Selected Research Papers in Social Change, Education, Labour Market, and Criminology Volume II

Critique and improvement suggestions: • “I wished the theoretical part of the seminar dealing with the formulation of the hypotheses would have been taught at the very beginning of the seminar, in order to facilitate the writing of the essays.”

• “In writing the first essay, I had no idea what was expected from me. I would have preferred more guidance beforehand”

• “Generally, I found the observation time on the drive-by locations too short” • “A disadvantage was that we were not informed beforehand which places we were going to visit, so we could not prepare in advance.” • “The discussion time after the observation sequences was too short” • “It is desirable that larger theoretical parts are integrated into the seminar and the discussions play a greater role”

8 Conclusions

In fact, the students criticized important aspects of the seminar design. But we have to say that most of these aspects were exactly planned this way with intent.

Drive-by sociology – an activating teaching-learning framework 63

The lessons about how to build hypotheses and other theoretical parts were deliberately not positioned in the first lesson, to raise awareness of the necessity of repeating theoretical aspects that the students should have already learned. If you start repeating content from former semesters, everybody will be bored, although nobody can exactly remember the subject matter. But if the students feel their knowledge gaps they obviously see the necessity of repeating.

Also the facts that the time for the observation was very short (just a few minutes) and that the students did not know the destination of our trips in advance were methods to force them to focus on the basics: Observe – reflect – draw conclusions. The shorter the observation time is, the less you can think about what you want to observe. You just note what you see at first sight. If you don't know at which place you will start your observation you also cannot preform some ideas which can influence your observation.

Another reason to design the seminar this way was to activate the students by forcing them to leave their university “comfort zone” (Brown, 2008; Panicucci, 2007; Bardwick, 1995) which they know from other seminars. So we tried to get a certain degree of activation just by breaking some unwritten rules they were used to. Like, for example, a seminar is getting information in small steps with sitting, listening, and writing as the main student activities. The criticized point that the discussions should have lasted longer was also one of our critiques. But discussion needs participation and we just ended our discussions when there were no more requests to speak. Perhaps we should have tried to motivate the students more to take part in the discussions.

Concerning these points mentioned above and the students' positive feedbacks about their learning effects at the beginning of Chapter 7, it can be said that our seminar tasks were nearly met. It is obvious that not every university seminar can be taught this way, but for some it is worth a try.

References

Bardwick, Judith (1995): Danger in the Comfort Zone, New York: Amacom. Boudon, Raymond (1987): The Individualistic Tradition in Sociology, in: Jeffrey C. Alexander et.al. (Eds.): The Micro-Macro Link, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 45-70.

Bradford, David (2005): Drive-By Shootings, Königswinter: Könemann/Tandem. Brown, Gordon I. (1971): Human Teaching for Human Learning, New York: Viking. Brown, Gordon I. (Ed.) (1975): The Live Classroom, New York: Penguin. Brown, Mike (2008): Comfort Zone – Model or Metaphor?, Australian Journal of Outdoor

Education 12, 3-12. Coleman, James S. (1987): Microfoundations and Macrosocial Behavior, in: Jeffrey C.

Alexander et.al. (Eds.): The Micro-Macro Link, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 153-173.

Coleman, James S. (1990): Foundations of Social Theory, Cambridge: Belknap. Dennison, George (1999): The Lives of Children – The Story of the First Street School,

Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook. Hassard, Jack (2005): The Art of Teaching Science, Oxford/New York: Oxford University

Press.

Drive-by sociology – an activating teaching-learning framework 64

Goodman, Paul (1964): Compulsory Mis-education and the Community of Scholars, New York: Vintage.

Goodman, Paul (1994): The Present Moment in Education, in: Taylor Stoehr (Ed.): Decentralizing Power – Paul Goodman’s Social Criticism, Montreal/New York/London: Black Rose, 45-57.

Grant, Carl A. (2009): Teach! Change! Empower! – Solutions for Closing the Achievement Gaps, London: Sage. Graziano, Antony M. & Michael L. Raulin (2009): Research Methods, Boston: Allyn/Bacon. Panicucci, Jane (2007): Cornerstones of adventure education, in: Dick Prouty, Jane

Panicucci & Rufus Collinson (Eds.): Adventure Education – Theory and applications, Champaign: Human Kinetics, 33-44.

Patterson, Cecil H. (1973): Humanistic Education, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Prosch, Bernhard & Sandra Alilovic (2009): From Passiveness to Personal Growth -

Implications of the Bologna Process on University Teaching, in: Johann Bacher, Jaroslaw Gorniak & Marian Niezgoda (Eds.): Selected Research Papers in Education, Labour Market and Criminology, Linz: Trauner, 47-56.

Simpson, Elisabeth L. (1976): Humanistic Education, Cambridge: Ballinger. Steinmetz, George (2006): Drive-by Shooting – Making a Documentary about Detroit, Michigan Quarterly Review 43, 491-513. Weber, Max (1958): Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, New York: Scribner. Wippler, Reinhard & Siegwart Lindenberg (1987): Collective Phenomena and Rational

Choice, in: Jeffrey C. Alexander et.al. (Eds.): The Micro-Macro Link, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 135-152. Yablonsky, Lewis (1997): Gangsters – Fifty Years of Madness, Drugs, and Death in the Streets of America, New York/London: New York University Press.

Drive-by sociology – an activating teaching-learning framework 65

Laura Henke
The Development of Key Competencies in Higher Education

Theoretical and Didactic Foundations of a New Way of Teaching in Higher Education
1 Introduction

What are institutions of higher education supposed to be able to do? This question has been repeatedly discussed, especially after the massive protests by students in autumn 2009 (Henke et al., 2010: 48). More and more, the discourse is not only about general structural changes in the university system but about focusing on the core problem. It is about where students and professors meet “vis á vis”, where no “programme for the 21st century” – no matter how well-intended – reaches those involved. Slowly but surely it is being realised that the actions going on behind closed doors of seminar rooms and lecture halls deserve more attention, because after all it is the professor, his teaching style and commitment that have the biggest impact on students’ educational outcome (Wehr/Ertel, 2008: 15). Furthermore, the experiences made in lessons and lectures are decisive for the personal development of the students (Cabrera et al., 2001: 330).

So what has to be considered, if one wants to work out a meaningful and sustainable teaching technique for higher education institutions? Findings from recent learning psychology lead to conclusions which reform-oriented education has been calling for since the beginning of the last century: piling knowledge on students by the shovel-load does not result in higher abilities with the learner (Freund, 2010). The way how knowledge is being generated within the learning person is decisive for the success of any attempt of “intentional socialization” (Reichenbach, 2006: 44).

A promising way of providing students with a growth in competencies is a teaching style that activates them mentally – and maybe even physically. Literature provides repeated evidence (Thömen-Suhr/Marks, 2010; Micari et al., 2006; Cabrera et al., 2001; Rätz-Heinisch, 2009; Vaatstra/de Vries, 2007). Empowering the students with confidence is the aim of all good teachers. A serious application of this claim, however, does not stop at the level of subject skills but takes key competencies into account. These allow for a self-confident handling of one’s objective and social environment. It is the combination of subject-based skills and key competencies that lead to successful learning results and consequently to a higher degree of perceived abilities to act (Vaatstra/de Vries, 2007: 339).

The Development of Key Competencies in Higher Education 66

2 The concept of “key competencies”

2.1 Definition according to the OECD/DeSeCo

Now what does the term “key competencies” actually mean? The question about a 1definition – which has so far not been answered – is as old as the term itself and the discourse that came along with it (Bloch, 2009: 67 ff.). That is why a clear definition cannot be given here. Taking the pedagogical and didactic focus of this work into account, the concept of OECD’s Definition and Selection of Competencies (DeSeCo) project will be introduced here, since it turned out to be the most useful concept for educational practice2. It consists of three separate parts which together constitute the field of key competencies: “act autonomously”, “interact in heterogeneous groups” and “use tools interactively” (OECD, 2005: 5ff). The logic behind this segmentation refers to the object of someone’s action: the acting person himself (acting autonomously), his social environment (interacting in heterogeneous groups) and the object-based environment (using tools interactively). This approach accounts for the advances of the DeSeCo definition compared to other attempts: it derives its relatively clear borders from its focus on a person’s action aims and thus sets a normative frame which allows for formulating, for example, students’ learning aims during the preparation of a seminar design.

According to Otto and Schrödter (2010: 168), another big advantage of the DeSeCo concept is that it includes “emotional and volitive” dispositions of acting. The competency concept thus consists not only of ability, but also of a willingness to act. This is decisive for the discussion of key competencies in a pedagogical context: the willingness to act and to learn (due to intrinsic motivation) has been found to be an essential prerequisite for successful learning processes (ThömenSuhr/Marks, 2010: 229). Hence key competencies can be seen as relevant for an effective teaching style, designed in accordance with findings from learning psychology. They are “dispositions of ‘knowing how to’ and ‘being willing to’, that are characterised by their context independency” (Otto/Schrödter, 2010). It is important to note that the partition into the three subgroups does not represent a ranking. In fact, all three fields have to be seen as complementing each other equally. They are enclosed by a fourth element: reflection. This allots a key function to this meta-competency within the discourse. OECD (2005: 10) called reflexivity the “core of key competencies”. The role of reflection in the process of

1 Another widely recognised concept is that by Klafki, according to whom the aim of education is "opening up the world" as well as "creating openness in the individual" (Klafki 1963, see Szybek and Johansson 2003). The individual thus experiences a growth in certain abilities, which “provides access to domains to which we can respond” (Szybek and Johannson 2003). For an introduction to Klafki’s work see also Jank and Meyer (2005: 216 et seqq.).

2 Earlier attempts to define key competencies were for example to make up lists of terms which were, from the respective author’s point of view an indispensable element. Typical ingredients are buzzwords such as flexibility, empathy, communication skills or social competencies. The problem lies at hand, though: the list becomes endless quite soon. For a more detailed discussion see Bloch (2009: 70) or Reichenbach (2008).

The Development of Key Competencies in Higher Education 67

developing competencies will be discussed later. Figure 1 gives an overview of an integrated model of competency. The three fields of key competencies, subject skills and reflection constitute a “pedagogical whole”. Figure 1: The development of competencies and the relevance of reflection (according to Brinker and Willems 2005)

Subject skills


Self-competency Reflection Social competency

Tool (or method) competency

2.2 Theoretical localisation of the key competency concept

In a sociological discussion the theoretical localisation of the concept is as important as its definition. It helps in understanding the global view behind the concept. This is why some importance should be given in identifying possible connections to the sociological theory.

Literature gives several hints on parallels of the competency concept to constructivism. In constructivist pedagogy learning is seen as a process of individual knowledge construction: perceived impressions (information) are being structured autonomously, that is, they are equipped with a meaning. Extended to social constructivism, the construction of knowledge takes place within social interaction. This point of view is also taken by interactionist theories. Morrone and Tarr (2005) depict the behaviourist and the information processing approaches (knowledge is prestructured and can be externalised) as opposed to the constructivist and social constructivist approach (knowledge is being constructed individually). With its constructivist creed the concept of key competencies is also close to interpretative and interactionist paradigms. Parallels can be found for example to symbolic interactionism (Rätz-Heinisch, 2009: 48), since its understanding of ascribing meanings to perceived information (individually and through interaction) has a strong social constructivist character.

Concerning the character of knowledge, this world view includes an epistemological relativism that is opposed to the traditional academic concept of knowledge as externalisable and independent from any individuals. It rather accepts the fact that learning processes take place in the historical context of individual biographies. This corresponds to the epistemological creed of critical theory, which, with its ambition of emancipation and education for the sake of

The Development of Key Competencies in Higher Education 68

empowerment, pursued similar pedagogical goals as modern authors proposing a competency-oriented, activating education (Bründler et al., 2004 and RätzHeinisch, 2009: 48).

2.3 The problem of justification

Why key competencies should be brought forward in schools and universities has to be justified by their proponents. After all, reforming lessons does gnaw at least a bit at the budget (which is always tight) and it demands personal involvement, which can be an emotional and mental challenge for the professor (or teacher or lecturer). Nevertheless, reasons for a stronger emphasis on key competencies in lessons can be derived from several sources. Empirical proof, for example, comes from studies about academic performance or labour market success: it has been found that a key-competency-oriented teaching style enhances gains in subject skills, since students report a more profound mastery of the lessons’ contents and that they find it easier getting an overview of the subject field as well as drawing conclusions on the detail level (Micari et al., 2006; Tigelaar et al., 2004). Proponents of an employability-oriented education sometimes even claim the same as those interested in more emancipation: application-orientation, sustainability and the “training of interdisciplinary (key-) competencies” (ThömenSuhr/Marks, 2010: 227). In theory, the application and facilitation of key competencies in higher education can furthermore be justified by the concept of modernity and its demands. From a normative point of view, requirements are thus imposed on students and teachers, who can shape future societal development through their actions.

3 Activating teaching methods

As explained above, key competencies are increasingly seen as a prerequisite for autonomous action in complex situations and thus are, along with a profound training of subject skills, a decisive quality criterion for good education. In pedagogical discourse they form a desideratum of different actors in educational policy (Prosch/Regner, 2010: 16 f.), having supporters in the whole political spectrum, from economic-liberal to emancipatory- reform-oriented.

But how can such a way of teaching look like now? This question will be discussed in the following section, which will also be about activating teaching methods: it will become evident that these particular methods support the development of key competencies and lead to a better learning outcome, which encourages students to carry out their own actions. But this also imposes certain demands on the teacher, the students and their common learning-teaching setting.
The Development of Key Competencies in Higher Education 69

3.1 A constructivist understanding of learning and teaching – foundation of an activating way of teaching
Learning does not mean swallowing loads of knowledge (Wehr/Ertel, 2008: 19). Contemporary research on learning is oriented towards a constructivist concept of learning which can be formulated this way:
situated or problem-oriented learning. Lipowsky (2009: 78)From a constructivist point of view, learning is seen as a process of knowledge-building that is constructive, cumulative, self-directed, situated, individually differing and at the same time depending on the interaction with others. (De Corte, 2000). Learning environments based on constructivist assumptions are often summed up under the term 3

If this is what learning is like, certain conditions arise that have a significant impact on the outcome. Taking these conditions into account, while working out a classroom concept, is an attribute of a learner-oriented teaching style. As literature shows, the most important conditions of this kind are:

• Cognitive variation, such as manifold possibilities to build connections to existing knowledge and to conduct applications on other contexts (ThömenSuhr/Marks, 2010: 228 f.). Knowledge gained in this way can be tied to different spheres of memory (Wehr/Ertel, 2008: 18 ff.).

• Social interaction, since “learning success is a coupled product: it is generated by interaction between learning and teaching person” (Wehr/Ertel, 2008: 14). Morrone and Tarr (2005: 9) name the social constructivist understanding of learning in this context, which goes one step further and sees interaction as a constitutive characteristic of learning.

• Positive affirmation or reinforcement (Thömen-Suhr/Marks, 2010: 230). A learner, or student, who experiences himself as competent and successful has a higher motivation than someone who does not get any, or any positive, feedback despite intensive learning activities. A positive climate in the classroom for example is a good contribution to a positively reinforcing learning environment (Lipowsky, 2009: 94 f.).

• Including all levels of learning goals. Besides the cognitive level, which is in the centre of traditional learning settings, these are the affective (referring to values and attitudes) and the psychomotoric (referring to skills and knowhow) level (Brinker/Willems, 2005: 47).

• The cognitive and emotional activation of the learner (see Wehr/Ertel, 2008: 15; Thömen-Suhr/Marks, 2010: 225; Kane et al., 2004: 285).

• The integration of formal and informal learning occasions (Bollweg, 2008: 48 ff.).

3 Highlights in the original version have been erased by the author in the work on hand.

The Development of Key Competencies in Higher Education 70

3.1.1 The integration of formal and informal learning occasions

Learning does not only take place in an institutional frame, or formally, that is. A 4great deal of individual learning processes rather occurs outside closed learning settings, in informal contexts (Imhof, 2010: 49 ff.). This is not surprising: in traditional learning settings based on passive reception, the brain does not receive the stimuli it needs to perform appropriate learning activities. However, it gets them in many extra-curricular contexts (Cabrera et al., 2001: 330), where learning is situated and assessment-free, activates several senses and cognitive layers of learning and where it is guided by a personal meaning for the student. According to Rogers (see Widulle, 2009: 63), personal meaning is especially decisive for successful learning. In short: informal learning procedures meet many requirements which facilitate learning success. In the context of activating learning settings, lecturers can make use of this by including aspects of informal learning into their teaching. This means building in phases of self-controlled learning into the long-term process, but also choosing contents with regard to their connection to everyday life because this is where students “acquire new knowledge voluntarily, highly motivated and with interest through self-organised and active doing” (Rätz-Heinisch, 2009: 49)5. Applying informal learning means furthermore accepting differences in learning outcomes within a group and taking this into account during the assessment6. It means also allowing phases in the learning process which are outside the control of the lecturer. This can be, for example, letting students decide themselves in which way they want to become involved in the subject or which aspect they want to study in more detail. Since a fully free choice of topics is not always possible (and sensible) in a study programme, it is the professor’s or lecturer’s task to make sure that relevant contents are distributed to everyone in the group. In the discussion on the teacher’s role in such a context, he is often called “facilitator” or “learning coach”, who does not disseminate knowledge, but rather organises a learning process (Rätz-Heinisch, 2009: 49), which is otherwise in the students’ hands and combines formal and informal learning. Becoming aware of informally learned content can also be understood as an aspect of “reflective practice” (Kane et al., 2004).

In a nutshell, a learner-oriented, activating teaching style can be characterised by the following attributes:

4 Especially professors and lecturers from technology and natural sciences argue that their field is less convenient for this, compared for example to the humanities or social sciences. Several examples mainly from the US- American literature on higher education didactics prove this opinion wrong (see e.g. Bean 1996).

5 On possibilities for learner-oriented assessment in activating learning-teaching settings see for example Wehr/ Ertel (2008) and Slujismans (1999).

6 For example by attaching an interactive part to a previous phase of individual work. During the exchange of information and opinions, reception of the new content does not have to be passive either. Activation can take place even then, for example by making the students appear as peer coaches for “their” field of interest. In this role, they work out learning settings about their topic for their fellow students.

The Development of Key Competencies in Higher Education 71

• It is based on a constructivist understanding of learning and knowledge, which means it is oriented towards the student and his actions, not the teacher.

• It offers possibilities for interaction, since knowledge is constructed socially to a good extent.

• Its goal is not only the dissemination of subject knowledge, but also the training of subject-based and interdisciplinary skills to ensure that the students are able to apply the knowledge later on.

• It helps the learner develop a personal meaning of the subject content and integrates emotion and affect.

Furthermore, it offers manifold and complex learning settings to ensure a multidimensional connection to previously existing knowledge – foundation of sustainable learning outcomes.