Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The Task Force on Educating for Excellence in the MPA Degree acknowledged the essential role of active learning when it advocated the use of pedagogical strategies such as classroom exercises and collaborative projects with agencies. The extent to which these strategies foster reflexivity and praxis is limited by stimulus-response learning, i.e., students deciphering what the instructor wants and producing the appropriate responses/materials. To measure the students' preferences for stimulus-response learning, the authors developed a questionnaire that was distributed to students enrolled in MPA courses at a mid-western university. The findings suggest the students' strong preference for stimulus-response learning arises from a fixation on maximizing grades within the allotted time for studies. Given this finding, a program's success in cultivating reflexivity and praxis is impacted by the adoption of strategies that counteract the preference for stimulus-response learning and thereby encourage students to become more self-directed. Several of these strategies are discussed in the paper's final section.

Keywords

Rote learning learning preferences learning processes graduate education

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

(2006) PowerPoint, habits of mind, and classroom culture. Journal of Curriculum Studies 38(4): 389–411.

Albanese

(2000) Problem-based learning: Why curricula are likely to show little effect on knowledge and clinical skills. Medical Education 34(9): 729–738.

Albers

(2009) Teaching: from disappointment to ecstasy. Teaching Sociology 37(July): 269–282.

Baeten

Dochy

Struyven

(2008) Students’ approaches to learning and assessment preferences in a portfolio-based learning environment. Instructional Science 36 (5–6): 359–374.

Billing

(2007) Teaching for transfer of core/key skills in higher education: Cognitive skills. International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning 53(4): 483–516.

Boesen

Lithner

Palm

(2010) The relationship between types of assessment tasks and the mathematical reasoning students use. Educational Studies in Mathematics 75(1): 89–105.

Brost

Bradley

(2006) Student compliance with assigned reading: A case study. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 6(2):101–111.

Burchfield

Sappington

(2000) Compliance with required reading assignments. Teaching of Psychology 27(1): 58–60.

Choudhury

Gouldsborough

Gabriel

(2010) Use of interactive sessions and e-learning in teaching anatomy to first-year optometry students. Anatomical Science Education 3(1): 39–45.

10.

Clump

Doll

(2007) Do the low levels of reading course material continue? An examination in a forensic psychology graduate program. Journal of Instructional Psychology 34(4): 242–246.

11.

Connor-Greene

(2000) Assessing and promoting student learning: Blurring the line between teaching and testing. Teaching of Psychology 27(2): 84–88.

12.

Doyle

(1988) Work in mathematics classes: The context of students’ thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist 23(2): 167–180.

13.

Gijbels

Segers

Struyf

(2008) Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to change students’ perceptions of assessment demands and approaches to learning. Instructional Science 36 (5–6): 431–443.

14.

Henry

Goodsell

Lynn

Jr Stivers

Wamsley

(2009) Understanding excellence in public administration: The Report of the Task Force on Educating for Excellence in the Master of Public Administration Degree of the American Society for Public Administration. Journal of Public Affairs Education 15(2): 117–133.

15.

Lithner

(2008) A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics 67(3): 255–276.

16.

Lord

(2008) Darn it, professor. Just tell us what we need to know to pass your course. Journal of College Science Teaching 37(3):71–73.

17.

McCurry

Martins

(2010) Teaching undergraduate nursing research: A comparison of traditional and innovative approaches for success with millennial learners. Journal of Nursing Education 49(5): 276–279.

18.

Marchant

(2002) Student reading of assigned articles: Will this be on the test? Teaching of Psychology 29(1):49–51.

19.

Ogilvie

(2009) Changes in students’ problem-solving strategies in a course that includes context-rich, multifaceted problems. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research 5(2): Article Number 020102.

20.

Peters

(2011) Enhancing academic achievement by identifying and minimizing the impediments to active learning. Public Administration Quarterly 35(4): 466–493.

21.

Raffel

(2009) Looking forward: A response to the ASPA task force report on educating for excellence in the MPA. Journal of Public Affairs Education 15(2): 135–144.

22.

Raidal

Volet

(2009) Preclinical students’ predisposition towards social forms of instruction and self-directed learning: A challenge for the development of autonomous and collaborative learners. Higher Education 57(5): 577–596.

23.

Sappington

Kinsey

Munsayac

(2002) Two studies of reading comprehension among college students. Teaching of Psychology 29(4): 272–274.

24.

Taylor

White

(2006) Knowledge and reasoning in social work: Educating humane judgement. British Journal of Social Work 36(6): 937–954.

25.

Uskul

Eaton

(2005) Using graded questions to increase timely reading of assigned materials. Teaching of Psychology 32(2): 116–118.

26.

Watters

(2007) Approaches to learning by students in the biological sciences: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education 29(1): 19–43.

Maximizing reflexivity and praxis by recognizing and counteracting the constraints imposed by stimulus-response learning

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References