Good Teaching
GOOD TEACHING 2
Unlike in the past when students were only admitted to the universities based on their
potential as dictated by their academic qualification, everything has totally changed in the
learning system of today whereby the sieve is no longer put in place, and virtually anyone gets
admission to the higher learning institution of their choice. Because of this, there has arisen
several challenges as to whether the approaches adopted by the teachers in delivering the various
learning points may still remain effective even with the paradigm shift, as more and more
learners are changing from learning with the aim of gaining knowledge to the learning with the
aim of securing good jobs. Several researchers: (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983); (Marton & Booth,
1997); (Martin & Balla, 1991); (Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992); (Prosser & Trigwell, 1998), have
in the debate of how best the teachers should change to accommodate the changes in the
curricular systems. It is upon this ground that the journal by John Biggs (2012) came up with
several models to get to understand the various ways in which the learning processes are
undertaken and how they affect the outcomes.
The very first determinant of good teaching and the level of competence of any learning
facilitator, as put across by Biggs is the ability to understand the students in terms of the various
ways in which they are diversified. Whereas some students have very high level of engagement,
others rarely get engaged in the learning process, and as such, may not get too deep to the point
of understanding what really the content entails, though they may be able to get the required
outcomes. This is termed by Biggs as the engagement level. The teachers should also know the
best teaching approach that they may adopt to help the various students since not all the students
are educational (Biggs, 2012).
GOOD TEACHING 3
Whereas the low engagement students will make very little effort at the level of trying to
understand what is taught, at the end of it, they too will get the very grades as the ones with high
engagement, though they may be lacking in content.
A question that arises with regards to the various teaching approaches is whether the
teachers have really taken into consideration all the three levels of the learning and teaching
model: what the student is, being at the lowest point; what the teacher does at the second level
and eventually what the student does at the highest level. Strangely, the third and highest level is
considered the most effective learning process, which, unfortunately, has not been adopted by
most teachers. To help in understanding his argument, John Biggs suggests three assumptions
that underlie the learning theories proposed by him: the existing individualistic difference
between the students is what elicit learning, learning is purely dependent on the teachers’ input
and lastly, leaning is dependent on the activities that mainly focus n the students, not merely as
learners but also as the facilitators (Biggs, 2012).
However, the fact that comes out in all the practical cases undertaken is that the first two
are just additions t the core learning demand, which is the focus on the student participation.
Because of this, the level tree teachers are the most recommended as they have the ability to keep
the students engaged, rather than the level one teachers whose core aim is to transmit the
information required, after which it is upon the students to see to it that they attend the lectures
and stay attentive in classrooms.
To sum it up, the teaching levels that are adopted by most teachers must be reconsidered
to cope with the current demands of the learning procedures since there have been too much
changes in the level of the students’ engagement, which greatly affects the learning outcomes.
GOOD TEACHING 4
References
Biggs J. (2012). What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning, Higher Education
Research & Development, 31:1, 39-55,
