University Curriculum and Student Learning

Student Learning
Nationwide discussion within the last ten years on the subject of education has given considerable attention to the ideal means of evaluating pupil learning. Ever more intense deliberations are being carried out regarding how to determine the aspects undergraduate learners learn in the course of their degree program. The engineering program has emerged at the learning curve’s head (Breslow, Lienhard, Masi, Seering, & Ulm, 2008).
Pupils have feelings which may positively or negatively impact their learning, to the same extent as skill, efforts or knowledge. Motivated pupils show much greater likelihood to learn; further, motivation may be impacted greatly by how learners feel. Maslow’s 1943 need hierarchy theory cleverly explains this idea. While self- actualization is situated at the peak of this model, the theorist contends that the requisite drive to achieve self- actualization will surface only after the fulfilment of the prior four more essential and elementary needs, which are: physiological needs; security/ safety needs; belongingness; and self- esteem (Rust, 2013).
Learners’ outlook towards, and beliefs regarding, knowledge influence their learning. Numerous evidently divergent stands exist in this regard, which may be arrayed in the form of a cognitive and intellectual developmental hierarchy. Experience and education will probably facilitate the pathway leading across the aforementioned relevant stands. Ever since William Perry’s first ideas, multiple theoreticians have described and organized these stands in their own, somewhat different way. But they basically commence with an original stance in which pupils perceive things to be either incorrect or correct (‘dualist’), believing all issues have a ‘correct’ solution which people may not have found as yet. Furthermore, they traverse stances which commence accepting uncertainty and perceiving knowledge to be more concerned with opinion. In the end, this stops at the understanding that certain proven explanations depict greater validity compared to other explanations (‘relativist’) (Rust, 2013).
The year 1998 saw ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) implementing Engineering Criteria 2000; this required engineering courses to submit information displaying learning outcome attainment. After shortly completing the next cycle as per novel rules, engineering program departments, supported by EIA (Education Innovation and Assessment) directors, have come up with theories and instruments for improving evaluation of pupil learning which suits individual departments’ distinctive needs. Evaluation techniques may be grouped as both external and internal. The former are typically administered just prior or subsequent to graduating whereas the latter are utilized prior to graduating (Breslow, Lienhard, Masi, Seering, & Ulm, 2008).
A majority of scholars assume additional refining of research techniques, more stringent standards and novel statistical controls will increase knowledge. At present, several are doubting this premise. Of late, it takes hardly any scrutiny of literature on the subject of education for seeing the big uncertainties posed by constructionism, modernism, feminism, and post- modernism. On the other hand, according to the traditional outlook on knowledge, a reality exists (i.e., a foundation exists on the basis of which all information is constructed. Students need to discover the extant world. Indeed, this implies the presence of a correct answer, known by specialists; at the very least, specialists possess means to ultimately unearth the correct answer by means of objective scientific studies (Cross, 2012).
Although both approaches appear contemporary and progressive given their acceptance of the merits of dynamic learning, learning from peers, deriving benefits from diversity, acquiring collaboration skills, and a majority of other small group approach- entrenched benefits, concerted and collective learning approaches have rather distinct ideas regarding knowledge’s nature and the way it ought to be attained. In brief, concerted learning entails more traditional ideas of cooperation, with pupils teaming up into small clusters for completing assignments or resolving issues, while being guided and monitored by the educator who ensures pupils remain on track and find the right answers. Indeed, this involves the presumption that a correct or ideal solution exists, which the educator knows of. Concerted learning is being considered by a majority of educators participating in the learning revolution (Cross, 2012).
Leading- edge books on commercial revolution form a second sign of how prevalent a shifting perspective regarding knowledge sources is. If the current era faces digression of philosophical examination between knowledge sources such as scientific rigor, one has to take note of the resemblances between developmental phases of individual progress and societal knowledge pursuit. The current challenge is going beyond developmental phases leading to a totalitarian quest for the correct answers or a democratic concept of accepting every idea as being equally valid. The above phases have ruled over the present era’s intellectual circles (Cross, 2012).
Perhaps the most salient thing to do is create maximum possible self- awareness of the phases learners are at, followed by offering learning opportunities for encouraging and facilitating shifts to the subsequent stage. Several examples have been posed by Craig Nelson on how to achieve the above; these include: considering information’s history within a particular field; establishing tasks like choosing one of several conflicting concepts or models and substantiating one’s choice; and testing hypotheses (Rust, 2013).
Discussion Question
Aiding pupils in showing enthusiasm and interest in whatever they learn will probably enhance intrinsic motivation as well; further, it depicts the likelihood of being associated with facilitating the understanding of its significance. What is the reason for the above subject’s importance – to learners, the broader discipline, and the entire world? Why ought they to be aware of, and acquire a grasp of, it?



Bibliography
Breslow, L., Lienhard, J., Masi, B., Seering, W., & Ulm, F. (2008). How Do We Know if Students are Learning? Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Cross, K. P. (2012). WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT STUDENTS' LEARNING AND HOW DO WE KNOW IT? In C. Conrad, & J. Johnson, College andUniversity Curriculum: Placing learning at the epicenter of courses, programs and institutions (pp. 700–708). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Rust, C. (2013). What do we think we know about student learning, and what are the implications for improving that learning? Oxford Brookes University.