Continued from Page 2.....

The fact that universities continue to exist in itself is an anomaly. They can't really be classified as teaching institutions, because in general, with the exception of the education faculties, the lecturers and professors don't need to be qualified teachers. Current teaching methodology doesn't appear to be a priority either. While I have read several brilliant articles written about methodology and assessment in higher education, the methodology that you can generally witness in the classrooms suggests that methodology is mainly an issue for academic discussion, not necessarily a model for practice in higher education. I believe these bold (wild) generalizations can also be extended to assessment practices.

However universities can be classified as institutions of learning, because it is clearly evidenced that learning certainly does take place. Albeit I have often heard it said by students that they 'learned in spite of their lecturers'.

So what is this Magic Process Of Learning that takes place in universities?

Re: "The fact that universities continue to exist in itself is an anomaly." There is really no anomaly. For so many people university is a "rite of passage" to a world of career and other opportunities that generates extremely high levels of motivation. Motivation being a (if not the) key learning factor is sufficient to facilitate learning in itself, given the right environment. Try stopping somebody who wants to learn. It is much more difficult than teaching somebody who doesn't want to learn. I am sure that somebody must have written something like this somewhere, but I don't recall reading it. Anyway, this is based on my experience while trying to manage some of my students' enthusiasm to learn!

The Process (in general):
It appears that students are given; an outline of their course and its objectives, some introductory information relating to their tasks and assessment, clarification of the lecturer's expectations relating to their products, assignments or learning to undertake, which is then often followed up with a series of lectures that.. do what exactly? Teach? Or are they really just an attempt to reflect expectations of education process? If universities were serious about teaching then surely teaching qualifications and teaching / learning methodology studies would be mandatory for all lecturers.

Isn't most of the learning actually achieved by reading, questioning, doing, and writing? To what degree does listening, especially in large passive groups play in the learning process? While I agree that for the purpose of achieving particular objectives and by the use of effective strategies it can play a significant role, based upon my observations of the general performance of lecturers I don't believe that this is the case. I believe that Reading and questioning / self-questioning are the foundations of the student learning process, however the process of writing is probably the dominant doing experience for most students, and probably where they actually learn most.

• Motivation
• Clear Learning Objectives
• Conducive Environment
• Facilities and Resources
• Support and Guidance (formative)
• Effective Assessment and Feedback

Given high motivation and the above basic resources, can learning take place at the higher education level without Teaching? Does it already?

Can students utilize their time more effectively to achieve the basic objectives of education? What are the basic objectives?

"Debate continues about the range of academic, social, and other types of knowledge and skills that young people will need to succeed as workers, citizens, and family and community members in a global world." Harvard: Learning and Development

While the statement above relates to learning at the kindergarten to year 12 (k-12) levels, are the types of knowledge and skills required significantly different for undergraduate and post-graduate learners? Isn't one of the main roles of higher education to be a platform for extending, relating and transferring these learned basic skills and knowledge from the blackboard to useful applications in society in this "global world"?

Currently some work is being done in universities to achieve these aims, however, I believe that there is enormous untapped potential within our students to contribute to and participate in developing society and industry at all levels of learning. I believe that Community participation and experience in industry can play a greater role in learning programs which can have benefits for society, as well as the students and their future roles in society.

1. Are the benefits of Contextual Learning only relevant in K-12 education?

2. How effective are lectures as a method of learning?

3. To what degree are our lecturers experienced and have proven success in the workings of the 'real world'?

4. Can our university students learn more effectively in Context rater than in Classrooms?

5. Can our students be more effectively learning skills that will assist with their assimilation, effectiveness, and ability to participate and contribute in the real world?

6. Can we further simplify, while enhancing, the Transition from University to Employment?

How Relevant Are Universities for meeting Student and Societal Needs?

Continued........

Phillip Rekdale
Education Consultant
Jakarta, Indonesia

We highly value your comments and links relating to innovative tertiary education developments globally.