches located in autonomous views of learning (Boughey, 2008a).

2.3.2Bourdieu’s work on ‘cultural capital’ and ‘field’

A second social theorist who has been influential in informing South African work on teaching and learning is Pierre Bourdieu. Key to his work (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1973; Bourdieu, 1986) is the construct of ‘cultural capital’ defined as the knowledge, practices and values which allows people to access and succeed in elevated social groups and institutions. Cultural capital is transmitted to children by parents. The application of Bourdieu’s work on cultural capital to a higher education system characterised by inequity is immediately apparent not least because it begins to allow us to understand differences in success and graduation rates between different population groups in South Africa (for details see Scott et al. (2007). Since race is conflated with social class in South Africa, the failure rates of black working class students can be contextualised in an understanding which involves social class and the transmission of privileged values, attitudes and knowledge from one generation to another.

More recently, Bourdieu’s work has been taken up (particularly by researchers working in the Centre for Higher Education Development at the University of Cape Town) in relation to the assessment of student learning. Shay (2005), for example, uses Bourdieu’s constructs of ‘field’ (1990, 1996) and ‘habitus’ (1998) to show how assessment in higher education is a socially situated interpretative act. The corollary of this observation is that valued performances are also socially situated and are necessarily open to those who have not gained access to the social contexts in which the performances are judged.

2.3.3Communities of Practice

Also significant in what have been termed ‘social’ understandings of teaching and learning is the construct of the ‘Community of Practice’ (CoP) derived from the work of Etienne Wenger (1998). According to Wenger, learning results from an individual’s participation in the practice of a social community. Related to this learning is the construction of the individual’s identity as a member of the community. The term ‘community of practice’ therefore describes a group of individuals engaged in communal, goal directed activity through which they continuously create both shared and individual identities.

Linked to the notion of a Community of Practice is the idea of ‘situated learning’, learning which is embedded in physical and social contexts and which results from practice in those contexts as a result of active participation with other members of a social community. Newcomers to a community of practice engage in legitimate peripheral participation involving a form of apprenticeship (Lave & Wenger, 1991) and which gives them access to this ‘situated learning.’

In South African higher education, the construct of the Community of Practice has important implications for the development of understandings of disciplinary communities and of the way (student) apprentices can access the learning which sustains those communities. It has also been used extensively to theorise and research curriculum issues at the new universities of technology (see, for example, Garraway, 2005; Winberg, 2006).

2.3.4Identity

Crucial to all the theoretical positions outlined above are issues of identity since all perceive membership of social groups (and the identity formations related to that membership) as crucial to success in learning. Gee’s work (1990, 2003), for example, sees literacy (or the ability to demonstrate membership of a Discourse) as related to the ability to play an appropriate ‘role’ according to context:

Imagine that I park my motorcycle, enter my neighbourhood ‘biker’ bar, and say to my leather-jacketed and tattooed drinking buddy, as I sit down: ‘May I have a match for my cigarette please?’. What I have said is perfectly grammatical English, but it is ‘wrong’ nonetheless (unless I have used a heavily ironic tone of voice). It is not just what you say, but how you say it. In this bar, I haven’t said it in the ‘right’ way. I should have said something like ‘Gotta match?’ or ‘Give me a light, would’ya?’

Now imagine that I say the ‘right’ thing (‘Gotta match?’ or ‘Give me a light, would’ya?’), but while saying it, I carefully wipe off the bar stool with a napkin to avoid getting my newly pressed designer jeans dirty. In this case, I’ve still got it wrong. In this bar, they just don’t do that sort of thing: I have said the right thing, but my ‘saying-doing’ combination is nonetheless wrong. It’s not just what you say or even just how you say it. It’s also what you are and do while you say it. It is not enough just to say the right ‘lines’, one needs. to get the whole ‘role’ right (like a role in a play or movie). In this bar, the biker bar, I need to play the role of a ‘tough’ guy, not a young urban professional (‘yuppie’) relaxing on the weekend. Other bars cater to different roles, and if I want to, I can go to many bars so long as I play many different roles (Gee, 1990:xv).

Wenger (1994: 2) supports Gee’s position when he notes that:

1. 
   institutional identities are not just functions, but they are the enactment of an understanding of institutional practices, and thus imply ways of being in and seeing the world.
   
2. 
   …they are not just labels or titles, but are constructed in the day-to-day practice of learning to live within an institution.
   

South African work on identity in higher education is a rich and growing field and has tended to include work on language (see, for example, Leibowitz et al. 2005a, Leibowitz, forthcoming) although work has also examined identity as a resource (Leibowitz et al. 2005b). More recent work explores the need to engage with diversity in changing contexts (see, for example, Rohleder et al., 2008, Leibowitz, et al., forthcoming).

Key to all the work on identity is the understanding, for some students, South African universities are alien social spaces and learning to ‘be’ in those spaces impacts on identity in negative ways and involves more than the acquisition of a set of neutral, a-social, a-cultural ‘skills’ (see, McKenna, 2004 in particular).

2.3.5Bernstein’s pedagogic device and horizontal and vertical discourses

More recently, the work of British Sociology Basil Bernstein has increasingly been drawn upon in order to understand curricular and other structures in South African higher education. In the context of the social theories of learning reviewed in this section, the explore the academy at a structural level is important given that students need to be able to access and negotiate structures which may be alien to them.

Key to Bernstein’s work is his identification of the ‘pedagogic device’ (see Maton & Muller, 2007) which provides an account of i) the way knowledge considered to be worthwhile in society is constructed and positioned ii) the way that knowledge is transformed into pedagogic discourse (a process termed ‘recontextualisation’) and iii) the translation of this pedagogic discourse into a set of standards. The result of the pedagogic device is conflict and struggle as different social groups attempt to control the way educational knowledge is constructed.

The last area addressed by Bernstein’s work concerns the structure of different fields of knowledge production. Two forms of knowledge structure are identified: a hierarchical knowledge structure which attempts to create general theories and propositions integrating knowledge at its lower levels (typically found in the natural sciences) and a horizontal knowledge structure defined as ‘a series of specialised languages with specialised modes of interrogation and criteria for the construction and circulation of texts’ (Bernstein, 1999:273).

In South Africa, Bernstein’s sociological accounts of knowledge and of pedagogy have led to work on curriculum as an area of contestation (see, for example, Vorster, forthcoming) and provide insights into why some social groups enjoy greater success in higher education than others.