Post-Graduate Certificate in HE

While teaching at the University of Sussex, I completed my PGCertHE, which consisted of taught sessions, observations (Two taught by me and two by other faculty, each with feedback and reflection) and the essay below. The PGCertHE is a Level 7 (Master's level) on the UK NQF (National Qualifications Framework), and is accredited by the HEA (Higher Education Academy).

Teacher Beliefs and Identity: Reflections on Teaching at a UK University

CPD (Continuing Professional Development) is an integral part of being a teacher, and therefore when the opportunity to do a PGCert arose, I immediately enrolled on the programme. The training sessions were very useful the facilitators generally and provided an opportunity for participants to share and learn from one another, which reflects the University of Sussex’s commitment to an inter-disciplinary approach. The course runs alongside teaching and therefore it was natural to focus on the current teaching context. One pedagogical issue that arose was teacher belief and identity, and the role that these play both inside and outside of in the classroom. My belief in my identity as an effective teacher who maintained a good rapport with learners was compromised, and this affected other aspects of my teaching, as well as my personal life. This situation primarily resulted because of the challenging learner profile of a specific group of foundation year students on a PADS (Personal and Academic Development Skills) module, who I had had no previous experience of teaching, and therefore no knowledge of their beliefs and identity. Additional challenges that contributed to this was that it was a new module on a new programme and this was my first term as a permanent Tutorial Fellow at SCLS (Sussex Centre for Language Studies). As a result of these tensions, I was unable to maintain my authentic teaching identity, which I believe differs only marginally from my overall identity, and instead felt I had to assume an inauthentic role to ensure that I could continue teaching this group. This experience motivated me to explore the role that teacher beliefs and identity, both in terms of their construction and development play in our professional lives,

This paper first examines several theories and frameworks for teacher belief and identity and then explores my own professional beliefs and identity. Following this, a comparison of the PADS (Level III NVQ) and first year undergraduates (Level IV NQF) is given. Next, a profile of the PADS learners I taught, as well as my understanding about their beliefs and identity are given through an analysis of classroom incidents. Finally, I will reflect on and evaluate my pedagogical decisions and present strategies for next year.

Teacher Beliefs:

Almarza (1986) asserts that teachers have a ‘filter,’ i.e., their belief system, through which they view students, education and teaching, and that this will always exist, although it is not static. This also informs how they perceive themselves as teachers. Johnson (1992) writes that teachers’ belief systems affect their ideas about education, the nature of learning, the role of the teacher and effective teaching practices, which covers the major components of teaching; in other words, it determines who they are as teachers and what they do in the classroom. Richards and Lockheart (1994) suggest that teacher beliefs create a ‘culture of teaching’ which permeates all aspects of teaching. My perceptions of myself as an educator have been greatly shaped by both my experiences as a teacher and learner, and below are key theories that have contributed to this.

One of my core teaching beliefs is Constructivism, which is an inter-disciplinary approach that places the learner at the centre, with the key premise being that learners continually participate in and construct their own learning and knowledge, and that this is beneficial in that it leads to deeper learning (Dewey 1966; Piaget 1966). I believe learners must be active, negotiate meaning, directly engage with the material and synthesise and apply the skills they learn. Furthermore, when they enjoy the content, materials and classroom atmosphere, they are engaged beyond a superficial surface level (Marton and Säljö 1976; Biggs 1987; Floyd, Harrington and Santiago 2009). This is featured in Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom et al 1956), where HOTS (Higher Order Thinking Skills) such as analysing, evaluating and synthesising, and later creating, are considered essential for deep learning.

Another key area is Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), which focuses directly on the roles of the teacher and learner, and the relationship that exists between the two. Vygotsky posits that developmental goals are reached with the assistance of a more skilled individual. Although he is not directly responsible for the term ‘scaffolding,’ it is through this method that a considerable amount of learner development occurs. (Van der Veer & Valsiner 1994). Crucial to the success of this is that it occurs in a cooperative social environment with the participation of all members.

Connectivism is another appropriate model because it acknowledges the continuity of learning: It occurs long before learners enter the classroom and continues long after they graduate. It also stresses that ‘know-how’ and ‘know-what’ are being superseded by ‘know-where’ (Seimens 2004). This is exemplified in situations where learners share their experiences to create solutions to problems, as well as analyse and apply theories to practical situations and case studies, which facilitates deeper learning (Lublin 2003). Connectivism also emphasises that learning has changed and now occurs in non-traditional spaces and features different relationships between teachers and learners. This approach stresses the development of learner autonomy and the building of a support network, both inside and outside of the classroom, which will also help support learners’ transitions into their university.

An additional useful approach is Contemplative Education, both for learners as well as teachers. This approach involves metacognition through extensive reflection and self-awareness including motivation (Craig 2011). Contemplative Education focuses on the person as a whole, both inside and outside of the classroom, and views issues such as stress management and maintaining a positive outlook as essential. Pastoral care and non-pedagogical factors are part of teaching and learning, and in order for education to be successful, teachers must monitor their emotional and mental states.

There are several other models that can be used to examine how teachers perceive teaching. Posner (1985) suggests that teaching could be viewed as a didactic activity, where a teacher’s role is to disseminate facts for the students to receive; a discovery activity, in which students explore and engage with the subject and learn for themselves with limited direct intervention by the teacher, or as an interactional activity, where learners come with existing ideas about the world and the teacher facilitates learning by mediating between existing beliefs/knowledge and the new information being presented and learned in the classroom. When teaching, I use a discovery approach, scaffold and support learning and avoid didacticism as much as possible. Johnson (1992) identifies skills-based, rules-based and function-based approaches to teaching. These need not be mutually exclusive, and my teaching philosophy incorporates skills and function-based approaches, but I do not focus heavily on rigid rules or prescription as I believe successful learning must incorporate learner choice and exploration (Lublin 2003) (V3). This is rarely a neat and tidy process, but for me the outcomes are much more beneficial and meaningful.

Teacher Identity:

Our beliefs shape our identity and by examining how teachers view and approach their profession, it is possible to gain a greater insight into their identity. Identity is not static and how individuals view themselves shifts, but it is also important to note that how they see themselves is not necessarily how others see them or even how they actually are; however, it is useful for reflection, and noting the discrepancies might give us a greater insight into who we truly are. Zahorik (1986) identifies three areas of teaching: Theory/Philosophy, Art/Craft and Science/Research and all three have merits. All teachers have theories/philosophies (beliefs) regarding education, and these ultimately affect pedagogical decisions, both inside and outside of the classroom, although the views that teachers hold are diverse and can vary greatly within a person, depending on their personal life, the institution, learners, module or course and a variety of other factors. I view my identity as most closely linked to an artist/craftsperson. Teaching is an art/craft that takes time to develop, but individual exploration and creativity are crucial aspects. Because it is artistic, it comes from within and involves emotion and personal investment and I believe that these are essential in order to make it meaningful and successful. For me, it is natural that I give a lot of myself to the process to create engaging lessons and also to create a welcoming, respectful, safe place for all learners.

Richards (1998) views teacher identity as operating on a developmental plane, with the acquisition of basic teaching skills, which he compares to science/research, as the beginning stage of the novice teacher. These often involve applying prescribed methods and models that have been externally developed. Ultimately, teachers can progress and become reflective practitioners utilising in-depth reflection, which he views as similar to an art/craft, in which pedagogical decisions are made based on the specific needs of learners and often occur spontaneously in the classroom (V3). This is similar to Putorack (1993), where teachers move from technical rationality to critical reflection. This tacit knowledge allows for knowing-in-action and greater ease in interactive decision making, which is particularly useful for classroom management and addressing pedagogical and behavioural challenges. However, as it occurs in the moment and requires deviating from a planned lesson, it can be extremely difficult to achieve when affective factors such as fear and anxiety are present.

My identity as a teacher is closely connected to my personal identity and although these were more discrete when I started to teach, they have become less so as I have developed as a teacher. I actively tried to keep my teaching and personal identities very separate when I first started teaching. I applied the methods and practices I had been instructed to use, and did so in a formulaic manner with limited aspects of my personality present. This formal teaching persona was accompanied by a transactional approach to my lessons, which were guided by very structured lesson plans. My goal was to appear knowledgeable, in control and very professional, and by not allowing my personality to show, I felt that this would be more achievable. It probably also acted as a defense mechanism as the fear of failure was very real, and due to my inexperience, more likely. However, creating and maintaining two very separate identities is difficult and as I have developed as a teacher these have become less discrete. This was not a conscious decision, but it has been positive as being a teacher constitutes a significant feature of my identity. I now embody a relaxed formality, which has resulted over time and represents a more authentic version of myself.

Whether my love of teaching exists because it allows me to by myself, or whether it is because my personality is suited to teaching is difficult to determine, but I believe both are factors. One of my greatest personal values and life goals is authenticity, and as teaching allows this, it affects my life positively. One of the benefits of a high degree of authenticity in the classroom is that is creates a positive learning atmosphere; my learners know that I genuinely care about them, enjoy teaching and believe in the benefits of education. Teaching entails a high degree of emotional labour if fully invested, but the rewards when learners grow and progress are immeasurable. I truly enjoy being of service and hope that my classes contribute to the learners making the world a better place, or at the very least, making their lives better. This also means that I do not have to assume a role external to who I am as I find this not only extremely challenging, but also superficial. Authenticity can however be detrimental if the teaching environment is challenging as it can negatively affect a tutor’s feelings of self-worth, and as a result, also affect other areas of their lives.

Reflection is a key aspect of my teaching and of being an experienced practitioner as it allows me grow and develop both personally and professionally, as well as learn more about myself. When I examined how I saw myself as a teacher, I was able to identify key characteristics, and most of these also exist in my personality. I believe I am an open and approachable person; if this is not immediately clear, I position myself so that learners will feel comfortable approaching me about teaching and learning, both inside and outside of class. I also operate under a system of low power distance as I value equality and interaction and believe that these are compromised under relationships where a high power distance is present (Hofstede and Hofstede 2010).

Negative or weak aspects of our identity must be recognised, and although these may not be fully possible to eradicate, acknowledgment is essential. An area of my identity that transcends the personal to professional is my quest for perfection. This leads to over-criticality, which is neither healthy nor productive, as perfection is never possible. In this context, it is dangerous because the more my reflective skills develop, the more imperfections and areas for improvement I can find. Although I recognise that this is not conducive to happiness or even professional success, it nevertheless still occurs. Additionally, I am also very sensitive and take things personally, when they were not meant to be hurtful nor personally directed. A final area that I find challenging is conflict and confrontation. These are areas that I have long struggled with and that I am addressing, but when there are challenges in either my personal or professional life related to these, both affect the other.

My professional background features English language teaching, pre and in-service teacher training and development and teaching study skills to primarily multilingual groups of more autonomous learners. This includes both international undergraduate and postgraduate university students, as well as international primary, secondary and university educators (A2). It involves considerable pastoral care as the learners are living in another country and studying in an institutional environment that is unfamiliar and often intimidating for them. My role at Sussex involves teaching mainly international postgraduate students who are Level VII on the UK NQF (National Qualifications Framework), which features a much higher level of maturity and autonomy than those at Level III, which is the level of foundation students. The QAA (Quality Assurance Agency) for higher education produces the FHEQ (Framework for Higher Education Qualifications), but this does not include Level III descriptors, and as Sussex has not produced their own interpretation of the descriptors, I examined several from other universities and decided to use those produced by the University of Cumbria as they include both Level III and IV and are clear and concise.

Programme and Learner Background:

Four-year degrees (Foundation year plus a three year degree), are becoming increasingly popular in the UK and represent a bridge from college to university for those learners who did not achieve the grades needed to enter university directly. The foundation programme is non-contributory, but if learners do not meet the required marks, they will not progress onto their degree programmes. I have informally asked learners, as well as talked with other tutors about why learners were on the programme, and responses ranged from poor time management, illness or medical problems, family issues, a lack of motivation, personal problems and an inability to perform under pressure while doing A-level exams.

If learners successfully complete their A-level exams, this should satisfy the requirements for NQF Level III, and after, if they choose, they should be ready to start a Level IV qualification, which is the equivalent to the first year of a three-year degree. Foundation students are in a different position and occupy a hinterland between Level III and IV, complicated by the fact that they would be Level IV students at different universities which would have accepted them based on their A-level results. This inter-level positioning makes it difficult for course designers and instructors to create and deliver course content, as technically where on the NQF descriptors the programme fits is not clear. Additionally, this does not take into account the variation between different groups of learners, as well as between the learners themselves.

Learner identity is essential when designing and delivering a module or programme. As I was not part of the PADS module design, I did not examine the NQF descriptors prior to teaching the course, and was therefore unaware of the general learner profile. A key affective factor that differs from NQF Level III to IV relates to the ability to work autonomously, and this was a key area I found challenging while teaching foundation students. By contrasting the Level III and IV descriptors, it is clear that there are distinct differences. Firstly, in terms of academic ability, at Level III, the ability to ‘apply the skills of manipulation of knowledge to make informed judgements within routine contexts and with guidance, work beyond defined contexts’ is required, whereas at Level IV it does not mention ‘guidance’ or ‘routine contexts’ (University of Cumbria 2015, p. 1-2). Additionally, at Level III, ‘the ability needed to undertake further learning and development of new skills within a structured and managed environment’ is required, whereas at Level IV there is no mention of a ‘structured and managed environment’ (University of Cumbria 2015, p. 2) (K6). By omission, it can be inferred that teaching and learning, as well as the educational environment, will not be controlled to the extent that it was prior to university, and that therefore learners will be required to accept more responsibility for themselves and their education.

The PADS course, despite being a Level III module, requires performance at Level IV. Most of the learners were required to write a research essay, which most of them had never done, and although the process was scaffolded, it was really only successful for those who prepared before class and worked in class (K1). They completed tasks similar to those of first-year students, with a similar amount of autonomy required. Additionally, as the final portfolio consisted of several assignments submitted at the end of the full-year course, it also required considerable discipline, motivation and time management. The problematic aspect of this is that although physically the foundation students are now in a post-secondary environment, many are not cognitively ready, nor do they have the intellectual discipline or motivation that successful university study demands, in particular for those learners who find academic work challenging.

The transition from a structured college environment to a more autonomous learning environment at a university is a considerable change, but when combined with living independently, which is a reality for many students, it can become very difficult. The requirement of learners to now manage the majority of their lives is difficult for many, and the tensions between the personal and academic can prove detrimental to the learner, as well as other learners. Manifestations of this include poor attendance, an inability to focus due to a lack of sleep or food, as well as issues with substance abuse. At Level III, learners are expected to be able to have the ‘qualities and transferrable skills necessary for employment and life requiring some self-directed ability, with broad guidance and evaluation’, while at Level IV learners are expected to be much more autonomous and possess the ‘qualities and transferrable skills necessary for employment and life requiring the exercise of some personal responsibility’ (University of Cumbria 2015, p. 1-2). Personal responsibility and autonomy are essential for successful academic study and many learners find these difficult skills to develop or consistently maintain. By Level IV, it is expected that learners will be able to demonstrate more responsibility, which differs from Level III, and it is perhaps the inability to do this that has resulted in many learners being enrolled on a Foundation programme.

PADS is a core module on the Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences, Business, Management and Economics Foundation programme at Sussex. As I had never taught on a foundation programme before, nor on a PADS module as it was the first time it had been taught, I had no previous experience of these learners and knew nothing of their identity. I approach my adult learners in a similar manner; I assume they will be autonomous, mature individuals, which allows me to be open and does not require strict classroom management and discipline. My assumption, that as they were at a university they would behave similarly to all of the other learners that I had taught previously, was dangerously flawed, and contributed to many of the additional challenges I experienced throughout the course such as poor behaviour and attendance, as well as very limited classroom engagement. I also wrongly assumed that they would be similar to how I was while at university, or similar to other university students that I knew, and be excited to be at university. Although learners may not always be interested in the class, they are generally polite, and if extremely uninterested, do not attend or leave. These ideas and assumptions had been processed both consciously and unconsciously through my teacher filter, both in terms of my experience as a teacher, as well as a learner.

The two groups of PADS students were very different in terms of inter and intragroup dynamics. Group Nine, who I taught on Thursday afternoons, were always very polite, reasonably attentive and had a positive group rapport. Although many frequently did not complete the homework or prepare for seminars, they were never disrespectful. They were friendly with one another and there was no noticeable exclusion or dislike within the group, which I believe was achieved partially by ensuring there a positive learning environment with a focus on collaborative work. Group Eleven, who I taught on Friday afternoons, were very different. Although there were several motivated and attentive learners in the class, we never developed a positive rapport, despite my attempts. Overall, there was a strong division in the group, both in terms of ethnicity and behaviour. Despite the presence of a few motivated learners, there was a strong lack of motivation or interest in the module, a belief that it was acceptable and even desirable to disrespect the instructor, little belief in the authority or knowledge of the instructor, methods or materials and very limited academic discipline. As a result of these factors, the effect that teaching Group Eleven had on my identity and beliefs, although not permanent, was very detrimental. By examining the learning environment and situation, it is possible to understand more about why this happened, although determining causality and correlation is complex and often impossible.

Teaching Reflection:

The syllabus of the first term required extensive metacognition and reflection, and focussed on study skills such as the requirements of university study, time management, motivation, as well as presentations. The learners said they found these topics patronising, although these are more similar to work at the post-graduate level. The materials I selected to meet the learning outcomes and the manner in which these were delivered required considerable learner autonomy. Rather than the lessons being teacher-centred, I created tasks requiring cooperation and the learners were responsible for transmitting information to one another in small group seminars. These learner-centred tasks allow greater engagement, are generally better received and encourage and develop autonomy if it is not already present. The learners were also required to determine the time spent on each part of the task, although I did monitor, in particular those groups that required additional support (. I have always thought learners felt this independence and responsibility was motivating, and research supports this, but Group Eleven did not find it so (Deci and Ryan 2010). This dislike was expressed in various ways from complete task avoidance to limited, superficial engagement. Learners frequently complained that the programme and module did not treat them like adults, when I had perhaps given them too much freedom by wrongly assuming they would complete the tasks in class, as well as prepare for seminars. It is normal that initially some learners do not respond well to this approach, and this is part of learner training and generally resolves itself as learners often learn a lot by imitating one another’s behaviour. However, because of the behaviour within this group, it made it impossible to continue teaching in this way.

There was considerable peer pressure in the classroom to misbehave and the other learners would encourage this by laughing and contributing. Some examples of poor classroom behaviour included very inappropriate language and discussions, as well as verbal aggression towards me when I would attempt classroom management and error correction (E.g., punctuation and grammar feedback on written work). It is possible that many of the behavioural issues displayed by PADS students exist as a result of insecurity with their identity within the university; many were ashamed and angry about having to do a foundation year when their peers were already on first-year courses. Furthermore, it is likely many behavioural issues are related to factors external to university.

These tensions meant the classroom environment became very uncomfortable and my pedagogical approach with Group Eleven aligned with traditional models of education such as Instructivism (Gagné, Briggs & Wager 1988), which assumes that knowledge is transferred from teachers to students. However, because successfully studying at university and writing essays are skills, this model does not meet the dynamic needs of students today. Acquiring skills is a very complex process and requires learner engagement and time (Bednar et al 1991; Jonassen 1991). Therefore, without engagement occurring in the classroom or at home, I attempted to transmit the information to them and did controlled, teacher-centred activities. They responded more positively to this approach, which may have occurred for several reasons. Firstly, this low-interactive approach may be congruent with their beliefs about the purpose and structure of university study. An alternative explanation might be that it was similar to the teaching methods that they had previously been familiar with and therefore were more comfortable with. Additionally, it required little active engagement, which allowed for passivity; if they chose not to listen or take notes, provided they were not disruptive, I eventually stopped reminding the disruptive learners. I was disappointed by this, as I felt it diminished my efficacy as a teacher; however, I tried to encourage communication via the VLE, my office hours or through individual tutorials.

In addition to adopting methods that I do not believe facilitate deep or meaningful learning, I created a clear division between myself and Group Eleven. This was achieved by not expressing my authentic personality or sharing anecdotal stories about my experience as a university student. Furthermore, because they had been so hurtful, I also felt uncomfortable communicating with them about their lives, although part of the purpose of PADS is to assist learners in adapting to higher education. I became mechanical and almost robotic and committed myself to finishing the class while actively minimising conflict and disruption.

The closest identity this persona resembles is the one I had when I first started teaching and was uncertain, unconfident, insecure and scared. Other aspects of my approach towards this group were similar to a novice teacher. I spent much more time planning lessons than I had since I became a teacher, and these lesson plans were very structured and detailed so that I could feel in control. The materials that I selected were straightforward and unimaginative, but more crucially the manner in which they were presented was devoid of enthusiasm, which is uncharacteristic of my beliefs and identity as a teacher. I also spent hours trying to predict possible situations that would arise and how I would address these, and this often happened outside of work.

This group and module affected me professionally, but also negatively affected my personal life, as these areas are not mutually exclusive and for me are very interconnected. The dread that I experienced before teaching Group Eleven on Friday meant I lost weight, became depressed, withdrew from my friends and also had issues sleeping. Were it not for Group Nine, who I taught Thursdays and first trialled some of the materials on and got feedback from, I may have succumbed to the belief that I was not a good teacher. Professionally, it is very interesting to note how the same lesson could be received in such different ways by the two groups. By the end of the first term, I continued to use my learner-centred autonomous approach with Group Nine and as research has shown, they achieved much higher grades due to their engagement (Tagg 2003). I used a much more controlled, top-down approach with Group Eleven, although I often used similar materials. It is interesting that I could embody two such distinct identities, which are fundamentally based on such disparate belief systems.

A useful framework to appreciate the difference in my approaches are Teaching Maxims (Richards 1998), which focus on teaching beliefs as they are translated into classroom reality. A teacher can apply different maxims throughout a lesson, activity or with different classes, but generally employs certain maxims more frequently, and by observing these it is possible to ascertain a more detailed understanding of teacher beliefs and identity. There are many maxims, but central are the Maxims of Empowerment, Order, Involvement and Planning. With Group Nine, I employed the Maxim of Empowerment, which advocates greater learner control of the classroom and learning, whereas with Group Eleven I used the Maxim of Order, which posits that a teacher should be in firm control. Similarly, the Maxim of Involvement argues for a learner-centred classroom and this was more suitable for Group Nine, whereas the Maxim of Planning favours following a strictly delineated lesson plan to ensure that pre-determined objectives are met, and I used this with Group Eleven. It felt unnatural to simultaneously employ such different maxims on the same module, with similar materials, learners of the same age and classes only a day apart. At times with Group Eleven, I would unconsciously revert back to my more authentic teaching self – friendly, smiling and approachable, but the behaviour in the classroom soon meant that I quickly reassumed my newly-adopted formal teaching identity.

I actively invite feedback and suggestions and try to incorporate these into my classes as I believe that as an educator I need to continually grow and develop. Next year, I will have been in my job for one year and will have had the hindsight of not only teaching PADS, but also of writing this essay where I have had the time and space to reflect on aspects of the module that were challenging and how I can change or approach these differently. I plan to scaffold the process of autonomy more at the beginning of the course and as and where learners demonstrate that they are capable and interested, I will modify the materials and delivery to allow for more independence, similar to NQF IV. I will also consciously try not to take learners’ attitudes personally, and now feel more confident and assertive to directly address inappropriate behaviour. Additionally, as I was not the only tutor to experience this, we have created a very supportive environment where we can discuss issues. My identity and beliefs have changed slightly as a result of this experience, but this is positive, as I have more experience and a greater insight into a wider range of learners and learning styles and abilities.

Bibliography

Almarza, G. (1996) Student Foreign Language Teachers’ Knowledge Growth. In D. Freeman and J. Richards, (eds.), Teacher Learning in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bednar, A., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T., and Perry, J. (1991) Theory into Practice: How do We Link? In G. Anglin (ed.), Instructional Technology: Past, Present and Future. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

Biggs, J. (1987) Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Bloom, B., Engelhart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., Krathwohl, D. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Company.

Craig, B. (2011) Contemplative Practice in Higher Education: An Assessment of the Contemplative Practice Fellowship Program, 1997–2009. The Center for Contemplative Mind in Society. Available from: http://www.contemplativemind.org/admin/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/academic_fellowships_evaluation.pdf (Accessed: 1 July 2016)

Deci, E. and Ryan, R. (2010) Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, pp. 54-67. Available from: https://mmrg.pbworks.com/f/Ryan,+Deci+00.pdf (Accessed: 9 August 2016).

Dewey, J. (1966) Democracy and Education. New York: Free Press.

Floyd, K., Harrington, S. and Santiago, J. (2009) The Effect of Engagement and

Perceived Course Value on Deep and Surface Learning Strategies, International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline. Vol. 12. Available from: http://inform.nu/Articles/Vol12/ISJv12p181-190Floyd530.pdf (Accessed: 28 July 2016)

Gagné, R., Briggs, L. and Wager, W. (1988) Principles of Instructional Design. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Hofstede, G. and Hofstede G., (2010) Culture and Organisations: Software of the Mind. USA: McGraw-Hill.

Johnson, K. (1992) The Relationship between Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices during Literacy Instruction for Non-Native Speakers of English. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 24, pp. 83-108.

Jonassen, D. (1991) Objectivism vs Constructivism: Do We Need a New Philosophical Paradigm? Educational Technology, Research and Development, 39(3), pp. 5-13.

Lublin, J. (2003) Deep, Surface and Strategic Learning. Dublin: UCD.

Marton, F. and Säljö, R. (1976) On Qualitative Differences in Learning I: Outcome and Process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, pp. 4-11.

Piaget, J. (1973) To Understand is to Invent. New York: Grossman.

Posner, G. (1985) Field Experience: A Guide to Reflective Practice. New York: Longman.

Putorak, E. (1993) Facilitating Reflective Thought in Novice Teachers. Journal of Higher Education. 44(4) pp. 288-95.

Richards, J. (1990) ‘The Dilemma of Teacher Education in Second Language Teaching’. In J. Richards and D. Nunan, (eds.). Second Language Teacher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. (1998) Beyond Training. Cambridge: CUP.

Richards, J. and Lockheart, C. (1994) Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Seimens, G. (2004) Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Available from: http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm (Accessed: 15 July 2016).

Tagg, J. (2003) The Learning Paradigm College. Boston: Anker.

University of Cumbria (2015) University Qualification and Level Descriptors. Carlisle: University of Cumbria. Available from: http://www.cumbria.ac.uk/media/university-of-cumbria-website/content-assets/public/aqs/documents/academicregulations/2.pdf (Accessed: 1 June 2016)

Van der Veer, R., and Valsiner, J. (Eds.) (1994) The Vygotsky Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.