My teaching philosophy is based on the student-centered learning approach or ‘learning paradigm’ (Barr & Tagg, 1995), which situates students in the primarily active role in the learning process. I believe that learning is an active and constructive process. It is not about the translation of knowledge, skills, and competence from the external (instructor’s) mind into the students’ memories, but rather that knowledge is constructed, created, modified (existing knowledge and skills), and/or acquired based on the learners’ individual efforts, experiences, and interactions. In this process, I view my role as a teacher as being to supervise, facilitate, and instruct students in how to construct meaning, as well as to help them become active life-long learners. Hence, I consider that teaching should focus on “what the student does and how well the intended outcomes are achieved” (Biggs, 1999; Biggs & Tang, 2007). In other words, the instructor’s role in the learning process is to create a learning environment, shape/reshape learning activities, and provide assistance in terms of techniques, challenges, encouragement, and motivation to achieve the intended learning outcomes.

In order to achieve the intended learning outcomes, this approach calls upon active participation from the students in the TLAs, and the adoption of deep approaches to learning (Marton & Säljö, 1976). Studies have shown that students who use deep approaches to learning tend to perform better, integrate and synthesize information with prior learning, and construct meaningful learning (Laird et al., 2008; Marton & Säljö, 1976; Ramsden, 2003).

However, I have noticed on several occasions that not all students on my courses use deep approaches to learning. Many of my colleagues have also experienced the same. I am aware that the content of the subject might determine a student’s use of a deep or surface approach to learning (Laird et al., 2008; Ramsden, 2003); however, the inherent nature, such as the technological (as a tool to solve complex real-life problems), interdisciplinary, and methodological aspects (connecting knowledge from different courses and relating previous knowledge to new knowledge), of my courses entail integrated learning (Huber & Hutchings, 2004), which requires deep approaches to learning. Given that, why do some students use a surface approach to learning on my courses? This may lead to a common misconception about whether an approach to learning – surface or deep – is inherently characteristic of an individual student. As Ramsden (2003: 45) expressed, “everyone is capable of both deep and surface approaches, from early childhood onwards”, and the surface approach of learning is fundamentally rooted in the teaching/assessment method or is broadly a reaction to the teaching and learning environment (Biggs & Tang, 2007: 23–29). This clearly calls for the adoption of a student-centered learning approach.

An associated challenge that I have struggled with and experienced in the past is the lack (or low level) of motivation among a certain proportion of the students in a class. Later, I realized that there were two main reasons behind this: i) teacher-centered TLAs; and ii) misalignment among the course structure, TLAs, and the assessment method. I believe that a student’s approach to learning, and their personal commitment and motivation, depend on how they perceive the course content, structure, and learning outcomes and, most importantly, the method of teaching and assessment. Hence, I also apply the approach of constructive alignment, aligning the intended learning outcomes, teaching/learning activities, and assignment task (Biggs, 1999). I clearly communicate the learning outcomes of a particular module or class/session with the students, in terms of skills, knowledge, attitude, and values, as well as highlighting how the learning from any particular module/lesson forms the basis for assessment. I use multiple teaching strategies and adopt a variety of teaching methods that build on the tenets of constructivism and cognitivism, and emphasize student-centered learning (Ertmer & Newby, 2013; Hattie, 2011). The learning activities are adjusted to the intended learning outcome of the module and to the assignment tasks.

I use Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et al., 2001; Bloom et al., 1956; Krathwohl, 2002) as a means for developing sub-goals, and also TLAs and assessment methodology to ensure alignment among these components to meet the learning objectives of the course. Studies have shown the positive effects of the adoption of Bloom’s taxonomy in classroom management in student-centered learning and assessment (Athanassiou et al., 2003). To target multiple levels of student learning, I adopt different TLAs and both summative and formative assessments in my courses, such as quizzes (end of the lecture/lab session and end of the module), class/home assignment tasks, critical reviews, peer-reviews, mini projects, lab reports, portfolio assessments, independent project work, and oral exams. This variety allows me to engage students in multiple TLAs. The adoption of multiple TLAs allows me to help the students to build and develop higher-order thinking based on lower-level skills. Similarly, a combination of different summative and formative assessment methods provides the students with multiple ways to express mastery of their knowledge and skills, and opportunities to demonstrate their understanding at multiple levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. Both student feedback/evaluations and exam results over the past few years in my courses  have confirmed this. Moreover, I have also noticed increased attendance and attention in my classes since I adopted multiple TLAs. I think there is no single perfect teaching method, and that teaching can never be perfect, but it can be better and improved. I take student feedback/assessment very seriously, and continuously work to improve my TLAs and assessment methods, and adopt new ones.

When adopting different strategies/methods to enhance teaching and learning, I think we have to consider the effect of recent changes in technology (particularly the internet, web resources, and devices such as tablets and smart phones) and the associated changes in the learners and their learning process, in terms of their experiences, abilities, preferences, and changing knowledge construction/access/sharing patterns (Barone, 2003; Ertmer & Newby, 2013). Today’s ‘digital’ students extensively use, create, access, and share knowledge through the internet, use digital tools in their learning process, and interact with a larger community, other learners, and teachers in different parts of the world. This has opened the door to both formal and informal learning experiences. To grasp these opportunities, I use online learning resources as supplementary resources to the classroom setting. Similarly, I encourage students to use web resources, tools, and data. I believe that the use of web resources in TLAs helps to foster students’ abilities to integrate their learning across contexts and integrate knowledge from different sources.

Technology is rapidly evolving, requiring both myself and the students on my courses to gain experience and stay up to date with changing technology (software, tools, packages, data formats, and methods). I incorporate changes in technology into the practical sessions (data labs), project work, and assignments. I believe that the teaching and learning in my GIS and Quantitative Methods courses need to be research-based, and that research experiences are an excellent way for students to learn a variety of practical and critical skills. I use real-world problems and datasets from research projects (in-house or open data) in my teaching. I attempt to use data that mirrors realistic datasets collected by natural and social researchers in the field. Working with real-world problems and datasets throughout the courses helps the students to learn to apply their skills and knowledge in diverse contexts.

I use a learning-by-doing approach when designing TLAs in my GIS courses (as well as in other similar technological and methodological subjects), in order to enable students to learn step-by-step in a real-world context because I believe that the creation, construction, and development of practical knowledge and skills in such subjects can be best achieved through the transformation of experience (Kolb, 2015). During the early stages of the course, students are drilled in problem formulation, data input, processing, analysis, and presentation. Such direct instructional guidance at an early stage provides novice learners with the required concepts and skills, and trains them to solve problems effectively (Kirschner et al., 2006; Sweller, 2008). TLAs, such as mini projects, group projects, and assignments, are associated with problem-based learning and/or inquiry(project)-based learning (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007), in which students employ practical skills and theoretical principles to solve particular real-world problems. Working with mini projects, group projects, and home assignments (part of their work requirements), where students are scaffolded through direct guidance, coaching, hints, and task structuring, they become accomplished problem-solvers (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007). The feedback for these tasks (both individual feedback in Canvas and discussions in feedback sessions) further guides the learners to achieve integrative learning. Working on their final assignments and tasks for assessment, the students learn to integrate knowledge from different sources and from different courses, connect materials and methods with their personal experiences, and thus solve complex real-life problem effectively. I believe this model could be one approach to balance the inquiry/problem-based learning with the direct instructional guidance for enhanced teaching and learning in higher education, which has been highlighted as one of several challenges by many researchers (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007; Kirschner et al., 2006).

Boud and Falchikov (2006) argued that assessment in higher education should not only focus on the immediate learning requirements (i.e., grading the student and providing certification of achievement), but should also contribute to a lifelong learning, their prospective careers, and prepare them for the tasks of making complex judgements. Considering this as the guiding principle, I designed an assessment task to be part of the learning; it is based on the problem-, or project/inquiry-, based learning approach. It allows students to engage with integrative learning, and thus ensure deeper learning, creativity, and critical thinking. As discussed above, the practical parts of my courses increasingly include supervised periods of work experience and feedback sessions (giving and receiving feedback), and assessments (including project work) led by a problem/inquiry-based approach to help them solve real-life problems and equip them for future learning challenges and prospective careers.

I believe that good communication between teacher and student is an important vehicle for life-long learning. I have an open door policy. I always encourage my students to contact me at my office or by email, whenever they want to discuss anything with me or need any help.

Thus, my teaching philosophy has coevolved, drawing on my own teaching experiences and views, as well as those of my colleagues, and being based on the literature on learning theories. Student-centered learning, constructive alignment, the use of multiple teaching strategies, research-based teaching, problem-based learning, and learning by doing are the core features of my teaching philosophy. I believe that my philosophical approach places science in a more real-life context and helps the students keep track of their own learning efforts. Recently, I have worked on a development project that aims to combine online learning resources and peer-teaching as an improved TLA. In the future, I would like to use methods such as game-based learning and flipped classrooms, using my own videos and peer-review.

References

• Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R.,  Wittrock, M. C. J. W. P., NY: Longman. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, abridged edition.
• Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., et al.  (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, abridged edition. New York: Longman.
• Athanassiou, N., McNett, J. M., & Harvey, C. (2003). Critical thinking in the management classroom: Bloom’s taxonomy as a learning tool. Journal of Management Education, 27(5), 533-555.
• Barone, C. A. (2003). The changing landscape and the new academy. Educause review, 38(5), 40-47.
• Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning—A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change: The magazine of higher learning, 27(6), 12-26.
• Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher education research & development, 18(1), 57-75.
• Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university : what the student does (3rd ed. ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
• Bloom, BS., Engelhart, MD., Furst, EJ., Hill, W. H. and Krathwohl, DR. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company.
• Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long‐term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399-413.
• Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
• Hattie, J. (2011). Which strategies best enhance teaching and learning in higher education? In D. Mashek & E. Y. Hammer (Eds.), Empirical research in teaching and learning: Contributions from social psychology (pp. 130-142): Blackwell Publishing Ltd. .
• Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and. Educational psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
• Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2004). Integrative Learning: Mapping the Terrain. The Academy in Transition. Association of American Colleges and Universities.
• Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
• Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218.
• Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Education.
• Laird, T. F. N., Shoup, R., Kuh, G. D., & Schwarz, M. J. (2008). The effects of discipline on deep approaches to student learning and college outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 49(6), 469-494.
• Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I—Outcome and process. British journal of educational psychology, 46(1), 4-11.
• Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education: Routledge.
• Sweller, J. (2008). Evolutionary bases of human cognitive architecture: implications for computing education. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the fourth international workshop on computing education research.