Higher Education Teaching & Learning Southern Africa (HELTASA) Conference 2008

30 November3 December 2008

Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa

Moving beyond constructive alignment to significant learning

Bernie Millar & Marianne Bester
Cape Peninsula University of Technology

Abstract
This paper is a result of a reflexive process undertaken by two co-teachers
of the 2008 B.Tech. Research Methodology (BTRM) course at a South
African University of Technology. Biggs constructive alignment (1994) was
used in creating the BTRM course whereby we sought to align the learning
outcomes, teaching and learning activities and assessment to move our
students to a deep learning approach. At the end of the course we asked
ourselves whether this approach had in fact worked and where it had not,
how could we remedy this. Upon reflection we realized that we had
regarded constructive alignment as a product in our application of it and,
more importantly, that there are flaws in both the deep learning the
constructive alignment approaches, principally that the human dimension
is lacking as well as a socio-cultural approach that embraces diversity,
strengths and the multiple literacies that learners bring to the teaching and
learning situation.
This paper considers Haggis critique (2003) of the surface/ deep learning
approach in terms of the Research Methodology course, particularly the
importance of recognizing personal Discourse (Gee, 2005). It then critiques
Biggs constructive alignment and investigates an alternative, namely
Finks taxonomy of significant, integrated learning. Finally, the paper
proposes an adaptation of Finks model of significant learning to include
the primary and secondary discourses of both teachers and learners.
Key words: Deep learning, Constructive Alignment, Finks taxonomy of
significant learning, New literacy studies, personal Discourse.
Introduction
This paper is the outcome of a reflexive process undertaken at the end of the 2008 B.Tech.
Research Methodology (BTRM) course. The authors of this paper have realized that in designing
the BTRM course they had in fact been working with a conception of Constructive Alignment
and an approach to deep learning which saw these as product rather than process. They
recognize flaws in both the deep learning and constructive alignment approaches, namely that
acknowledgement of the socio-cultural, human dimension is lacking leading to an overly

1|Page

cognitive approach which denies the richness and strengths of multiple literacies and personal
Discourses that learners bring to the teaching and learning situation.
Since 1976 Higher Education has been heavily influenced by the work of Marton and Slj on
surface and deep approaches to learning. Biggs added two frameworks, constructive alignment
and the SOLO taxonomy, to embrace the concepts of surface and deep learning and as a means
of moving students from the former to the latter. This paper supports Haggis critique of the
approaches to surface and deep learning, particularly in her criticism of the absence of a sociocultural dimension in terms of the New Literacies Studies (NLS). Furthermore, this paper
examines Haggis (2003) critique of the paradigm of surface and deep learning in the light of the
2008 B. Tech. Research Methodology subject offered in the Department of Clothing and Textile
Technology at a South African University of Technology. This paper reflects critically on Biggs
constructive alignment as it was used in BTRM in 2008. Finally, a model is proposed of
significant, integrated learning based on Finks taxonomy of significant learning, but to which a
further dimension is added.
A key term, namely, personal Discourse, is defined at the start of this paper as it is often used.
Personal Discourse
This paper follows Gee (1996:131) who defines a Discourse as follows:
A Discourse is a socially accepted association among ways of using language, other symbolic
expressions, and artifacts, of thinking, feeling, believing, valuing, and acting that can be used to
identify oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group or social network, or to signal (that
one is playing) a socially meaningful role.

Gee (1996:127) capitalizes Discourse when he uses it to refer to ways of being in society, and
uses discourse for connected stretches of language that make sense like conversations, stories,
reports, arguments, essays and so forth. So discourse is part of Discourse. He distinguishes
two kinds of Discourse, primary and secondary. Primary Discourse is created from infancy
during our primary socialization within and through exposure to our family, social group,
language, beliefs and culture. This creates our understanding of who we are. Secondary
Discourse is created when we move outside our primary home and peer-group to become
members of institutions such as schools, churches, and are socialized within various local, state
and national groups and constitute the recognisability and meaningfulness of our public
(more formal) acts (ibid.). Secondary Discourse extends our primary Discourse and we may
have more than one secondary Discourse. However, the boundary between these Discourses is
permeable, because they influence and interact with each other, and is constantly negotiated
and contested in society and history (Gee, 1996:138). He emphasizes that it is in and through
Discourses that we make clear to ourselves and others who we are and what we are doing at a
given time and place (Gees emphasis,1996:129). In our paper we use the term, Personal
Discourse, which should be understood as referring to and incorporating both primary and
secondary Discourse.
Approaches to learning
As much literature has been dedicated to students approaches to learning, especially the
surface and deep approaches to learning (Entwistle (2000), Biggs (2003), and Prosser &
Trigwell, 1999), only a brief tabular summary will be provided in Table 1 to contextualize the
discussion of Haggis critique of these approaches and Biggs Constructive Alignment. Table 1
depicts the surface and deep learning approaches as well as the achieving or strategic approach
in which a student is more organized than in the surface approach and is motivated to achieve
good grades by using whatever technique will enable the student to reach that goal.

2|Page

Table 1: Approaches to learning

Surface approach

Deep approach

Achieving /strategic
approach

New knowledge isolated

Learning is seen as
acquisition of facts
knowing a lot

Relates prior knowledge to

new knowledge

Well-organized surface
approach

Knowledge is related to
other areas

Theory related to practical

experience & application

Motivation to obtain good

marks

Learning seen as activity

where acquisition of
technique improves
performance

Information memorized
for assessment

Unreflective association of
facts and concepts

Principle not
distinguished from
examples

Organizes structure &

content into coherent
whole

Task is seen as externally

imposed

Emphasis internal from

within student

Emphasis external on
assessment

Relates and distinguishes

evidence & argument

(Source: Atherton, 2005)

This paper supports Haggis (2003) critique of the surface/deep approaches to learning and will
discuss some points of her critique in terms of the BTRM subject. First, Haggis disputes claims
such as Biggs claim (1994) that the approaches to learning framework is holistic and
relational. A framework that separates learners into categories according to their individual
approaches to learning is not holistic, but rather atomistic in that it only focuses on one
cognitive area while ignoring the affective and personal contexts of the learners. This is
illustrated by Haggiss statement:
One of the fundamental problems with the view of learning that the model presents is that it
removes the individual learner from the richness and complexity of his/her multiple
contextsthe learner in this model is a human being without agency. There is little
acknowledgement that learners are people who may have any number of reasons not to want to
respond to institutional agendas (2003:98).

In other words, the surface/deep approach to learning entirely ignores the personal Discourse
of the learners. Haggis suggests an academic Literacies approach as an alternative socio-cultural
approach. We endorse this, but would further stress the importance of keeping in mind the
primary and secondary Discourses (Gee, 2005) that both learners and teachers bring into the
teaching and learning situation. Furthermore, not only should HE teachers have an awareness of
their learners personal Discourses, but should view these diverse Discourses as strengths that
learners bring into the classroom rather than lack.
To illustrate this point, we would like to present a profile of the personal Discourses of two
BTRM students which illustrate how diverse a class may be in terms of primary and secondary
Discourse. It is not possible, in terms of this paper, to refer to all the BTRM learners. Student A
is an Afrikaans-speaking Muslim, age 32, divorced, single parent of a seven year old daughter,
living with her parents and she is employed at a large clothing manufacturing company. She
works full-time during the day, and studies part-time in the evenings. She is a first generation
student, who brings a wealth of industry knowledge and discourse into the classroom. Student
3|Page

B is an Afrikaans-speaking Christian, age 24, single, living with her parents, unemployed. She
studies full-time and is a second generation student, who comes from a well-educated family.
She brings knowledge and skills gained from a good secondary schooling into the classroom.
Both of these students have English as an additional language and live with their parents, which
is all they have in common. The point of this comparison is that if we are aware of the personal
Discourses of our students, then we cannot reify them or slot them into preconceived notions of
learning. Below we will show how their personal Discourses impact upon their teaching and
learning situation.
The immediate question arises: How can one determine what a students personal Discourse
is? In our BTRM course, we devised a sensitive, confidential biographical questionnaire which
our learners were asked to complete during our first meeting. An analysis of this biographical
questionnaire provided insight into not only the learners life circumstances, but also their
personal interests. Our purpose in having the learners answer the questionnaire was, firstly, for
us to become aware of the human diversity and the challenges that comprised the BTRM class
and, secondly, to begin to understand our learners as people. We wanted to know who they
were and what interested and motivated them, what their challenges were and how they hoped
to overcome them. We also wanted to find what strengths they would bring to the BTRM
teaching and learning situation. The information on Students A and B was taken from their
biographical questionnaires.
Although we did recognise the students strengths in terms of their primary and secondary
Discourses, we acknowledge, on reflection, that we did not fully utilise these strengths in our
teaching or in our curriculum design and constructive alignment this year (2008). This is
challenge that we have to address in our move to significant learning, particularly how we are
going to do this so that it results in meaningful co-learning for both learners and teachers. The
question of fit between personal Discourses, not only on a learner to learner, but also teacher to
learner basis, is a rich area for further research. We are aware that this method of using a
biographical questionnaire may be problematic in large classes, but feel that the problem is not
insurmountable. Our questionnaire was designed to be analysed manually as we had only 20
students; however, it would be possible to create a similar questionnaire for use in large classes
that could be electronically scanned and analysed.
It is unfortunate that of Blooms original taxonomy that covered three domains, namely the
cognitive, affective and psychomotor, only the cognitive domain has been extremely influential
for over fifty years. This exclusive emphasis on the cognitive has come at a cost which is a
skewed view of learning that does not recognize learners as human beings with agency. With
reference to the two students A and B from the BTRM subject, we would like to present an
example to illustrate how their personal Discourses impact upon the learning challenges they
faced in doing research for their B.Tech. dissertation. This example will illustrate clearly how
important it is to recognize the fact that learners are human beings with agency and will act in
terms of their own Discourses.
The dissertation requires students to write a literature review and do a situational analysis
regarding their research problem. Student As research problem was an analysis of garment
defects and related costs in a clothing manufacturing company. Student Bs research problem
was similar to that of Student A, but she focused on customer satisfaction of mens tailored suits
from a manufacturing perspective. The similarity of the research problems lies in the fact that
quality is a key component of customer satisfaction with clothing products and therefore, in
essence, both students had to relate their theoretical knowledge of quality assurance to its
practical application in a manufacturing environment. Student As approach was to conduct the
situational analysis at the clothing manufacturing company first, while Student B engaged with
literature on quality assurance and then did the situational analysis reluctantly. Student B views
the clothing manufacturing environment as hostile, because it lies completely outside her
personal Discourse. On the other hand, Student A, who is employed by a clothing manufacturing
company, is perfectly comfortable within this environment and could produce a good situational
4|Page

analysis, but had difficulty relating practice to theory. Student B had difficulty in relating the
theory to the practice. On reflection, their personal discourses influenced their approach to
learning in this case. By being aware not only of these particular challenges that Students A and
B faced, but also of their personal Discourses (which held the reasons for their problems), we
could understand why each student was experiencing her unique problem. Therefore, we could
help the student recognize, address and resolve the problem. This was done by asking Student A
to do the situational analysis first as this was her strength and to research and write up the
literature review afterwards in the light of what she had discovered in the situational analysis.
Student B did the literature review first as her strength lay there, and then had to be encouraged
to go to the manufacturer to conduct the situational analysis, which she then carried out well.
Within a dissertations one-to-one supervision framework, it is essential that the supervisor is
aware of the students personal Discourse as well as his/her own and makes an effort to find a
fit between the two to enable significant learning to take place. This obviously implies a shift
away from the traditional power relations between supervisor and student where the
supervisor is the one who knows, hence the holder of power, while the student lacks power in
the relationship, or, in a worst-case scenario gives away her/his own power to the supervisor
and becomes dependent upon the supervisor. In a significant-learning supervisory relationship,
power is shared while both parties undergo a significant learning experience. On the other
hand, if the main aim of a teacher or supervisor is to move the learner from being a surface
learner to a deep learner in terms of a learning outcome set by the teacher/supervisor, the
power remains in the hands of the teacher/supervisor.
A further problem with the approaches to surface/deep learning framework is that the
category of surface learning seems to be regarded either in a pejorative light in the literature or
as an undesirable element that has to be excluded entirely from the students repertoire of
learning strategies. The literature around these approaches to learning seems to attach a value
judgement to them, namely, surface learning is undesirable while deep learning is desirable.
This belies any claims to a holistic and relational approach. We would rather argue that there
are times when surface learning may be an appropriate strategy to use. It may be appropriate to
take a both-and rather than an either-or approach to learning. Furthermore, we would say
that a student may have a deep approach to learning in a particular subject that holds his/her
attention, but may use a surface or strategic approach in another subject which may be a core
requirement in a course, but which holds little meaning or interest for the student.
This brings us to another critique namely that the learning objective ultimately seems to be that
of moving a student from being a surface to a deep learner (Brabrand, 2007). This would
indicate that becoming a learner who uses a deep approach is seen as a good end product
which takes no account of a learners ability to be both a deep and surface learner depending on
personal choice of learning approach in a particular situation. This supports Haggis critique
that what started out as a students approach to deep learning has become reified and
represented as a product called deep learning rather than the approach its original authors
Marton and Slj described. Furthermore, deep learning has been put on a pedagogical pedestal
(and, may one suggest, deified) as the end to which teaching and learning must move its
students to achieve a change in learning behaviour. This would paint the framework in
behaviourist shades, rather than the constructivism it claims. We question whether the deep
learning approach does, in fact, effect significant change on levels other than that of the
cognitive.
Prosser and Trigwell (1999, cited in Haggis, 2003) define a deep approach as including a search
for personal meaning based on intrinsic interest, curiosity and a desire and ability to relate the
meaning to personal experience. Haggis critiques this by pointing out that meaning is a
problematic concept because it is so general and open to interpretation. We would take this
point further and stress that making meaning is directly related to ones personal Discourse as
illustrated by the above example of the students Discourses.

5|Page

Making meaning in a teaching and learning situation involves two parties, the learner and the
teacher. Both these parties bring their particular Discourses and strengths to the teaching and
learning situation. When a co-teaching approach is used, as in BTRM, further richness is brought
into the classroom through both teachers personal discourses and strengths. For example,
Teacher A approaches the subject from a clothing perspective, while Teacher B comes from a
research perspective. Together these teachers draw on their unique Discourses and strengths to
focus on a shared learner-centred approach. Furthermore, the co-teachers see themselves as
becoming co-learners with their learners.
Haggis (2003) regards Biggs Constructive Alignment as a tightly articulated version of the
approaches to surface/deep learning framework. This brings us to the main point of this paper,
namely our critique of Biggs constructive alignment in terms of 2008 BTRM and our vision of
an adapted model of significant learning based on Finks taxonomy of significant learning.
Firstly, we will critique Biggs constructive alignment as it was used in the 2008 BTRM and
secondly, we will discuss Finks taxonomy of significant learning and how we intend to adapt
and apply this to the 2009 BTRM course.
Biggs Constructive Alignment
Constructive alignment is a term coined by John Biggs to describe a process of aligned
instruction design that aligns the intended learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities
with a criterion based assessment. According to Biggs (2003) the constructive within
constructive alignment indicates that this falls within the ambit of constructivist learning
theory in that the students are seen as constructing meaning, hence constructive refers to
what the student does. The alignment refers to what the teacher does, i.e. setting the
learning goals with their learning outcomes and aligning these to teaching and learning
activities and assessment. Entwistle (2000) claims that the result is a transparent, coherent
system in which the students know upfront what competencies they have to achieve and
according to which criteria they will be assessed, while the teaching and learning activities are
so structured that they foster deep rather than surface learning. Figure 1 shows Biggs
constructive alignment which demonstrates the importance that he places on the curriculum
objectives into which the teaching and learning activities and assessment tasks feed.

6|Page

Teaching &
Learning Activities
Designed to elicit
desired verbs
May be:
Teachercontrolled
Peer-controlled
Self-controlled
As best suits
context

Curriculum Objectives
expressed as verbs
students have to enact
A
The very best
understanding that could
reasonable be expected:
might contain verbs such as
hypothesize, apply to far
domains etc.
B
Highly satisfactory
understanding: might
contain verbs such as
explain, solve, analyse,
compare etc.
C
Quite satisfactory learning
with understanding at a
declarative level: verbs
such as elaborate, classify,
cover topics a to n etc.
D
Understanding at a level
that would warrant a pass:
low level verbs, also
inadequate but salvageable
higher level attempts.

Assessment
Tasks

Evaluate how well

the target verbs are
deployed in context.
The highest level
verb to be clearly
manifested becomes
the final grade
(A,B,C etc.).

Figure 1: Biggs constructive alignment

Source: Biggs, 2003.
At the beginning of this year, we adopted the constructive alignment approach, as promoted by
Biggs (2003), in the 2008 BTRM course, by clearly defining the intended learning outcomes, by
carefully planning teaching and learning activities to support the achievement of these
outcomes and by continuously assessing against the actual learning outcomes to determine to
what extent they were meeting the learning outcomes. On reflection, we can see that we were
actually cognitively streamlining our course, and often functioning in the cognitive domain at
the expense of the other human domains.
The dominant factor in Biggs model is the curriculum objectives/intended learning outcomes
and this is the inherent characteristic that determines to a large extent what the learning
activities and the assessment tasks and criteria will have to be, although this is not actually
depicted in the model as illustrated above. A flaw in constructive alignment is that we are
working with the assumption that if the learning activities and assessments are aligned to the
learning outcomes, we have defined the correct learning outcomes, which can be highly
subjective. This subjectivity affects both the process of defining the learning outcomes and the
interpretation and application of them. For example, the BTRM subject consists of theoretical
knowledge (coursework) and practical application (research project) in aspects relating to
clothing product conceptualisation, clothing production processes and technology as well as
clothing product performance evaluation. Students are required to plan, design, conduct and
report on research of an area of specialisation within the scope of this subject as evidence that
they are capable of applying knowledge. On reflection, we have recognised that we had defined
the learning outcome incorrectly and although we had aligned the learning activity and

7|Page

assessment to the learning outcome, there was a distinct lack of fit between these. As a result,
the students experienced difficulty applying the theoretical knowledge to practice.
In terms of Biggs constructive alignment, although we had aligned the constructive (what the
student does) with the alignment (what the teacher does) the learning did not meet
expectations inherent in the learning outcome nor effect change. We uncovered further
problematic elements in constructive alignment namely the lack of provision for a human
dimension in the model, the absence of both the strengths and personal Discourses that impact
on teaching and learning situation as well as issues of diversity. We would suggest that these
shortcomings may result from Biggs premising his constructive alignment and SOLO taxonomy
on a reified deep learning, which in practice addresses only the cognitive domain. Therefore,
we have decided to adapt a taxonomy that will add a holistic perspective and human dimension
to our curriculum and practice, namely Finks taxonomy of significant learning.
Finks taxonomy of significant learning
While recognizing the importance of Blooms taxonomy and its long-lasting influence on Higher
Education, Fink responded to the need for different kinds of learning that do not easily flow
from Blooms cognitive taxonomy (Fink, 2003:29). These new kinds of learning, which Fink sees
as learning how to learn, leadership and interpersonal skills, ethics, communication skills,
character, tolerance and the ability to adapt to change, have to be a response to the demands of
a fast-changing, globalized and increasingly complex world. Finks response has been to create a
new taxonomy of significant learning:
In the process of constructing this taxonomy, I was guided by a particular perspective on
learning: I defined learning in terms of change. For learning to occur there has to be
some kind of change in the learner. No change, no learning. And significant learning
requires that there be some kind of lasting change that is important in terms of the
learners life (Fink, 2003:30).

Figure 2: Finks taxonomy

Source: Fink (2003:30)

8|Page

Unlike the taxonomies of Bloom and Biggs which are hierarchical and developmental (i.e. stage
theory which requires mastery of one stage before being able to move on to the next stage),
Finks taxonomy is holistic, interactive and inter-relational. The taxonomy is made up of six
categories of significant learning, each of which contains several specific kinds of related
learning that are of value to the learner (Fink, 2003:31). These six categories, as illustrated in
Figure 2 above, are: Foundational Knowledge, Application, Integration, the Human Dimension,
Caring, and Learning how to learn. Foundational Knowledge is foundational in the sense that it
forms the fundamental infrastructure of learning to which other learning is added. Application
Learning is the development of certain skills that allow other kinds of learning to become
useful (ibid). Integration is making connections and seeing relationships which give learners a
new form of power especially intellectual power (ibid). Human dimension is about learning
more about oneself and others and the implications, consequences and human significance of
that learning. Caring implies that the students willingly apply energy to developing new feelings,
interests and values. Learning how to learn teaches students how to become self-directing and
life-long learners. To emphasise that this model is not stage (i.e. developmental, hierarchical)
theory, the interactive nature of significant learning is illustrated in Figure 3 which shows the
interconnectivity of the model.

Figure 3: Interactive nature of significant learning

Source: Fink (2003:33)
With reference to Table 1 that outlines surface, deep and strategic approaches to learning, a
comparison can be drawn between deep and significant learning. Deep learning is seen as
hierarchical and developmental, while significant learning is seen as six kinds of learning that
relate to and interact with each other in a synergistic manner. Achieving any one kind of
learning simultaneously enhances the possibility of achieving the other kinds of learning as well
(Fink, 2003:32, our emphasis). Designing a course that embodies all six kinds of learning will
result in a significant learning experience. An important feature of significant learning is that it
recognizes that learning is a process of change that cannot be quantified as an absolute or a
product that is the same for every student. When reflecting on our students learning, we
recognize that what constitutes a dynamic, significant learning experience is different for each
student, as demonstrated by our Students A and B above.

9|Page

With reference to the 2008 BTRM course, the learning outcomes, as indicated in Table 2 were
defined only in cognitive terms according to Blooms taxonomy and applied within constructive
alignment as defined by Biggs. Reflecting on the shortcomings that we found in Biggs
constructive alignment, we redefined the learning outcomes using the categories of significant
learning to support our vision of a holistic approach that incorporates a human dimension. In
Table 2, the same learning outcomes of the 2008 BTRM are restated in terms of Finks
taxonomy. Adding the categories of the human dimension, caring and learning to learn creates a
richness of context in which significant learning can happen simultaneously on different levels.
Table 2: Example of learning outcomes of BTRM subject 2008-2009
Current learning outcomes based on
constructive alignment of Biggs

Proposed new learning outcomes based on

Finks taxonomy of significant learning

2008

2009

Learners will be able to:

By the end of this course a learner should

be able to:

Foundational knowledge

Demonstrate an adequate understanding

of the research process and application
thereof within a specialised field of
clothing;

Source and evaluate information and read

critically to produce an academically
acceptable literature review;

Conduct a situational analysis at a

clothing/textile manufacturing company
or in a retail environment;

Conduct basic research using appropriate

research methods, collecting, analysing
and interpreting data to solve research
problem;

Demonstrate accountability for their own

research work by good time and project
management

Write and present a research report to

peers and industry experts.

Understand the nature of research,

quantitative and qualitative approaches, and
the research process.
Application
Apply research methods for data collection;
analyse and interpret data and solve research
problem. Manage the research project
effectively.
Integration
Use various sources of information available to
students in this field of study to write a
literature review and situational analysis that
integrates knowledge gained and shows the
relationship between theory and practice.
Write and present a research report to peers
and industry experts.
Human dimension
Manage oneself in relation to the available
time and resources, including feedback from
supervisor and language practitioner. Learn to
interact significantly with others who are
different to oneself.
Caring
Reflect on the research project and how it
could be used to influence ones own life and
that of others significantly.

10 | P a g e

Learning how to learn

Become a self-directing learner who is able to
reflect and pass judgement on ones own
performance. And in the process be able to
identify what further steps need to be taken to
make the learning process an experience of
significant change in oneself and ones life.

Key components of integrated course design

Like Biggs model of constructive alignment, Finks model of integrated course design has the
same elements of learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities and assessment. However,
Fink has expanded assessment to include feedback. He uses a rather delightful term, FIDeLity
feedback, which means feedback that is Frequent, Immediate, Discriminating, and done Lovingly
(2003:100). Feedback is indeed a very important component of assessment not only in terms of
the learning that appropriate feedback encourages, but also in terms of the students personal
growth towards emotional maturity as they learn to accept and manage that feedback.

Figure 4: Key components of Finks model of significant integrated course design

(Source: Fink, 2003:127)
Fink uses Wiggins terminology (cited in Fink 2003:82) of auditive and educative assessment,
where the former refers to assessment that merely looks back to see (take an audit of) whether
the learner understood the work, while the latter, educative assessment, is forward-looking
assessment whose primary purpose is to help students learn better.
Fink also distinguishes between passive and active learning, where the former refers to
receiving information and ideas while the latter refers to experiencing and reflecting. He
suggests three strategies for implementing powerful forms of active learning: create rich
learning experiences, find new ways to introduce students to information and ideas and

11 | P a g e

promote in-depth reflective writing on the learning process. It is important to remember that
this active learning forms part of Finks view of learning as change.
Fink (2003:69) adds a further dimension, namely situational factors, which need to be taken
into consideration when designing an integrated course for significant learning. Basically, this
requires conducting an in-depth situational analysis of the specific teaching and learning
situation. These situational factors are: specific context of the teaching and learning situation,
expectations of external groups, nature of the subject, characteristics of the learners,
characteristics of the teacher and the special pedagogical challenge. The examples below
indicate our reflection on these situational factors as they impact upon our course:
Specific context of the teaching and learning situation
Less than 20 learners
Class once per week after normal working hours
Web-based support material provision
Expectations of external groups
Different stakeholders in different occupations will have different expectations, but generically:
Good oral and written communication
Good interpersonal skills, able to work in a team, able to apply theory to practice, treat
others with respect
Personal attributes such as responsibility, self-esteem and self-management, sociability
and integrity.
Nature of the subject
Cognitive
Requires application of technical knowledge
Rapidly changing industry environment
Characteristics of the learners
Diverse
Many personal Discourses
Different levels of mastery in terms of English language proficiency
Some are full-time students
Some are part-time students who work full-time during the day
Characteristics of the teachers
Research expertise
Technical skills and knowledge
Experienced teachers and supervisors
Different personal Discourses
Special pedagogical challenge
Special situation in this course novice researchers
English as additional language for the majority of learners.
In keeping with his holistic approach, Fink (2003:69) has incorporated characteristics of
learners which consider aspects such as life-situation, family/work responsibilities;
life/professional goals related to the learning experience, reasons for enrolling, prior
knowledge, skills, attitude towards the subject, learning styles inter alia. Characteristics of
teachers include prior experience, knowledge, skills, attitude in terms of the subject; has she/he
taught it before; level of competence of teacher & confidence in subject; what prior experiences,
knowledge, skills and attitudes does teacher have vis vis the process of teaching, i.e. effective
teaching? Fink (ibid.) describes the special pedagogical challenge as: What is the special
situation in this course that challenges the students and the teacher in the desire to make this a
meaningful and important learning experience?

12 | P a g e

An adapted model
In addition to the situational factors, we would suggest a model that incorporates the personal
Discourses of both the learners and teachers. This is important because the socio-cultural
context of both parties influence the teaching and learning situation, as has been demonstrated
in the example of Students A and B earlier in this paper. We feel that this would add a further
richness to Finks holistic approach and the personal Discourse would fit well into his
situational factors which consider the characteristics of learners and teachers. The question
arises, How does Personal Discourse differ from Characteristics of learners and teachers?
The most significant difference lies in the deliberately socio-cultural approach and application
of Gees theory that Personal Discourse represents. Although Finks Characteristics of learners
and teachers does indeed consider the personal, human element, we feel that it does not go far
enough. Some of the elements of Personal Discourse, particularly, the philosophical dimension
and social justice aspect are not present in Finks taxonomy to a sufficient degree. We feel the
need to incorporate personal Discourse into Finks taxonomy of significant learning because we
have many special pedagogical challenges in South Africa. By incorporating personal Discourse
we hope to make both learners and teachers aware of their own rich contexts and multiple
literacies so that together we can harness our strengths for emancipatory transformation of self
and society.

Figure 5: Model of significant and integrated learning adapted from Fink

The above figure illustrates that our model retains Finks ground-breaking taxonomy of
significant learning, but feeds the primary and secondary Discourses of both learners and
teachers into the situational factors , particularly into Characteristics of learners and teachers.
Conclusion
This paper has considered the approaches to deep and surface learning, Haggiss critique
thereof and our critique of Biggs and has adapted Finks significant learning model. We have
contextualised this paper within the 2008 BTRM. Our reflections have clarified for us that we
view learning as significant change in a learner and that our use of Biggs constructive alignment
did not produce sufficient change within a diverse student cohort. We recognise that we did not

13 | P a g e

fully utilise our students strengths. Having decided to take a more holistic approach that
incorporates both the strengths and richness of our students personal Discourses, we have
chosen to use Finks taxonomy of significant learning. We also realise that redefining learning
outcomes, learning activities and assessment according to Finks holistic approach will require
of us to be in tune with the socio-cultural dynamics that students bring into the classroom. This
is a dynamic approach that is open to reflection and revision. It recognises that significant
learning encompasses both a process and an outcome: teaching should result in something
others can look at and say: That learning experience resulted in something that is truly
significant in terms of the students lives (Fink, 2003:6).
List of references
Atherton, J.S. 2005. Learning and Teaching: Deep and Surface learnin. [On-line] UK: Available:
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/deepsurf.htm Accessed: 27 October 2008.
Biggs, J.B. 1994. Student learning Research and Theory where do we currently stand? In Gibbs,
G. (ed.) Improving Student Learning Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff
Development.
Biggs, J. B. 1996. Enhancing Teaching through Constructive Alignment. Higher Education,
32:347-364.
Biggs, J. 2003. Aligning Teaching and Assessment to Curriculum Objectives. The Higher
Education Academy.
Brabrand,C. 2007. Constructive Alignment for teaching Model-based Design for Concurrency.
Invited paper at TEACONC 2007.
Entwistle, N. 2000. Promoting Deep Learning through Teaching and Assessment: Conceptual
Frameworks and Educational Contexts. Paper presented at the TLRP Conference, Leicester,
2000.
Fink, D.L. 2003. Creating Significant Learning Experiences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gee, J.P. 2005. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. 2nd ed. New York:
Routledge.
Gee, J.P. 1996. Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). London: Taylor &
Francis.
Haggis, T. 2003. Constructing Images of Ourselves? A critical inverstigation into Approaches to
Learning Research in Higher Education. British Educational Research Journal, 29 (1):89-104.
Haggis, T. 2006. Pedagogies for Diversity: retaining critical challenge amidst fears of dumbing
down. Studies in Higher Education, 31(5): 521-535.
Hawley, J. M. 2005. Border crossing: Active and Deep Learning in a large Global Consumption
Class. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 23(4): 229-237.
Lea, M.R. 2004. Academic Literacies: a Pedagogy for Course Design. Studies in Higher Education,
29 (6):739-756.
Marshall, D. and Case, J. 2005. Approaches to Learning Research in Higher Education: a
Response to Haggis. British Educational Research Journal, 31(2): 257-267.
McCune, V. and Entwistle, N. 2000. The deep approach to learning: analytic abstraction and
idiosyncratic development. Paper presented at the Innovations in Higher Education Conference,
30 August 2 September 2000, Helsinki, Finland.
The New London Group. 1996. A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: designing Social Futures. Harvard
Educational Review, 66(1).

14 | P a g e

Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. and Waterhouse, F. 1999. Relations between teachers approaches to
teaching and students approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37: 57-90.

15 | P a g e