Significant learning

Introduction

Let’s be honest. It’s satisfying and important to see our students accomplish the learning outcomes we state in our syllabi. But that’s not what puts a big smile on our face or lives in our memory for years to come. Rather it’s the paper that demonstrates incredible insight, the class conversation that goes off the rails—in a good way, the project that breaks new ground, the performance that knock our socks off. It’s the unpredictable moments when everything comes together in a special way. Again, let’s be honest. We are satisfied and rewarded by competence; we are thrilled and energized by significance.

Definition

According to L. Dee Fink (2013), significant learning results in lasting changes and value in life. As a consequence of significant learning, we are not the same in some important way. We think and act differently. And we make great use of what we have learned. Others refer to this with similar concepts like meaningful learning (Kember, 1991), deep understanding (Gardner, 1999), profound learning (Perry, 2002), or transformative learning (Wilson & Parrish, 2011; Mezirow, 1991).

Explanation and Application

Diagram with features of significant learning

Diagram of dimensions of significant learning. L. Dee Fink

To further develop the concept of significant learning, Fink constructed a taxonomy of six learning types that contribute:

  • foundational knowledge – basic understanding; remembering information and ideas
  • application – engaging in action; skills; critical, creative and practical thinking
  • integration – connecting ideas, people, and realms of life
  • human dimension – learning about oneself and others
  • caring – developing new feelings, interests and values
  • learning how to learn – becoming a better student; inquiring about a subject; becoming a self-directing learner

Rather than hierarchical levels, like Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), the learning types are thought to interact, perhaps to create a synergy as types are intentionally combined (see figure below). For example, in an “integrated course design” application could lead to caring, and learning to make connections (integration) could lead students to see significance for themselves (human dimension).

Fink also talks about significant learning in terms of process. He describes significant learning as happening more often when students are highly engaged and when the learning environment has high energy. Others refer to the similar phenomena of peak experience (Privette & Bundrick, 1997), sweet spot (Jerome, 1980), flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1993), being in sync (Strogatz, 2003), and liminal state (Rowland & Wilson, 1994), all of which involve high engagement and energy, great focus, and even a sense of time becoming fluid.

Another concept similar to Fink’s significant learning is “powerful learning experience.” In a series of studies over 20 years with over 400 participants, Rowland and IC graduate students explored the nature of these experiences (e.g., Rowland & Kitchner-Meyer, 2018). They defined a powerful learning experience (PLE) as one that stands out in memory because of its high quality, its impact on one’s thoughts and actions over time and its transferability to a wide range of contexts and circumstances. They found that several factors were often present, including active learning (doing it in authentic context), a relationship with a mentor/expert teacher, and reflection in and on action. However, they ultimately concluded that PLEs are highly individual. Rather than being the predictable outcome of a known set of factors, PLEs are complex and emerge for an individual from a unique combination of factors in the moment. Fostering PLEs is thus difficult. Rather than prescribing a specific strategy to achieve a predetermined learning outcome, one needs to create conditions in which a PLE is more likely, for example, to “over-conceptualize” and “underspecify” the design (Weick, 2004), set especially high expectations, carefully monitor what is happening in the moment, and quickly adapt.

Examples

Here at IC, there are many courses with a reputation for significant or powerful learning. A few examples include MUTH 35500, in which music history is taught through a collection a case studies, STCM 44100 Ad Lab, in which students develop a campaign for a major brand in a national competition, and Human Anatomy Lab, in which students have a hands-on dissection experience. Outside IC, good examples are SEA Semester programs, in which students engage in meaningful research while simultaneously learning to sail a tall ship.

Learning Activities

Here are a couple reflective activities you can do that may increase the significance of learning in your courses.

1. Set aside how you typically teach your subject and ask yourself this question: What are my highest-level goals for my students? Not the SLOs in the syllabus, but my true aspirations for what my students might be able to achieve. Then ask: How can the course be designed to create conditions in which those goals might be achieved?

2. Answer these questions: What is the best course you ever took as a student? What was it that made it so great? How is that mirrored in your own approach to teaching? How well does that work for all your students, including some who, no doubt, learn differently than you? How can you adapt things so that all students can achieve significant learning?

Tip

Not every learning experience can be life changing or transformative, at least not for every student in a class. But our intention to foster such experiences can make them more significant and more powerful. And our attention to how that can happen for a wider range of students can make our courses more inclusive.

References

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1993). The evolving self: A psychology for the Third Millennium. New York: HarperCollins.

Fink, L. D. (2013) Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses (revised and updated). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gardner, H. (1999). Multiple approaches to understanding. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. 2, pp. 69-89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jerome, J. (1980). The sweet spot in time. NY: Avon.

Kember, D. (1991). Instructional design for meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 20, 289–310. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/journal/11251

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Perry, D.L. (2002). Profound learning: Stories from museums. Educational Technology, 42(2), 21–25. Retrieved from http://asianvu.com/bookstoread/etp/

Privette, G., & Bundrick, C. M. (1997). Psychological processes of peak, average, and failing performance in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 28(4), 323–334. Available from http://www.ijsp-online.com

Rowland, G., & Kitchner-Meyer, A. (2018). Powerful learning at SEA: Connecting to complexity and systemic design. Form Akademisk, 11(4). Retrieved from https://journals.hioa.no/index.php/formakademisk/article/view/2004

Rowland, G., & Wilson, G. F. (1994). Liminal states in designing. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(3), 30-45.

Strogatz, S. (2003). Sync: The emerging science of spontaneous order. New York: Hyperion.

Weick, K. (2004). Rethinking organizational design. In R. J. Boland & F. Collopy (Eds.), Managing as designing (pp. 36-53). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Wilson, B. G., & Parrish, P. E. (2011). Transformative learning experience: Aim higher, gain more. Educational Technology, 51(2), 10–15. Retrieved from http://asianvu.com/bookstoread/etp/

Credit

Center for Faculty Excellence, Ithaca College