- \n \t
- information transmission,<\/li>\n \t
- tests that rely mainly on memory,<\/li>\n \t
- a lack of interaction and discussion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nOn the other hand, deeper <\/em>approaches to learning\u00a0are found when there is a focus on:\n
- \n \t
- analytical or critical thinking\u00a0or\u00a0problem-solving,<\/li>\n \t
- in-class\u00a0discussion,<\/li>\n \t
- assessment based on\u00a0analysis, synthesis, comparison and evaluation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nConstructivists<\/em> believe that\u00a0knowledge is mainly acquired through social processes which are necessary to move students beyond surface learning to deeper levels of understanding.\u00a0C<\/em>onnectivist<\/em> approaches to learning also place heavy emphasis on networking learners, with all participants\u00a0learning through interaction and discussion between each other, driven both by their individual interests and the extent to which these interests connect to the interests of other participants. The very large numbers participating in connectivist MOOCs (see Chapter 5<\/a>) means that there is a high probability of converging interests for all participants, although those interests may vary considerably over the whole group.\n\nLaurillard (2001<\/a>), and Harasim (2017<\/a>), have emphasised that academic knowledge\u00a0requires students to\u00a0move constantly from the concrete to the abstract and back again, and to build or construct knowledge based on academic criteria such as logic, evidence and argument.\u00a0This in turn requires a strong teacher presence within a dialectical environment, in which argument and discussion within the rules and criteria of the subject discipline are encouraged and developed by the instructor or teacher. Laurillard calls this a rhetorical exercise, an attempt to get learners to think about the world differently. Conversation and discussion are critical if this is to be achieved.\n\nThe combination of theory and research here suggests the need for frequent interaction\u00a0between students, and between teacher and students, for the kinds of learning needed in a digital age. This interaction usually takes the form of semi-structured discussion. I will now examine how\u00a0this kind of learning has traditionally been\u00a0facilitated by educators.\n
3.4.2\u00a0Seminars and tutorials<\/h2>\n
3.4.2.1 Definitions<\/h3>\n
A\u00a0seminar<\/strong>\u00a0is a group meeting (either face-to-face or online) where a number of students participate at least as actively as the teacher, although the teacher may be responsible for the design of the group experience, such as choosing topics and assigning tasks to individual students.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n
A\u00a0tutorial<\/strong>\u00a0is either a one-on-one session between a teacher and a student, or a very small group (three or four) of students and an instructor, where the learners\u00a0are at least as active in discussion and presentation of ideas as the teacher.<\/em><\/p>\n\n
3.4.2.2 Seminars<\/h3>\nSeminars can range from six\u00a0or more students,\u00a0up to 30 students in the same group. Because the general perception is that seminars work best when numbers are relatively small, they tend to be found more at graduate level or the last year of undergraduate programs.\n\n \n\n[caption id=\"attachment_106\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"744\"]
![\"Socrates](\"https:\/\/openstudio.pub\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/22\/2025\/05\/Socrates-and-students-2.jpg\")
Figure 3.4.2 Socrates and his students: Painter: Johann Friedrich Greuter, 1590: (San Francisco, Achenbach Foundation for Graphic Arts)[\/caption]\n\nSeminars and tutorials again have a very long history, going back at least to the time of Socrates and Aristotle. Both were tutors to the aristocracy of ancient Athens.\u00a0Aristotle was the private tutor to Alexander the Great when Alexander was young.\u00a0\u00a0Socrates was the tutor of Plato, the philosopher, although Socrates denied he was a teacher, rebelling against the idea common at that time in ancient Greece that 'a teacher was a vessel that poured its contents into the cup of the student'. Instead, according to Plato, Socrates used dialogue and questioning 'to\u00a0help others recognize on their own what is real, true, and good.'\u00a0(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy<\/a>.) Thus it can be seen that seminars and tutorials reflect a strongly constructivist approach to learning and teaching.\n\nThe format can vary a great deal. One common format, especially at graduate level, although similar practices can be found at the school\/k-12 level, is for the teacher to set advance work for a selected number of students, and then have the selected students present their work to the whole group, for discussion, criticism and suggestions for improvement. Although there may be time for only two or three student presentations in each seminar, over a whole semester every student gets their turn. Another format is to ask all the students in a group to do some specified advanced reading or study, then for the teacher to introduce questions for general discussion within the seminar that requires students to draw on their earlier work.\n3.4.2.3 Tutorials<\/h3>\nTutorials are a particular kind of seminar that are\u00a0identified with Ivy League universities, and in particular Oxford or Cambridge. There may be as few as two students and a professor in a tutorial and the meeting often follows closely the Socratic method of the student presenting his or her findings and the professor rigorously questioning every assumption made by the student - and also drawing in the other student to the discussion.\n\nBoth these forms of dialogical learning can be found not only in classroom contexts, but also online. Online discussion will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 4, Section 4<\/a>. However, in general, the pedagogical similarities between online and face-to-face discussions are much greater than the differences.\n
3.4.3 Are seminars a practical method in a massive education system?<\/h2>\nFor many faculty, the ideal teaching environment is Socrates sitting under the linden tree, with three or four\u00a0dedicated and interested students. Unfortunately, the reality of mass higher education makes this impossible for all but the most elite and expensive institutions.\n\nHowever, seminars for 25-30 students are\u00a0not unrealistic, even in public undergraduate education. More importantly, they enable the kind of teaching and learning that are most likely to facilitate the types of skills needed from our students in a digital age. Seminars are flexible enough to be offered in class or online, depending on the needs of the students. They are probably best used when students have done individual work before the seminar.\u00a0Of upmost importance, though, is\u00a0the ability of teachers to teach successfully in this manner, which requires different skills from transmissive lecturing.\n\nAlthough expansion of student numbers in higher education is part of the problem, it's not the whole problem. Other factors, such as senior professors teaching less, and focusing mainly on graduate students, lead to\u00a0larger classes at undergraduate level\u00a0that use\u00a0transmissive lecturing. And if more senior or experienced instructors switched from transmissive lectures, and instead required students to find and analyse content for themselves, this would free up more time for them to spend on seminar-type teaching.\n\nSo it as much an organizational issue, a matter of choice and priorities, as an economic issue. The more we can move towards a seminar approach to teaching and learning and away from large, transmissive lectures, the better, if we are to develop students with the skills needed in a digital age.\n
References<\/h2>\nAusubel, D., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View<\/em> (2nd Ed.<\/a>). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.\n\nEntwistle, N. and Peterson, E. (2004)\u00a0Conceptions of Learning and Knowledge in Higher Education: Relationships with Study Behaviour and Influences of Learning Environments<\/a>\u00a0International Journal of Educational Research, <\/em>Vol. 41, No. 6, pp. 407-428\n\nHarasim, L. (2017) Learning Theory and Online Technologies<\/em><\/a> New York\/London: Taylor and Francis\n\nLaurillard, D. (2001) Rethinking University Teaching:\u00a0<\/em><\/a>A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technologies<\/em><\/a>\u00a0New York\/London: Taylor and Francis\n\nMarton, F. & Salj\u00f6, R. (1997). 'Approaches to learning', in F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.),\u00a0The experience of learning<\/em>. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press (out of print)\n
\n Activity 3.4 Developing conceptual learning<\/h3>\n<\/header>\n
\n1. What kind of teacher\u00a0interventions in group discussions\u00a0can you suggest\u00a0that could help learners develop deep, conceptual learning?<\/p>\n
2. How could you reorganise a lecture class of 200 or more students to develop group work and the development of conceptual learning?<\/p>\n
Click on the podcast below for my suggestions:<\/p>\n[audio mp3=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/teachinginadigitalagev2\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/677\/2014\/09\/Seminar-2019-10-05-3.05-PM.mp3\"][\/audio]\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>","rendered":"
<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/openstudio.pub\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/22\/2014\/09\/Screen-Shot-2019-05-20-at-2.51.33-PM.png\")
Figure 3.4.1 A tutorial at Oriel College, Oxford University: Image: University of Oxford<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n 3.4.1 The theoretical and research basis for\u00a0dialogue and discussion<\/h2>\n
Researchers have identified a\u00a0distinction, often intuitively recognised by instructors, between meaningful and rote learning (Asubel et al., 1978<\/a>). Meaningful learning\u00a0involves the learner\u00a0going beyond memorization and\u00a0surface comprehension of facts, ideas or principles, to a deeper understanding of what those facts, ideas or principles mean to them. Marton and\u00a0Salj\u00f6, who have\u00a0conducted\u00a0a number of\u00a0studies that examined how university students actually go\u00a0about their learning, make the distinction between deep and surface approaches to learning (see, for instance, Marton and\u00a0Salj\u00f6, 1997).\u00a0Students who adopt a deep approach to learning tend to have a prior intrinsic\u00a0interest in the subject. Their motivation is to learn because they want to know more about a topic. Students with a surface approach to learning are more instrumental. Their interest is primarily driven by the need to get a pass grade or qualification.<\/p>\n
Subsequent research (e.g. Entwistle and Peterson, 2004<\/a>) showed that as well as students’ initial motivation for study, a variety of other factors\u00a0also\u00a0influence students’\u00a0approaches to learning.\u00a0In particular, surface<\/em> approaches to learning are more commonly found when\u00a0there is a focus on:<\/p>\n
- \n
- information transmission,<\/li>\n
- tests that rely mainly on memory,<\/li>\n
- a lack of interaction and discussion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
On the other hand, deeper <\/em>approaches to learning\u00a0are found when there is a focus on:<\/p>\n
- \n
- analytical or critical thinking\u00a0or\u00a0problem-solving,<\/li>\n
- in-class\u00a0discussion,<\/li>\n
- assessment based on\u00a0analysis, synthesis, comparison and evaluation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Constructivists<\/em> believe that\u00a0knowledge is mainly acquired through social processes which are necessary to move students beyond surface learning to deeper levels of understanding.\u00a0C<\/em>onnectivist<\/em> approaches to learning also place heavy emphasis on networking learners, with all participants\u00a0learning through interaction and discussion between each other, driven both by their individual interests and the extent to which these interests connect to the interests of other participants. The very large numbers participating in connectivist MOOCs (see Chapter 5<\/a>) means that there is a high probability of converging interests for all participants, although those interests may vary considerably over the whole group.<\/p>\n
Laurillard (2001<\/a>), and Harasim (2017<\/a>), have emphasised that academic knowledge\u00a0requires students to\u00a0move constantly from the concrete to the abstract and back again, and to build or construct knowledge based on academic criteria such as logic, evidence and argument.\u00a0This in turn requires a strong teacher presence within a dialectical environment, in which argument and discussion within the rules and criteria of the subject discipline are encouraged and developed by the instructor or teacher. Laurillard calls this a rhetorical exercise, an attempt to get learners to think about the world differently. Conversation and discussion are critical if this is to be achieved.<\/p>\n
The combination of theory and research here suggests the need for frequent interaction\u00a0between students, and between teacher and students, for the kinds of learning needed in a digital age. This interaction usually takes the form of semi-structured discussion. I will now examine how\u00a0this kind of learning has traditionally been\u00a0facilitated by educators.<\/p>\n
3.4.2\u00a0Seminars and tutorials<\/h2>\n
3.4.2.1 Definitions<\/h3>\n
A\u00a0seminar<\/strong>\u00a0is a group meeting (either face-to-face or online) where a number of students participate at least as actively as the teacher, although the teacher may be responsible for the design of the group experience, such as choosing topics and assigning tasks to individual students.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n
A\u00a0tutorial<\/strong>\u00a0is either a one-on-one session between a teacher and a student, or a very small group (three or four) of students and an instructor, where the learners\u00a0are at least as active in discussion and presentation of ideas as the teacher.<\/em><\/p>\n
3.4.2.2 Seminars<\/h3>\n
Seminars can range from six\u00a0or more students,\u00a0up to 30 students in the same group. Because the general perception is that seminars work best when numbers are relatively small, they tend to be found more at graduate level or the last year of undergraduate programs.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Figure 3.4.2 Socrates and his students: Painter: Johann Friedrich Greuter, 1590: (San Francisco, Achenbach Foundation for Graphic Arts)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n Seminars and tutorials again have a very long history, going back at least to the time of Socrates and Aristotle. Both were tutors to the aristocracy of ancient Athens.\u00a0Aristotle was the private tutor to Alexander the Great when Alexander was young.\u00a0\u00a0Socrates was the tutor of Plato, the philosopher, although Socrates denied he was a teacher, rebelling against the idea common at that time in ancient Greece that ‘a teacher was a vessel that poured its contents into the cup of the student’. Instead, according to Plato, Socrates used dialogue and questioning ‘to\u00a0help others recognize on their own what is real, true, and good.’\u00a0(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy<\/a>.) Thus it can be seen that seminars and tutorials reflect a strongly constructivist approach to learning and teaching.<\/p>\n
The format can vary a great deal. One common format, especially at graduate level, although similar practices can be found at the school\/k-12 level, is for the teacher to set advance work for a selected number of students, and then have the selected students present their work to the whole group, for discussion, criticism and suggestions for improvement. Although there may be time for only two or three student presentations in each seminar, over a whole semester every student gets their turn. Another format is to ask all the students in a group to do some specified advanced reading or study, then for the teacher to introduce questions for general discussion within the seminar that requires students to draw on their earlier work.<\/p>\n
3.4.2.3 Tutorials<\/h3>\n
Tutorials are a particular kind of seminar that are\u00a0identified with Ivy League universities, and in particular Oxford or Cambridge. There may be as few as two students and a professor in a tutorial and the meeting often follows closely the Socratic method of the student presenting his or her findings and the professor rigorously questioning every assumption made by the student – and also drawing in the other student to the discussion.<\/p>\n
Both these forms of dialogical learning can be found not only in classroom contexts, but also online. Online discussion will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 4, Section 4<\/a>. However, in general, the pedagogical similarities between online and face-to-face discussions are much greater than the differences.<\/p>\n
3.4.3 Are seminars a practical method in a massive education system?<\/h2>\n
For many faculty, the ideal teaching environment is Socrates sitting under the linden tree, with three or four\u00a0dedicated and interested students. Unfortunately, the reality of mass higher education makes this impossible for all but the most elite and expensive institutions.<\/p>\n
However, seminars for 25-30 students are\u00a0not unrealistic, even in public undergraduate education. More importantly, they enable the kind of teaching and learning that are most likely to facilitate the types of skills needed from our students in a digital age. Seminars are flexible enough to be offered in class or online, depending on the needs of the students. They are probably best used when students have done individual work before the seminar.\u00a0Of upmost importance, though, is\u00a0the ability of teachers to teach successfully in this manner, which requires different skills from transmissive lecturing.<\/p>\n
Although expansion of student numbers in higher education is part of the problem, it’s not the whole problem. Other factors, such as senior professors teaching less, and focusing mainly on graduate students, lead to\u00a0larger classes at undergraduate level\u00a0that use\u00a0transmissive lecturing. And if more senior or experienced instructors switched from transmissive lectures, and instead required students to find and analyse content for themselves, this would free up more time for them to spend on seminar-type teaching.<\/p>\n
So it as much an organizational issue, a matter of choice and priorities, as an economic issue. The more we can move towards a seminar approach to teaching and learning and away from large, transmissive lectures, the better, if we are to develop students with the skills needed in a digital age.<\/p>\n
References<\/h2>\n
Ausubel, D., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View<\/em> (2nd Ed.<\/a>). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.<\/p>\n
Entwistle, N. and Peterson, E. (2004)\u00a0Conceptions of Learning and Knowledge in Higher Education: Relationships with Study Behaviour and Influences of Learning Environments<\/a>\u00a0International Journal of Educational Research, <\/em>Vol. 41, No. 6, pp. 407-428<\/p>\n
Harasim, L. (2017) Learning Theory and Online Technologies<\/em><\/a> New York\/London: Taylor and Francis<\/p>\n
Laurillard, D. (2001) Rethinking University Teaching:\u00a0<\/em><\/a>A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technologies<\/em><\/a>\u00a0New York\/London: Taylor and Francis<\/p>\n
Marton, F. & Salj\u00f6, R. (1997). ‘Approaches to learning’, in F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.),\u00a0The experience of learning<\/em>. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press (out of print)<\/p>\n
\n\n Activity 3.4 Developing conceptual learning<\/h3>\n<\/header>\n
\n1. What kind of teacher\u00a0interventions in group discussions\u00a0can you suggest\u00a0that could help learners develop deep, conceptual learning?<\/p>\n
2. How could you reorganise a lecture class of 200 or more students to develop group work and the development of conceptual learning?<\/p>\n
Click on the podcast below for my suggestions:<\/p>\n