Working in curricular contexts

In an earlier section I mentioned the debate about so-called “bolt-on” vs “built-in” approaches to learning skills instruction. Some have argued forcefully about the ineffectiveness of generic learning and study skills instruction offered “centrally” and divorced from the specific disciplinary content. According to these thinkers, we should “do away” with this kind of generic “bolt-on” approach and focus entirely on learning skills instruction that is built-in to the curricular, classroom content. While I see no need to abandon one modality for the sake of the other, there is no arguing about the effectiveness of a built-in approach. Indeed, learning strategies can find their best and most effective purchase when they are integrated into the specific problems presented by particular disciplinary subject-matter. A student wrestling with the complexities of algebra will need different strategies than the student deep into the readings of medieval literature or struggling to memorize human anatomy. Generic skills, while useful, will only go so far. Approaching our work in this built-in way presents both challenges and opportunities, some brief discussion of which is the purpose of the following section.

Forms of embedded learning strategy content

There are a variety of ways that this built-in model of learning strategy provision can occur. The central feature that distinguishes these offerings from the generic bolt-on varieties is that they speak in some way specifically to course, curricular, or disciplinary content. Many of our partners, faculty and otherwise, will request our presence for standard “workshops” to be delivered to their specific audience but this kind of offering would not satisfy that condition. The audience may be specific, but the content remains generic. Only when that content is customized to, not just the audience, but to the relevant curricular context, can it be considered truly “embedded”. So, while there are first-order learning strategies and study skills that can apply across all curricular contexts (pomodoro method, interleaving, basic planning and time-management etc.) there are second order tactics that apply to the challenges presented by specific disciplinary content (problem-solving for math, making sense of philosophy texts, design principles for computer science etc.). This can be offered in various ways:

• content, either in one-off workshops or in series, customized at request to support students in completing course work, or more effectively engaging in specific curricular content
• collaborative efforts in course or subject-specific instructional/assignment design in ways that integrate learning skills and strategies
• variations on supplemental instruction models whereby upper year peers offer out-of-class strategic support for specific courses (distinct from content-based tutoring)
• development of stand-alone course/discipline specific resources and toolkits to help faculty (and others) integrate learning skills and strategies into their teaching design
• Fully embedded, course-long integration of study/learning skills as part of the course design

Challenges with the embedded approach

Executing effective embedded approaches to this work requires navigating a distinct set of associated challenges, including:

• Scalability – because these initiatives, by their nature, require a level of customization to learning strategy content that integrates with curricular content, there is an accompanying demand on time and resources. Depending on the size and complexity of the institution in question, this can make it challenging to offer these initiatives in fair and equal distribution to the various stakeholders requesting them.  The mandate of study and learning skills departments is typically to serve all students at the institution so judicious decision-making is required when responding to local requests such that they do not compromise the ability to serve more broadly.

• Competing goals and aspirations – the hallmark of these embedded approaches is collaboration with the relevant local partners and subject matter experts. While this is the core value of the approach, it requires ongoing communication with collaborators in order to align goals and aspirations, which can differ in principle and practice between learning strategy professionals and our partners driven by different priorities.

• Trust – again, competing priorities between learning strategy staff and partners necessitates the building of trust with the stakeholders. Learning Strategy work can be misunderstood or even regarded with skepticism by faculty and others, who may question its value or the academic credentials of the staff delivering it. This requires time and commitment to help partners understand and have confidence in our contributions and expertise. Part of this involves educating others about what those contributions are – that Learning Strategists are not there as “placeholders” in the class, that we are not there to offer instructional support (the role of the teaching and learning department), but that we offer a unique window onto the student experience of that instruction.

• Intruding upon content instruction – including specific learning strategy instruction within other curricular contexts requires making time and space for this. This can be tricky in academic environments typically characterized by time constraints. Many faculty and other partners face pressures to deliver a predetermined body of curricular content within a finite timeframe so, the addition of learning strategy content can be regarded as further compromising that priority.  Indeed, this predicament highlights the central purpose and challenge of “embeddedness” as an integration rather than an add-on (built-in rather than bolted on).

• Disciplinary knowledge – although not strictly a requirement for the effective integration of embedded learning strategies, a background in the relevant disciplinary content can be helpful. Offering learning strategy approaches in the context of specific courses or disciplines is obviously best when there is a good grounding in the core content and challenges of that discipline. The educational backgrounds of staff in learning and study skills departments will vary and likely will not include expertise across the full range of academic disciplines. At the very least, with or without a strong disciplinary background, it is necessary to gain familiarity with the specific relevant context in consultation with the partner – ie. getting access to course outlines and syllabi, assignments, areas of particular challenge etc. Again, this can be time-consuming and resource intensive.

Benefits of the Embedded Approach

Despite some of the challenges cited above, the “embedded” or “built-in” approach should nevertheless be part of the work in whatever form is feasible since it is in the integration with curricular content that study and learning strategies can often be best actualized.  Benefits of this approach include:

• Access – learning strategy supports offered centrally as “co-curricular” opportunities are voluntary and thus attended by only a small fraction of the student population and not necessarily by those who may need them most. Learning strategy support integrated into class/course/curricular spaces can reach all students where they are already gathered in the context of their courses. In this way the support is made more universally available.

• Relevance – learning support offered in this integrated way can land as more relevant to students who see it as responding to their immediate, situational academic predicaments and challenges.

• Pedagogical soundness – the embedded approach allows for study strategies and techniques to be experienced by students as opposed to merely being delivered to them. At its best, learning strategy support offered in this way allows students to see and try and practice and reflect upon novel approaches to solving academic problems in the immediate context in which they arise.

• Depth – a primary function of post-secondary education is to give students the necessary instruction, guidance, space, time, and skills to be “in study” with subject matter. Offering students instruction on study that is embedded into disciplinary subject matter provides them with a kind of study strategy specificity that enables this. Not “how to read a text”, but “how to engage with and respond effectively to a philosophy text”. Not “how to succeed at math” but “how to apply Polya’s problem solving method to differential equations”. And so on.

In some ways, this idea of embeddedness surfaces a kind of tension in the work we do, raises central questions about its place and function in post-secondary education. There are those who argue (wrongly, in my opinion) that a focus on centrally offered, generic learning support perpetuates a kind of “game-playing” function in which we are mere technicians helping students to apply generic technique to the “game” of education, and surface learning.  On the other hand, they say, an embedded approach offers the opportunity for deep learning in the appropriate curricular context where it belongs.  As I’ve argued earlier, this is a false dichotomy. There are good reasons to offer both approaches and to recognize the distinct value that each offers. Sometimes the relevant identity of those we serve is simply “student”, generically, someone grappling with the experience of their own learning and education and sense of belonging. In other cases, we serve math students, or history students, or nursing students grappling with things more specific to that context.