When Teachers Become Learners

Marilla D. Svinicki
Center for Teaching Effectiveness
University of Texas at Austin

For years, I got upset with faculty who did not seem to want what I, as a colleague who'd specialized in understanding teaching, was trying to share with them through the faculty development center. Finally, I've learned to stop and ask myself: How can I, as a psychologist, forget that faculty members' learning about teaching is just as subject to the principles of learning as is their students' learning about content? And yet, that seems precisely what I do each time we initiate a wonderful new program on improving teaching only to find it greeted with a decided lack of enthusiasm by our intended audience, sometimes even by those who requested it in the first place.

Now, instead of lamenting "What's wrong with the faculty these days?" I try to recommit myself to treating my learners (the faculty) as learners and recognize that much of what I tell them to do with regard to their students also applies to them as well.

For myself, then, and for my fellow faculty developers, let me lay out a few ideas about learning and motivation we need to keep in mind when designing or assessing programs for faculty. They are, finally, the same ideas faculty need to keep in mind when teaching students, ideas we might all benefit from remembering as we learn from our own experiences.

Proposition 1:
Faculty are no more alike in their learning styles than their students.

Once it did sink in that faculty have as many different learning preferences as students, I felt somehow better. In fact, if I had looked at my own learning style I would have realized that even I don't choose to attend workshops on everything I need to learn about. There are times when I prefer to learn in private and times when I need someone's help. My faculty colleagues are no different. There are many interested in learning about teaching who are not interested in attending workshops. They'd prefer a one-on-one discussion or perhaps a reading list. They may even prefer on-the-job, trial and error learning.

The implications of this revelation? Besides not taking their lack of attendance personally, we should recognize that these stylistic differences mean that we need to be as diverse and flexible in our teaching about teaching as we expect faculty to be in their teaching about content. We have all-day intensive workshops for some people and some topics; short, one-shot workshops for the curious, but undecided; written, self-study materials for those with tight schedules and only random minutes in which to learn more about teaching. The advent of distributed learning technologies now even makes it possible to deliver some of our instruction via computers to the privacy of someone's office in the dead of night.

This accommodation to differences in the styles and preferences of our learners also serves as a good model for the way they might best treat their own students. It is hard to imagine teaching in a new mode if you have not experienced it yourself. Thus, if we make it possible for faculty to experience a range of strategies for learning, they might become more interested in adopting those strategies in their classes for their students. In effect, by varying our teaching strategies, we practice what we preach.

Proposition 2:
Motivation to learn derives from the learner's estimates of the usefulness of the task and the probability of success.

Motivation theory offers insight into this behavior characteristic of resistance to new learning. No single theory fits every person and every situation, but some very generative models offer good suggestions about designing instruction that takes this resistance into account. Perhaps the most useful model here is one based on "task value" and "expectancy for success."

Task value refers to the degree to which the task or information is worthwhile to the learner. There are several ways for something to be worthwhile. If we need a skill right now, we're motivated to learn it. I personally learned more about statistics while doing my dissertation

For faculty, as for students, trust necessarily precedes the risk of learning something new

We repeatedly tell faculty to show students how they will use what they're being taught later on. Faculty need to have the same faith in the utility of the learning they undertake. We have to show them practical examples of how the information can be used in their teaching. Note that I said "practical examples." Abstractions and generalities give the big picture, but examples of how something can actually be used are the key to lifting learners over barriers of resistance. That's why programs for faculty which draw on the experience of other faculty are so well-received.

The power of peer example completes the expectancy/value motivation model. When we see peers using new information or skills successfully, our expectation of personal success increases. And this increased sense of self-efficacy increases our motivation.

People seldom undertake tasks where they feel guaranteed to fail, especially faculty. With their hectic, overloaded schedules and their high expectations of themselves, they will not have the patience or tolerance to attempt something that doesn't have a high probability of success. Multimedia offers a good example. The task value of being able to create multimedia presentations is high, but for many faculty, the belief that they could actually produce something so sophisticated is initially low, particularly if they see it demonstrated by a media wizard. However, when demonstrated by a fellow faculty member who has actually learned to manipulate the machines and programs to produce such materials, faculty expectations of themselves change markedly.

Proposition 3:
Even highly skilled learners revert to a lower level of learning with new material.

This same progression of increasing sophistication occurs in learning about academic subjects. When you hear students ask "So what's the right way to do this?" they are really asking what the basics are. They're not at a level to appreciate finer points. Their concern is with immediate needs. "Just teach me how to hit the ball. I'll worry about where to hit it later."

Eventually, students who develop a solid grounding in the basics will begin to branch out to more sophisticated understandings. The instructor, who is already an expert in the area, is long past this stage and on to appreciating the content for what it can lead to, not just as an end in itself. The frustration faculty experience with students who insist on knowing what the right answer is reflects a failure to understand how learning happens.

Are faculty significantly different from their students? I can report that faculty can be as narrow in their view of new material as students. Hence they often deem workshops on basic teaching procedures more valuable than ones that dig deeper into the complexities of cognition and learning theory. In essence, faculty ask for the same instruction as their students: "Don't tell me all the details and ramifications; just tell me how to do it." This can be as frustrating to the faculty developer as it is to faculty in their own classes. We are aware that there is much more to a teaching decision than can be presented in a two-hour workshop, but we are constrained by our attendees' background and sophistication about learning. They want to know the steps in writing a multiple choice test, not the theories of measurement that underlie those steps.

So, should we pander to this lower level of understanding and present cookbook solutions to the complex problems of teaching? My answer will surprise you: yes, at least initially. We have to remember that our own level of sophistication with regard to instructional design is very different from that of most faculty simply because we have had more time to think about these things. They need to know the basics first, and they'll be as impatient as the students if they come away from a session with nothing tangible they can use. So, yes, initially we should focus on basic principles and suggest that there is much more to this topic than meets the eye.

Faculty differ from students, however, in that they are already very sophisticated learners. They may be novices in this subject, but not in learning itself. They are aware that there is more beyond the surface strategies, even if they are not ready to learn it. But the fact that they have reached higher levels of understanding in their own disciplines alerts them to the possibility of similar complexities in teaching. Therefore, they will reach the level of sophistication we aim at much more quickly than someone who has never reached that level in any area.

Proposition 4:
Learning is a risky business and takes courage and support.

Proposition 5:
We are learners, too.