Assessing learner‐centredness through course syllabi

One attempt to revitalise undergraduate education has been by shifting the dominant pedagogy to a learner‐centred focus and supporting an emphasis on the scholarship of teaching and learning. The discussion regarding efforts to refocus undergraduate education to be more intentional by moving towards a learner‐centred paradigm is encouraging, yet it is crucial to acknowledge that most of the effort and literature on the learner‐centred paradigm and the scholarship of teaching and learning have necessarily focused on strategies for the classroom. It is equally important for administrators to consider the impact of the paradigm shift on their roles. Assessment and evaluation are the very core of the learner‐centred paradigm. Assessment is both the single‐most important gage of learning that drives the educational process and the most effective means of implementing institutional change. In this article, the authors offer a means of assessing the degree of learner‐centredness in current teaching practices through a systematic review of course syllabi. Using a rubric developed for this purpose the authors have reviewed course syllabi in order to develop a benchmark for the degree of learner‐centredness present in current teaching practices and employed the results as a vehicle for planning professional development.

[1]  F. Vella,et al.  The power of mindful learning , 1997 .

[2]  E. Langer.  The power of mindful learning , 1997 .

[3]  Jorge J. Wellmann.  The National Survey of Student Engagement , 2010 .

[4]  John B. Biggs,et al.  Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does , 1999 .

[5]  N. Entwistle,et al.  Contrasting forms of understanding for degree examinations: the student experience and its implications , 1991 .

[6]  小宅 理沙.  資料 Changes of Memory , 2008 .

[7]  J M Gardiner,et al.  Changes in memory awareness during learning: the acquisition of knowledge by psychology undergraduates. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[8]  F. Marton,et al.  Learning and Awareness , 1997 .

[9]  P. Ramsden.  Learning to Teach in Higher Education , 1991 .

[10]  Raymond P. Perry,et al.  Effective teaching in higher education : research and practice , 1997 .

[11]  A. Chickering,et al.  Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education , 1987, CORE.

[12]  Paul Cobb,et al.  Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research , 1996 .

[13]  B. Posner,et al.  Leadership challenge. , 1996, Nursing times.

[14]  J. Bruner.  The Process of Education , 1960 .

[15]  Judith Grunert.  The Course Syllabus: A Learning-Centered Approach , 1997 .

[16]  P. Ramsden.  A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The Course Experience Questionnaire , 1991 .

[17]  Susan A. Ariew,et al.  National Survey of Student Engagement , 2003 .

[18]  Ann L. Brown.  The Advancement of Learning , 1994 .

[19]  Robert Sylwester.  A Celebration of Neurons: An Educator's Guide to the Human Brain , 1995 .

[20]  Ference Marton,et al.  The University of Learning , 1998 .

[21]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Constructivism: Implications for the Design and Delivery of Instruction , 1996 .

[22]  R. Prawat,et al.  Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of learning , 1994 .

[23]  H. Gardner,et al.  Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences , 1983 .

[24]  Robert N. Leamnson.  Thinking About Teaching and Learning: Developing Habits of Learning with First Year College and University Students , 1999 .

[25]  Maryellen Weimer,et al.  LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING , 2022, International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science.