Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences
Graduate School of Childhood Development and Education
The promise of university for democratic learning: Reality and
challenges
Research Master Educational Sciences Thesis 2
Afroditi Terzi (10864598)
Supervisor: Dr. Hülya Kosar-Altinyelken
Second readers: Prof. Dr. M.L.L. (Monique) Volman & Dr. I.M. (Inti) Soeterik August 2016
Table of contents
Abstract ... 4
Acknowledgements ... 5
Chapter 1. Introduction ... 6
1.1. Problem statement ... 7
1.2. Aim and research questions ... 8
1.3. Societal relevance ... 9
1.4. Scientific relevance ... 10
1.5. Thesis outline ... 11
Chapter 2. Theoretical framework ... 12
2.1. Towards a definition of democratic learning ... 12
2.2. Global diffusion of democratic learning ... 16
2.3. Democratic learning in higher education ... 20
Chapter 3. Contextual background ... 23
3.1. Higher education in the Netherlands ... 23
3.2. The case of UvA ... 25
Chapter 4. Research Methodology ... 27
4.1. Semi-structured interviews ... 27 4.2. Research sample ... 28 4.3. Data analysis ... 29 4.4. Limitations ... 30 4.5. Ethical considerations ... 31 Chapter 5. Results ... 33
5.1. The definition of democratic learning ... 33
5.1.1. Main characteristics ... 34
5.1.2. The role of the teacher ... 36
5.1.3. The role of the student ... 37
5.2. The value of democratic learning ... 38
5.2.1. The beneficial aspects of democratic learning ... 38
5.2.1.1. Benefits for students ... 38
5.2.1.2. Benefits for lecturers ... 39
5.2.1.3. Benefits for society ... 40
5.2.2. Negative or no consequences ... 41
5.3. The implementation of democratic learning ... 43
5.3.1. Teacher-related factors ... 43
5.3.2. Student-related factors ... 44
5.3.3. Institutional factors ... 45
5.3.3.1. Course management policies ... 46
5.3.3.2. Studentship policies ... 50
5.3.3.3. Lecturers’ working conditions ... 52
5.3.3.4. Financial resources ... 53
5.3.3.5. Other institutional regulations ... 53
Chapter 6. Discussion ... 57
6.1. The definition of democratic learning ... 57
6.2. The value of democratic learning ... 60
6.3. The implementation of democratic learning ... 63
6.4. The possibilities and challenges of democratic learning ... 65
Chapter 7. Conclusion ... 70
7.1. Concluding remarks per research question ... 70
7.2. Overall conclusion ... 74
7.3. Recommendations for further research ... 75
7.4. Recommendations for policy and practice ... 76
References ... 79
Appendix 1. Code List ... 84
Appendix 2. Interview guideline for lecturers ... 86
Appendix 3. Interview guideline for students ... 87
Abstract
Despite the theoretical appreciation democratic learning has gained and the efforts being made towards its global diffusion, the pedagogy’s actual implementation in higher education has been put into question. This case study seeks to explore how democratic learning is viewed and practiced within higher education and, specifically, within the Department of Child Development and Education (POWL) at the UvA, in which demands for democratization were recently raised. It also aims to identify the possibilities and challenges of creating democratic learning spaces in the department. The research procedure involved qualitative analysis of students’ and academic staff’s perceptions and experiences regarding democratic learning through semi-structured interviews. The participants were 13 students and 11 lecturers. The results of the analysis showed that 1) lecturers and students possess fragmentary knowledge on the characteristics of democratic learning, 2) although the vast majority viewed the pedagogy as beneficial for the individual and the society, half of the participants raised concerns regarding potentially absent or negative consequences, 3) from the perspective of lecturers and students, the teaching and learning processes at the POWL display both democratic and non-democratic aspects and 4) the current situation was associated with a number of individual-related, institutional, societal and cultural factors that either facilitate or challenge the implementation of
democratic learning. These findings indicate that the pedagogy is not implemented in its full potential within the department and raise both theoretical and practical
implications.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all those who contributed to this study and helped me make it true. First, I want to thank my respondents for willing to devote their time to this project and participate in the interviews, despite their busy schedules. I deeply appreciate the enthusiasm all of them displayed for discussing with me and for sharing their views and experiences. Without their time and interest, this study could not have been conducted.
I also want to express my deepest appreciation to my supervisor Dr. Hülya Kosar-Altinyelken for her encouragement, support and guidance. Her enthusiasm about this project, her energy and the inspiring discussions highly motivated me and helped me keep going. I am also grateful for the personal time she invested in order to provide me with support and advice. Furthermore, I want to thank my second
reviewers Prof. dr. Monique Volman and Dr. Inti Soeterik for willing to take up this responsibility.
Chapter 1. Introduction
Democratic learning, as an aspect and a desirable outcome of student-centered pedagogy (SCP), has been recently added to the global discussion for education and the global education goals (Anderson-Levitt, 2003). Globalization and the subsequent spread of education policies’ transfer have fostered the practical stimulation of
pedagogies originating in constructivism all around the world (Anderson-Levitt, 2003; Verger, Novelli, & Altinyelken, 2012). Being pedagogical approaches based on constructivism, student-centered education and democratic learning are promoted by governments and international organizations (Altinyelken, 2015).
This global diffusion of democratic learning is related to the theoretical
appreciation the pedagogy has gained, since it is widely considered to be beneficial on the individual, social and economic level (Tabulawa, 2003; Sriprakash, 2010;
Schweisfurth, 2013; Altinyelken, 2015). It is believed that fostering students’
autonomy and control over their learning, encouraging them to explore and link new information with existing knowledge and previous experiences, results in increasing motivation and making learning more meaningful and effective (Schweisfurth, 2013). In addition, democracy in education is expected to alter the foundations of society by promoting democratic values and skills. In particular, promoting collaboration, responsibility sharing, dialogue and equality among all education stakeholders, as well as fostering critical thinking about societal norms and issues is expected to have positive societal implications (Starkey, 2005; Schweisfurth, 2011). Finally, skills developed during democratic learning, such as the ability to independently pursue knowledge, flexibility, critical and creative thinking are theorized to support the development of the economy (Tabulawa, 2003; Schweisfurth, 2013).
1.1. Problem statement
Despite the significance that has been discursively attributed to democratic learning and the efforts being made towards its global diffusion, theorists have raised concerns regarding its actual implementation in higher education. In particular, the increasing connection between higher education and the market economy has been pointed out as a fact for problematisation (Lorenz, 2012). Higher education studies are considered to be directly influenced by the prevailing capitalist and neoliberal ideas and to have been transformed into merely job training (Chickering, 2003, Giroux, 2010). The flow of business money and culture in the modern university has lead to the prioritization of efficiency, research and return of investment over
education and learning (Giroux, 2010; Lorenz, 2012; Bal, Grassiani, & Kirk, 2014). Emphasis is particularly put on profitability, which has resulted in studentship, course management and lecturers’ work policies that restrict the potential for the implementation of democratic learning. In this context, the priority given to performance evaluation and research in conjunction with the formation of large classes and online courses downplay the quality of the teaching and learning processes. Students’ active participation in the classroom processes as well as in forming the learning content and methodology is minimized, constraining the development of autonomy and critical thinking (Giroux, 2002).
A shift towards the development of similar policies in Dutch higher education has also been noticed since the 1980’s. The Dutch higher education institutions have gained organizational autonomy, which was promoted together with an increase in the demand for accountability (de Boer, 2007). Willing to increase their input and
improve their performance, Dutch universities have started to apply a number of policies that may negatively affect the teaching and learning practices. Such policies
involve the formation of larger classes and the prioritization of research over teaching, due to budget issues, which has also led to the elimination of the less profitable
programs (de Boer, 2007; Bal et al., 2014). Such practices create a less democratic environment in the university that may also affect the quality of teaching and learning (Giroux, 2002; Giroux, 2010; Bal et al., 2014). In such a context, the stimulation of pedagogical practices that allow for students’ participation, interaction and
exploration becomes more difficult. Therefore, the implementation of democratic learning is put into question.
Previous empirical studies have mainly focused on students’ and teachers’ perceptions of democratic learning without taking the institutional and social context into consideration (Rowland, 2003; Senturk & Oyman, 2014; Zeki & Güneyli, 2014; Oliver et al., 2015). Therefore, further systematic empirical research is necessary in order to understand how and to what extent is democratic learning promoted in higher education. The type of research that allows for aspects of the institutional and social context in relation to teaching and learning to be revealed is the case-study research. Hence, the present study constitutes a case study involving the Department of Child Development and Education (Pedagogiek, Onderwijskunde en Lerarenopleiding; POWL) at UvA.
1.2. Aim and research questions
The aim of this qualitative case-study project is to develop a deeper
understanding of the extent and the way that democratic learning is implemented in higher education. The goal is to gain insight into the actors’ perceptions of learning and the strategies used in order to promote it. The perceptions and experiences are discussed in the light of the institutional and social context of learning, in an effort to
unravel the inter-relations that exist. In short, this study seeks to explore how democratic learning is viewed and practiced within the POWL at UvA as well as to identify the possibilities and challenges of creating democratic learning spaces in the university.
In order to achieve the study’s aim, the following research questions will be addressed.
1) How do students and lecturers define democratic learning? 2) How do students and lecturers reflect on its value?
3) From the perspective of students and lecturers, to what extent and how is democratic learning stimulated in the courses?
4) What are the potentials and the challenges in the implementation of democratic learning in the courses?
1.3. Societal relevance
The societal relevance of this study lies first and foremost on the societal importance of the pedagogical approach it focuses on. Democratic learning is believed to have significant societal impact through the development of democratic values, skills and attitudes to all those participating in it. It is suggested to promote the development of democratic competencies on the individual level, which enable
societal democratization in the long run (Starkey, 2005; Schweisfurth, 2013).
More specifically, researching the stimulation of democratic leaning in higher education is also considerably important. Due to neoliberal reforms and the new public management implementation, the modern university faces transformations that discursively challenge the quality of higher education (Lorenz, 2012). The transfer of business practices in the university management as well as the excessive emphasis on
efficiency and accountability, constitute practices that challenge democracy in higher education (Giroux, 2002; Giroux, 2006; Bal et al., 2014). Hence, a study that
addresses the issue of democracy in the university and explores the stimulation of democratic learning in its classrooms is critical.
Furthermore, this study is particularly relevant to the societal context of Amsterdam, due to the recent protest movement of a body of UvA academic staff and students against the austerity program “Profiel-2016”, which yielded the issue of the university’s democratization. More specifically, the expressed demand of a more democratic university has increased the importance of a thorough exploration of the teaching and learning practices with regard to their democratic perspective. In fact, a Democratization and Decentralization Committee has also been recently established with the aim to investigate this issue and propose relevant improvements. This study will provide significant input towards this direction, because its results will facilitate the development of quality improvement reforms by informing policies and practices that promote democratic learning in the university.
1.4. Scientific relevance
The scientific relevance and significance of this study pertains to the fact that it will be one of the few empirical projects to provide an in-depth investigation of the way democratic learning is perceived as well as implemented in higher education. A description and analysis of the teaching and learning situation inside the modern universities’ classrooms is mostly available in theoretical papers (Englund, 2002; Hess, 2004; Starkey, 2005; Jenlink & Jenlink, 2008). The few empirical studies conducted so far concentrated on the pedagogy’s efficacy, focusing mainly on teachers’ and students’ definitions and perceptions of democratic learning, based
either on their general experience (Meighan & Harber, 1986; Rowland, 2003; Senturk & Oyman, 2014) or on their experiences during a democratic-learning intervention (Gauci, Dantas, Williams, & Kemm, 2009; McDonnell & Curtis, 2014; Zeki & Güneyli, 2014; Oliver et al., 2015). There is no systematic empirical research on how democratic learning is perceived but also stimulated in the real classroom taking into consideration the classroom and institutional context, teachers’ and students’
characteristics and the broader social context in which universities operate. Therefore, case-study research that allows for the examination of the possibilities and challenges that both teachers and students face in the pedagogy’s implementation, becomes highly important and relevant.
1.5. Thesis outline
In the next chapter, the theoretical framework of this study will be presented. Next, the Dutch educational reality in general and the context of UvA in particular will be described in order to gain a better understanding of the research contextual background. In chapter 4, the research methodology will be explained and in chapter 5 the research findings will be presented. Moreover, chapter 6 focuses on the relation between the theory and the findings as well as the interconnections between the study results. Finally, an overview of the main findings in order to address the research questions is presented and recommendations for further research, policy and practice are offered.
Chapter 2. Theoretical framework
This chapter elaborates on the theories developed with regard to democratic learning. In the first section the definition of democratic learning is outlined with reference to other relevant pedagogical approaches. The second section provides a discussion of how and why democratic learning is globally diffused according to three theoretical perspectives. Finally, the last section refers to the implementation of democratic learning specifically in higher education.
2.1. Towards a definition of democratic learning
The concept of democratic learning and the practices it refers to shares characteristics with the student-centered and the critical pedagogy. The primary commonality among those three pedagogical approaches is that they are all based on the theoretical framework of constructivism (Altinyelken, 2011). Namely, their main common denominator is the premise that learning is an active and interactive process in which both the teacher and the students actively engage in constructing knowledge (Mayer, 2004). In this section, the concepts of constructivism, student-centered pedagogy and critical pedagogy are introduced in order to explain the nature of democratic learning.
Constructivism. The concept of constructivism does not refer to a pedagogical approach but rather to a psychological theory of acquiring knowledge based on the works of Piaget and Vygotsky (Fosnot & Perry, 1996). Constructivism provides a theoretical framework regarding how people learn, according which learning is perceived as a non-linear procedure. Contrary to the traditional view of knowledge
mirror reality, constructivism suggests that learning is an active, ongoing process of constructing knowledge based on our experiences in order to provide a meaning to the observed events of reality (Bodner, 1986; Mayer, 2004). In that sense, knowledge does not exist separately from the mind, but is rather constructed and reconstructed by the learner. So, learning involves actively engaging and researching reality as well as relating new information to existing cognition (Mayer, 2004; Altinyelken, 2012). As a theoretical framework, constructivism does not provide teaching instructions.
However, the main principles of learning derived from this theory have important implications for the educational practices. In particular, students actively participate in their learning processes through self-organizing, engaging in dialogues and
interaction, making mistakes and reflecting on the learning procedure. In addition, the teacher’s role shifts from someone who provides direct instruction to someone who guides and facilitates learning (Bodner, 1986; Fosnot & Perry, 1996). On the basis of these principles, several pedagogical approaches were developed that provide
teaching and learning instructions, which promote constructivism. Here, student-centered pedagogy and the critical pedagogy of Freire (1970), the approaches that are most closely related to democratic learning, will be described.
Student-centered pedagogy. This type of pedagogical approach shifts the attention from the teacher to the student and the learning process and entails educational practices that reflect a view of knowledge different than the traditional one.
According to SCP, knowledge is not static and passively transmitted from the teacher to the students but is rather constructed through relating new information to existing cognitive structures (Altinyelken, 2011). Therefore, educational practices are
designed in such a way to provide students with the opportunity to actively participate in their own learning, give their own meanings and interpretations to the information
provided based on their own experiences and research (Windschitl, 2002). In this framework, interaction, co-operation and dialogue among students are highly valued and stimulated. What is more, teachers are not supposed to pass their knowledge to students using traditional lecturing, but support students’ learning by structuring, guiding and challenging their search for knowledge (Windschitl, 2002).
Critical pedagogy. This pedagogical approach is based on the notion that the learner constructs knowledge through social interaction with others. Knowledge is perceived as socially constructed and therefore is dependent on social relationships, time and place. Critical pedagogy raises questions regarding how and why certain social
constructions of knowledge are considered more legitimate and acceptable over others (McLaren, 2003). It is therefore interested in facilitating the development of learners’ critical thinking in order to be able to understand the social functions of knowledge and how the legitimacy of certain types of knowledge over others serves the
perpetuation of hierarchical power relations (McLaren, 2003). The critical educator does not simply transfer his or her knowledge to the learner, but rather guides the students in order to develop their critical thinking skills (Shor, 1993). The ultimate goal of critical pedagogy is to develop personalities who will participate in the political and social changes, will be critical about them and challenge the power interests that hide behind them.
Democratic learning. Democratic learning shares characteristics with student-centered pedagogy and critical pedagogy. Like student-student-centered pedagogy,
democratic learning entails the enhancement of students’ autonomy, independence and active participation in framing learning and constructing knowledge. In a democratic learning environment, students experience decision-making procedures,
active participation and responsibility taking regarding shaping the content, the method and the goals of their learning (Meighan & Harber, 1986). Students think, interact, express their opinions and prior knowledge, challenge each other’s views through discussions, analyze, evaluate and solve problems (Englund, 2002; Jenlink & Jenlink, 2008).
Like Freire’s critical pedagogy, democratic learning challenges the traditional hierarchical roles both in and out of the classroom and aims at the development of critical thinking and critical consciousness in students (Shor, 1993; Giroux, 2004). In a democratic classroom, the values of equality, solidarity and respect are established in the teacher-student relationship as well as in the relationships among students (Aasen, Grindheim, & Waters, 2009). Group activities and cooperative learning encourage students’ development of democratic attitudes, such as helping behaviors, expressing opinions, respecting others’ opinions, learning to take turns (Altinyelken, 2015) and facilitate students’ understanding of democracy (Sentürk & Oyman, 2014). Attention is also given to diversity, equity and social inclusion (Morley, Leach, & Lugg, 2009). It is important that in a democratic learning space, individuals from different backgrounds have the freedom and opportunity to exchange their experiences and views and equally contribute to the co-creation of knowledge (Starkey, 2005). Furthermore, teachers are no longer considered the ones who hold and transfer knowledge to the passive students. They rather initiate opportunities for students to actively participate in the co-construction of knowledge, using dialogue, thought-provoking questions and research-oriented activities (Shor, 1993).
Democracy is not only interpreted as a desired outcome or as a means of teaching and learning, but also as the context of education. According to Ekholm (2004), there are three perspectives of democratic learning: ‘learning for democracy’,
‘learning through democracy’ and ‘learning in democracy’ (Starkey, 2005). The first one refers to democracy as a goal of learning. In that sense, learning is acquiring the knowledge needed in order to live in a democratic society. The second one refers to democracy as a method of teaching and learning. It refers to the practical
implementation of democratic life in the classroom, where the promotion of equity and diversity facilitates the co-creation of knowledge. The third one refers to democracy as a significant context of learning. It implies that the democratic institutional structure allows for power sharing among the teachers and the students but also among the principals and the teachers (Ekholm, 2004). In such an
environment, opportunities exist for managers, administrators, teachers and students to communicate, discuss and negotiate.
In general, the whole process of democratic learning does not only challenge the traditional within-classroom activities, but also the hierarchical roles and power relations outside of the classroom (Giroux, 2004). Students learn to be critical about their conditions of living, the societal and political context and become empowered to question it and act in order to change it. Power awareness, critical literacy and
democratic activism are the main goals of democratic learning (Shor, 1993).
2.2. Global diffusion of democratic learning
Schooling systems around the world have been observed to converge towards a similar educational model (Anderson-Levitt, 2003). Different countries around the world seem to adopt common pedagogical approaches by applying similar national policies for education, similar curricula and educational goals (Anderson-Levitt, 2005). In particular, pedagogical approaches such as SCP that are based on the
(Tabulawa, 2003). As an aspect and a desirable outcome of SCP and as a pedagogical approach based on constructivism, democratic learning has recently gained global attention and implementation, as well (Anderson-Levitt, 2003; Altinyelken, 2012). Efforts for implementing the SCP policy and its democratic learning component in China, Uganda, South Africa, Ethiopia and India are evidence for the policy’s global diffusion (Altinyelken, 2015). Even in countries such as Turkey, where democracy has been increasingly questioned, SCP and democratic learning are being supported and promoted in official curriculum for primary schools (Altinyelken, 2015), raising questions about how and why certain pedagogical approaches have gained such significance and have become globally diffused. There are three theoretical
approaches that try to answer those questions: the modernization theory, the world culture theory and the world system theory.
According to the modernization theory, pedagogical approaches based on constructivism are being globally diffused because they are more beneficial than others and serve society’s progress (Anderson-Levitt, 2003, Altinyelken, 2012). Educational practices based on constructivism are considered the best way of teaching and learning and their superiority and effectiveness are considered the only reasons for their global diffusion. In that sense, democratic learning is globally diffused because it is beneficial for students’ academic and social development. Beyond the benefits to the individual, democratic learning promises a more democratic society as well as economic growth due to the expected increase of properly equipped
population for the knowledge economy (Schweisfurth, 2013).
The world culture theory suggests that countries freely adopt global
educational policies depending on how decision makers perceive them. Educational reforms are being borrowed not because they are truly superior from others, but
because policy makers are convinced that they are progressive and beneficial (Ramirez & Boli, 1987; Soysal & Strang, 1989). In the case of democratic learning, this pedagogical approach is considered to enhance students’ intrinsic motivation for learning, encourage creativity and imagination, stimulate democratic behaviors as well as important life-long skills and competencies, such as critical thinking
(Schweisfurth, 2013). In addition, students’ exposure to the application of democratic norms in the classroom is claimed to enable them to appreciate and adopt democratic attitudes and values (Peffley & Rohrschneider, 2003), and, therefore, contribute to social democratization (Altinyelken, 2015). What is more, democratic learning that promotes students’ autonomy and independence is considered to indirectly enhance economic growth (Tabulawa, 2003; Altinyelken, 2015) since competitive capitalism and the free-market can more easily grow in democratic contexts (Tabulawa, 2003).
Contrary to the previous two theoretical perspectives, world system theory denies that global educational policies are voluntarily adopted but rather indicates power interests as the driving force for their spread (Arnove, 2009). It considers powerful states and international organizations (IOs) as the central initiators that promote certain educational ideas in order to meet their own hidden interests. In other words, educational reform interacts with the dynamics of the global economic system (Ginsburg, Cooper, Raghu, & Zegarra, 1990). In this framework, democratic learning is advocated not because of its beneficial effects to the individual and the society but because of the political, ideological and economic changes it is expected to bring in favor of the powerful states and IOs. In particular, the global diffusion of democratic learning is considered to be part of the Westernization process. Being expected to facilitate democratization and the development of a positive attitude towards the
neoliberal ideology, democratic learning is considered a means to the spread of capitalism in the world (Tabulawa, 2003).
Regardless of the reasoning behind this pedagogical approach’s global diffusion, it is an undisputed fact that democratic learning has gained global
appreciation and significance (Tabulawa, 2003; Schweisfurth, 2013). But even though it has been applied in the policy level as an educational reform, questions have been raised regarding its real implementation in the classroom. In fact, many countries with very different political, economic and cultural status have already made efforts to integrate democratic learning in their educational policy systems (Altinyelken, 2015). However, the implementation of educational policy is mediated by a number of local factors related to the institution, to the individual as well as to the societal and cultural context that raise diversities and potential challenges in actual classroom practices. Such mediation factors are the communication and comprehension of the educational policies’ principles and goals, the teachers’ attitude and practices, the availability of the required materials and the cultural representation of the appropriate power distance among education stakeholders (Schweisfurth, 2011).
Previous empirical research has shown that aspects of the aforementioned factors have constituted challenges for the practical implementation of democratic learning. More specifically, the inadequate teacher preparation, the big number of students in the classrooms, the lack of human and material resources, the examination system that is contradictory to the principals of democratic learning, the poor parents’ and students’ motivation are some of the conditions that limit the implementation of the pedagogy (Schweisfurth, 2011; Schweisfurth, 2013; Altinyelken, 2015).
Teachers’ and students’ agency has been shown to be particularly important for the implementation of democratic learning, because their perceptions regarding
the acquisition of knowledge, their own role in the learning process and the classroom organization influence the stimulation of the pedagogy (Schweisfurth, 2011). This notion is also supported by previous case studies. More specifically, the
implementation of democratic learning was faced with challenges when teachers and/or students held the conviction that knowledge cannot be co-created by students (O’ Sullivan, 2004), when teachers were expected to comply with externally made regulations and students were anticipated not to dispute their teachers’ authority (Tabulawa, 2003), when teachers found it hard to be less authoritative and students resisted taking up responsibilities and becoming more active (Altinyelken, 2015). Therefore, teachers’ and students’ perceptions and attitudes constitute an important part of the equation, which is why they will be researched in this research project.
2.3. Democratic learning in higher education
The theoretical appreciation of democratic learning, the attractiveness it gained around the world, as well as its promises for social democratization and economic growth have yielded questions regarding its practical implementation in higher education institutions. Even though modern universities seem to appreciate democratic values by enabling students’ participation in the organizational,
administrative and content-formation processes, via elections and course assessments (Carr, Cowie, Gerrity, Jones, Lee, & Pohio, 2001), there is no generalized initiative towards the promotion of democratic learning in higher education (Kember, 2009; Lea, Stephenson, & Troy, 2010). Moreover, studies have shown that the most prevailing teaching method in higher education is lecturing, which reflects the traditional hierarchical relationships (Englund, 2002; Lammers & Murphy, 2002).
presentations are also used, they are not as frequent (Lammers & Murphy, 2002). Furthermore, uncertainty and complexity are promoted as valued skills, contradicting the basic principle of democracy of not only adjusting to but also participating in the formation or change of the social context. In addition, higher education learning is not approached as a procedure for personal growth, but as job retraining
(Hyslop-Margison & Graham, 2001).
Several explanations for the prevalence of traditional teaching methods over techniques that reflect a democratic learning environment have been reported. In particular, globalization and neoliberalism are considered to have resulted in the rise of academia’s commercialization and marketization and the flow of the corporate culture and money in the university (Giroux, 2002; Chickering, 2003, Giroux, 2010; Lorenz, 2012; Bal, Grassiani, & Kirk, 2014). As a consequence, all study programs have acquired an exchangeable market value and their quality is much depended on their generated profit. Therefore, in the name of efficiency and profit, large classes and online courses that minimize students’ active participation in learning and constrain critical thinking development have been introduced in the new corporate university (Giroux, 2002). Moreover, resources are allocated mostly to research, leading academic staff to devote more time and effort for research than teaching (Lea et al., 2010). The attribution of academics’ success to their research publications as well as the devaluation of teaching lowers the quality of teaching and learning processes stimulated in the classroom. What is more, the significance that performativity and efficiency gained in the neoliberal university gave rise to standardization and testing for quantitative output, putting pressure both on institutions and students themselves for high grades (Bal et al., 2014). This
for measurable outcomes that can prove their worthiness of a position in the job market, instead of emphasizing on knowledge per se. Higher education then becomes job training and is no longer considered neither treated as a public good. It loses its original character of a democratic public sphere since corporate bodies control institutions’ leadership and management (Giroux, 2002).
However, the aforementioned analysis of the university teaching and learning reality is mostly based on theoretical papers and less on empirical studies, making this case-study project highly important and relevant.
Chapter 3. Contextual background
In this chapter, the research context will be described. In particular, details about the general educational context in the Netherlands as well as the context of UvA in particular will be provided.
3.1. Higher education in the Netherlands
Even though Dutch universities are government funded, they are perceived as ‘corporate actors’ or ‘knowledge companies’ (de Boer, Enders, & Leisyte, 2007; Bal et al., 2014). During the last decades, shifts in Dutch higher education institutions’ organization have transformed the universities’ mechanisms, forms and capabilities of governance as well as the universities’ identities and therefore have altered the
working and studying conditions for academicians and students. Since the 1980s, attention has been put on strengthening the universities’ autonomy by shifting the decision-making responsibility from the state to the universities. The institutions are now responsible for defining their own activities and organizational boundaries, for controlling the allocation of their human and financial resources and for marketizing their own profiles in order to attract more students (de Boer et al., 2007). However, the state still defines the financial structures and certain formal regulations, such as tuition fees and entry qualifications. What is more, the increase in autonomy was exchanged with more institutional accountability. Institutions have to prove their quality by clearly determining their objectives and measuring their outcomes (de Boer et al., 2007). They are expected to show efficiency and performativity, which are translated in quantifiable indicators, such as number of students, employment rates of graduates, market shares, number of staff, number of publications, financial balance.
Both external and internal funding then is based on performance. Hence, profitability becomes a primary aim because it constitutes a performance indicator, a funding criterion and facilitates the institution’s marketization.
Lately, there is an increased demand for profitability in accordance with a gradual decrease in government funding since 1980s and the application of policies that promote a funding model of higher education based on input (e.g. student
numbers) and performance (e.g. number of degrees, students graduating within certain time limits) (de Boer, Jongbloed, Benneworth, Cremonini, Kolster, Kottmann,
Lemmens-Krug, & Vossensteyn, 2015). This situation has led Dutch universities in a number of practices that may diminish the quality of education. Such practices, for instance, involve increasing classroom sizes without increasing teaching hours and without providing adequate training and support to teachers, prioritizing research as more profitable and increasing research output demands without reducing the teaching load, while devaluating teaching (Bal et al., 2014). In this framework, a category of temporary academic positions arose, with teaching-only positions to be considered as offering limited career prospects. It is also argued that both teachers and students face increasing anxiety and insecurity due to the pressure of high
performance demands (Bal et al., 2014). In addition, programs with less market profits, such as programs from the humanities sector, are considered of lower performativity and face funds cutting (Benneworth, 2015).
Another important transformation in modern Dutch universities regards the construction of hierarchy and the allocation of responsibility, which has shifted from horizontal to vertical. The universities’ management has become more centralized, which means that the central executive board and the deans generate and diffuse the
decisions to be made. However, faculty members do take part in decision-making in a consultative way (de Boer, 2007).
3.2. The case of UvA
The university of Amsterdam is a public, research university located in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. It was established in 1632 and is one of the largest European universities, with more than 30.000 students and 5.000 staff members, and among the top 100 universities globally. It receives accreditation from the Dutch Ministry of Education based on the national quality system and provides research-oriented education. It consists of 7 faculties: Humanities, Social and Behavioral Sciences, Economics and Business, Law, Science, Dentistry and Medicine.
The UvA, as the rest of the Dutch universities, has not escaped the recent reforms that have been developed as a consequence of the new modes of organization in the Dutch higher education system. One such reform has been recently announced at UvA and is known as “Profiel-2016”. The proposed restructuring plan involves elimination of programs in the Humanities sector, due to budget issues, constituting a pure neoliberal reform example contradicting the idea of a democratic university (Benneworth, 2015). The austerity program came up against a body of teachers and students who proceeded in the Bungehuis and Maagdenhuis occupation, demanding a new democratic university. They demanded the rejection of “Profiel-2016”, as well as the introduction of a new quality assessment method based on input and not on
efficiency and returns in profit. Overall, they claimed for democratization and transparency in the university (Benneworth, 2015; Verkaaik, 2015). These recent events make UvA a very interesting case to study and necessitate the performance of an empirical research regarding democratic learning within the UvA’s classrooms.
This research project focuses particularly on the Department of Child
Development and Education (POWL) of the Behavioral and Social Sciences Faculty. The department consists of the College and the Graduate School of Child
Development and Education and coordinates three Bachelor’s, four Master’s, one Research Master, 23 Initial Teacher Training programs as well as the Research Institute of Child Development and Education. Preliminary findings of a qualitative research study conducted during the research master course “Distal and proximal processes at school”, coordinated by dr. Hülya Kosar Altinyelken, directed the focus of this study on this particular department. During this course, a small-scale study was conducted on POWL students’ experiences of democratic learning and highlighted a number of challenges in the implementation of the pedagogical approach. Hence, these findings indicated the importance of further researching democratic learning specifically at the POWL department.
Chapter 4. Research Methodology
The main goal of this research project is to explore the different attitudes towards the pedagogical approach of democratic learning and investigate the teaching and learning experiences in the scope of identifying the possibilities and challenges that underlie its implementation. The study seeks to understand the phenomenon form the perspective of lecturers and students. Therefore, an explorative and interpretative qualitative research strategy is the most suitable. What is more, the exploration of perspectives regarding a pedagogical approach and the investigation of possibilities and challenges in its implementation cannot occur without taking into consideration the peripheral real-life social and institutional context within which it is applied. A case-study research design can therefore facilitate such an exploration (Yin, 2013). In the following sections, the research methodology will be described, by explaining the research method, the sample, the data analysis, the limitations and the ethical
considerations.
4.1. Semi-structured interviews
The primary source of data was 24 interviews with lecturers and students. The interviews were conducted individually and they were semi-structured, providing flexibility to both the researcher and the interviewees to explore the predetermined research topics as well as other sub-topics that could potentially arise. The aim was to allow lecturers’ and students’ views and experiences of teaching and learning
processes in higher education to be voiced. The interviews started with an exploration of the definitions and value that teachers and students attribute to democratic learning. They proceeded with an examination of whether and how is democratic learning applied within the university’s classrooms and ended with an investigation of the
challenges encountered in its implementation. They were all conducted face-to-face in one of the university’s discussion rooms and endured between 10 and 50 minutes, the average being 32.31 minutes. All of them were fully recorded. The guidelines for the lecturers’ and students’ interviews are provided in Appendix 2 and 3 respectively.
4.2. Research sample
In total, 24 interviews were conducted with 11 lecturers and 13 students. The participants were invited via emails sent by the POWL administration office and via Facebook announcements. All respondents were included in the study, except first year international students. Bachelor students did not respond to the invitations. Lecturers’ age ranged between 30 and 63, the average being 43. From those, 36% (N= 4) were male and 64% (N= 7) were female. Their overall university teaching
experience ranged from 1 to 28 years, while the average was 10.3 years for female lecturers and 14.7 years for male lecturers. The age of the participating students ranged between 22 and 43, while the average was 27.9. The majority was female. Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the participants.
Table 1.
Participants’ demographic characteristics
aEthnicity is referred as D for Dutch and I for International. bResearch master
4.3. Data analysis
The interviews’ analysis followed the lines of content analysis. This approach allows for qualitative analysis with a general aim to examine the narratives of
personal views and experiences by breaking the content into smaller parts and discussing them thematically (Vaismoradi, Turunen, & Bondas, 2013). The first step of conducting this type of analysis involves literally transcribing the audio data and
Sex n Ethnicitya n Mean
age teaching Average experience
at POWL (in years)
Type of
studies n Average time studying at UvA Total N Lecturers F M 7 4 D I D I 5 2 3 1 42 45 8 6.5 - - - - - - 11 Students F M 12 1 D I D 8 4 28 26 - - Pre-master Master ResMab Master 2 2 8 1 2.8 3 13 Total 24
applying the code-and-retrieve methodology. The software ATLAS.ti was used in order to apply the coding scheme to the whole dataset and retrieve the coding data.
The initial coding scheme was created based on the theoretical review as well as on the study’s objectives and research questions. The main codes included
‘definition’, ‘value’, ‘implementation’, ‘potential’ and ‘challenges’. After the initial coding phase, open coding was conducted (Basit, 2003). Finally, taking into
consideration both the initial main codes and the research-oriented open codes, categorization was applied to the data. For instance, the open sub codes under the main code ‘challenges’ were categorized into ‘challenges/individual’,
‘challenges/institutional’, ‘challenges/cultural’ and ‘challenges/other’. In addition, the ‘challenges/individual’ category was further divided into
‘challenges/individual/teacher’ and ‘challenges/individual/student’. A list of all the codes and the sub-codes is provided in Appendix 1.
Participants were categorized into lecturers and students. Then, the content of the participants’ views was analyzed per main code/construct, while comparing among the participants categories. For instance, an overview of the participants’ views on the definition of democratic learning could be gained, while comparisons among the views of lecturers and students were allowed.
4.4. Limitations
Due to the lack of a large body of respondents, a random selection of participants was not possible. In addition, participation was voluntary. Hence, the possibility exists that only lecturers and students with a special interest in the topic responded positively to the study invitation. Therefore, the conclusions of this
learning, while those who do not perceive democratic leaning as important or do not have a special interest in it might have not responded on the first place.
Because of the limited sample size and the lack of randomization,
generalizations cannot be made about how the “average” lecturer and student think regarding democratic learning. However, this was beyond the scope of this study. The primary goal was not to gain representative overview of the average views and
experiences, but to describe and compare the different perspectives and in-classroom experiences and give light to the possibilities and challenges in the implementation of democratic learning. So, the main goal was to identify issues, patterns and
mechanisms, which can facilitate the development of hypotheses to be tested by subsequent quantitative studies.
In addition, this study aimed at researching students’ and lecturers’
perceptions of democratic learning; therefore their input about the definition of the concept was stimulated. The literature-derived definition of the pedagogy did not become available to them. However, if that would be the case and participants acquired a complete overview of the pedagogy’s meaning, they would potentially display different perceptions of its value. Hence, not providing the formal definition of democratic learning to participants is considered a limitation of this study.
4.5. Ethical considerations
The project received the approval of the ethics committee before the data collection. Prior to participation, the respondents were informed about the goals of the study, the participation procedure, the recording of the interviews and the
confidentiality of the information they would provide. All participants received a formal invitation letter with the aforementioned information; including the
researcher’s, the supervisor’s and the ethics committee’s contact details. The information was repeated orally prior to the interview and the participants singed a consent form, a copy of which they received. Finally, the data were anonymously described, so the results cannot be linked to the individuals participating.
Chapter 5. Results
In the next sections, lecturers’ and students’ different perspectives on the definition, the value and the implementation of democratic learning at the university are presented. First, the way lecturers and students understand the concept of this pedagogical technique will be disentangled. Second, their reflections on the
pedagogy’s importance will be analyzed. Finally, the findings that provide insight to the extent and the way that democratic learning is being stimulated in the classroom will be presented. Possibilities and challenges for democratic learning will be introduced simultaneously in each thematic section, in order to allow for points of convergence and contradiction to be unraveled.
5.1. The definition of democratic learning
Many of the participants expressed their hesitation in providing a description or a definition of the concept of democratic learning. Most of them referred to their unfamiliarity with the concept as the reason why they would find it difficult to describe its characteristics. They clearly mentioned that they ‘don’t know’ what democratic learning is and/or that they have never encountered the concept before. It is interesting though that only two student participants found it difficult to provide a description of the concept, while 64% (n= 7) of the lecturers expressed this hesitation. So, even though teaching constitutes a significant part of the lecturers’ work, most of them were not familiar with the pedagogical concept of democratic learning.
However, they did provide a description, despite their initial hesitation. In addition, there were no differences between students’ and lecturers’ perceptions of the concept.
5.1.1. Main characteristics
The most frequently reported characteristic of democratic learning refers to the equal participation of lecturers and students in the decision-making. The majority of students and lecturers described democratic learning as a space in which teacher and students have an equal say in deciding about the content, the method and the goals of the learning process. In this context, there are no hierarchical relationships between the lecturer and the students.
Democratic learning, I would describe it as learning where both students and teachers have a fair say in what needs to be taught and what needs to be learnt. (Student 10, premaster, female, Dutch)
Additionally, three students and three lecturers referred to the non-hierarchical relationship among lecturers as well as between lecturers and the management of education as an important characteristic of democratic learning. They reported the conviction that democratic learning has to be part of the whole culture in the institution.
There is connection between the two [students and lecturers] but also between the lecturers, so that it’s not decided top-down, professor-down or university- down what needs to be taught. (Lecturer 2, female, Dutch)
Another frequently reported characteristic of democratic learning is students’ active engagement in the teaching and learning processes. Democratic learning then is
process in which students actively engage instead of being passive receivers of information. In that sense, democratic learning is perceived as a pedagogical approach, as a way of teaching, as a means to the educational goal, as ‘learning through democracy’ (Ekholm, 2004). Participants also acknowledge the importance of providing a safe learning environment where experimentation, exploration and mistakes are allowed. Both lecturers and students are committed to the learning process and share responsibilities in facilitating it.
They [students] can experiment or make errors or try out different things and students have an active attitude. (Lecturer 2, female, Dutch)
In this learning space, diversity and critical thinking should also be ideally stimulated. Participants attribute significance to respecting difference in perspectives and opinions within the democratic classroom but also to incorporating a diverse body of literature that makes knowledge socially relevant. In addition, learning how to reflect on the content, the process and the underlying reasons of thoughts and beliefs, hence developing the analytical tool of critical thinking, is considered an important characteristic of democratic learning.
Finally, both lecturers and students also referred to the concept of democratic learning as indicative of the educational goal. According to this perspective,
democratic learning refers to pedagogical processes that encourage the knowledge of democratic values and the development of democratic skills by establishing
So, to prepare students for democratic society. (Student 8, premaster, female, Dutch)
5.1.2. The role of the teacher
Participants were invited to describe the role of the teacher in a democratic learning environment, in order to allow for a more holistic description of the
pedagogical approach. Two aspects of the teacher’s role were portrayed: the teaching practices applied in the classroom as well as the teacher’s attitude towards the
students.
The majority of lecturers and students (nlecturers= 6, nstudents= 10) described the
democratic teacher as the one who provides guidance and structure, the one who monitors the learning procedure, provides the learning tools and makes sure the learning goals are met. The teacher was portrayed as the facilitator of discussion and interaction among the students.
A smaller number of participants (nlecturers= 5, nstudents = 6) referred to the
teachers’ attitude when describing their role in the democratic learning environment. They mentioned that the teacher is expected to provide and maintain a safe learning space, where nobody feels intimidated but welcomed to express oneself. The teacher is considered responsible for ensuring an environment where hierarchical
relationships between the teacher and the students as well as among the students are challenged; where there is mutual respect. A teacher is, therefore, responsible for dealing with potential micro-aggressions and secure that everyone’s opinion is being heard and valued.
people without making them insecure, so you have to provide a safe environment. (Student 6, master, male, Dutch)
5.1.3. The role of the student
Both lecturers and students portrayed the student by referring to two main aspects: the student’s role in the context of the whole institution as well as the student’s attitude in the classroom.
In a democratic university, the student is considered a knowledge co-creator by the majority of the participants (nlecturers= 8, nstudents= 8). In such a context, the
student is expected to participate in the decisions regarding the content, the method and the evaluation of their learning.
To think critically about the curriculum and to give their input on it, to really think about “what I want to learn and how I want to learn it” and to voice their opinion. (Student 8, premaster, female, Dutch)
Second, being responsible for their own learning, students are expected to display a proactive and engaging attitude in the classroom (nlecturers= 4, nstudents= 5).
They are expected to discuss, interact, reflect on their own learning and contribute to the knowledge formation. One lecturer and one student also defined students’
5.2.The value of democratic learning
In this section, lecturers’ and students’ perspectives regarding the value of democratic learning are being presented. Participants reported both beneficial and non-beneficial aspects of the pedagogical approach.
5.2.1. The beneficial aspects of democratic learning
All participants, except one lecturer (96%), reported a number of positive effects of democratic learning for the students, for the teachers as well as for the society in general.
5.2.1.1. Benefits for students
First, more lecturers (73%) and fewer students (54%) gave emphasis to the pedagogy’s positive effect on students’ motivation and interest. Learning is expected to become more fun, more personal and more relevant, because students engage in the learning process. By voicing themselves and bringing their experiences in the
classroom, students establish good relationships with each other and with their teachers and hence their sense of belongingness increases. Learning therefore becomes more effective, because actively engaging and deciding about the learning process, facilitates the crystallization of knowledge.
In addition, more students (69%) and fewer lecturers (45%) considered democratic learning as beneficial not only for strengthening motivation and making the acquisition of knowledge more effective but also for developing cognitive as well as democratic skills. Both students and lecturers reported that democratic learning promotes independence as well as critical and creative thinking skills. Furthermore, democratic learning was believed to facilitate the development of students’
communication and analytical skills. In addition, it was suggested that students learn how to be democratic and respect others’ perspectives while at the same time gain a better understanding of their own thoughts and identities. In turn, students’ self-confidence and self-appreciation increases.
I think you ‘re more creative, you take more initiative, which also are qualities that are important for our lives. (…) In an environment as such, also, I think you could gain more confidence, because you can speak up for what you believe. (Student 13, ResMa, female, international)
Finally, three students (23%) and one lecturer (9%) considered democratic learning a valuable learning experience in itself, because it is supposed to allow for reflection on the learning process and for the development of metacognition and better understanding of the learning procedure itself. So, students learn how to learn and this allows for appreciation and continuation of learning in general (Zeki & Guneyli, 2014).
5.2.1.2. Benefits for lecturers
The majority of the participants (62.5% of all participants, n= 15) referred to democratic learning as being beneficial for lecturers themselves as well. It was considered to increase teachers’ motivation and interest in teaching. And if lecturers achieve their professional goal of facilitating interesting and effective learning processes, they are also believed to gain satisfaction from their work. In addition, a democratic learning environment, where constant active engagement of all actors is facilitated, allows lecturers to continuously learn and develop their science and knowledge on their field of expertise.
Τhen I learn also a lot more. I always think that I’m the one who learns the most from the subjects. (Lecturer 5, male, Dutch)
Furthermore, four students mentioned that being the initiators and promoters of a safe and democratic environment, where democracy thrives and hierarchical relationships are being challenged, lecturers personally develop. They themselves challenge their own teaching role as the one who holds the knowledge and therefore the power in the academic environment. They constantly challenge themselves to be open to different perspectives. Hence, they get to better know themselves, develop their critical thinking skills as well as their democratic skills.
Οf course, the teacher could learn more about himself or herself, about his or her own skills as a teacher and as a person at the same time. (Student 13, ResMa, female, international)
5.2.1.3. Benefits for society
Democratic learning was also considered to have positive long-term societal effects. In particular, it was believed to encourage democratic activism. Eight students and one lecturer argued that actively engaging in decision-making, learning to
appreciate others’ perspectives and generally valuing the importance of democracy might encourage people to actively participate in the social and political situation outside of the classroom.
Three lecturers and two students also referred to potential societal
difference and critically engaging in discussions about relevant issues, instead of passively receiving information in a one-directional way, may lead to a more
democratic way of thinking about the social world. People are then more equipped to critically reflect and challenge societal imbalance and hence guide their actions towards transforming society.
I think democratic learning can have huge impact in terms of allowing us to analytically and critically look at our society, power imbalances and
particularly looking at our own socialization. (Lecturer 4, female, international)
5.2.3. Negative or no consequences
Half of participants, although acknowledged the beneficial aspects of democratic learning, at the same time raised questions regarding its positive value, pointing out the possibility that it displays negative or no consequences at all.
More specifically, three lecturers and two students reported their doubts regarding the difference that this pedagogical approach could have for learning and expressed their concern of whether is actually necessary to be stimulated. In addition, two students mentioned that the application of democratic learning in higher
education could have no effect for society, either because only a small percentage of people attend universities or because democracy already functions well on the societal level.
Furthermore, eight participants (nstudents= 5, nlecturers= 3) mentioned that
democratic learning might facilitate the growth of knowledge neither for the lecturer nor for the student. It was argued that, in democratic classrooms, lecturers do not have
the opportunity to challenge their own learning, and students do not gain all the knowledge they could have gained if the lecturer would directly transmit it to them. Furthermore, concerns were reported with regard to democratic learning being a potentially ‘exhausting’ and ‘chaotic’ ‘overload’ for students. It was also noted that there is a danger of losing control and moving away from the learning goal, which would probably cause frustration to lecturers who would feel like losing their role. One other lecturer also reported a concern on how the pedagogy’s implementation could have different than the expected results regarding the teacher-student
relationships. It was argued that it could change their relationship to a buyer-consumer relationship, in which student asks and the lecturer delivers.
Another important issue raised from one lecturer is the fact that democratic classrooms, where discussions are stimulated and different perspectives are expressed, can possibly raise tensions among students. Students from different cultural
backgrounds might hold diametrically opposing views, which might lead to intense discussions and ‘uneasiness’ in the classroom. However, as long as the lecturer can manage such tensions, these discussions are important to take place, the same lecturer argues. Hence, tension in the classroom due to discussions might be an issue, however the positive consequences of these discussions are considered more significant.
5.3. The implementation of democratic learning
There are student-related, teacher-related, institutional as well as societal and cultural factors that affect the implementation of the pedagogy in a different way, either by promoting or by challenging and restricting it. The findings regarding the possibilities and challenges in the implementation of democratic learning at UvA are
5.3.1. Teacher-related factors
Seventy five percent (n= 18) of the participants referred to a number of teaching methods as well as lecturers’ attitudes that encourage democratic learning at UvA classrooms. In particular, both student and lecturer participants mentioned that many lecturers appreciate and try to initiate discussions and students’ participation, which foster the creation of a democratic environment in the classroom. They do that by asking questions, engaging students in group-assignments, such as exchanging feedback and presenting, giving voice to everyone one by one, rewarding
participation by assigning participation points, using games such as debating and quizzes and assigning preparatory work to students. Single examples of lecturers who initiated students’ participation were also reported. One lecturer referred to engage students in co-developing the exam questions. Another mentioned involving students in developing teaching materials.
In addition, participants argued that many lecturers display a democratic attitude, being open for discussion, valuing students’ opinions, encouraging informal
communication between them and the students, being approachable and willing to provide guidance and support and appreciating interactive classrooms.
However, not all lecturers use teaching methods and display attitudes that promote a democratic learning environment. In particular, many student participants referred to the frequent use of lecturing in a disapproving way. They stated that many lecturers engage in traditional lecturing without making efforts to engage students. In addition, the fact that the majority of the assignments are conducted individually was characterized as negative and irrelevant to real-life demands. Also, the additional time and effort required from teachers in order to stimulate democratic learning was
reported by seven students and one lecturer as a challenge, which leads lecturers to select the easier traditional way of lecturing.
Furthermore, certain lecturers might display more dominant and intimidating attitude, which does not facilitate teacher-student interaction. Also, lecturers’ lack of confidence to step out of their comfort zone and teach in an innovative way was reported as another characteristic that might hinder the implementation of the pedagogy from both student and lecturer participants.
5.3.2. Student-related factors
Students’ personal characteristics and students’ attitude towards learning were reported as factors that affect the implementation of democratic learning. Both
facilitating and challenging factors were mentioned.
More students and less lecturers (nstudents= 7, nlecturers = 3) argued that students
have the motivation and interest to learn and therefore are willing to actively
participate in the learning processes. It was also mentioned that there are students who are interested in participating in the discussions, the councils, the parties and who are willing to take the opportunities to express their opinions and critiques about the teaching and learning processes.
All participants also reported one or more student-related factors that
challenge the implementation of democratic learning. Seven participants (nstudents= 3,
nlecturers= 4) reported that students do not seem to appreciate knowledge and are not
willing to invest in their studies. In contrast, they seem interested in just passing the exams and finish with their studies as soon as possible. This was related to the fact that they are busy and they start working early in their lives but also to the studentship
the majority of participants (nstudents= 8, nlecturers= 6) agreed that most students do not
engage in active participation during the courses. It was argued that most of the time only a small group of students actively engage in the classroom, even though teachers try to initiate discussion.
Several variable characteristics were related to students’ in-class participation, such as students’ age, experience, personal motivation and interest, confidence, shyness, peers’ attitude and preferred learning style. Being young and inexperienced, not having the motivation and interest to participate, lacking confidence or being shy to speak up and/or having intimidating peers might eliminate the chances that students actively engage in discussion in the classroom. Higher education students have also already developed a preferred learning style, according to which they might prefer lecturing instead of interaction in the classroom.
5.3.3. Institutional factors
A number of institutional regulations were reported as factors influencing the extent and the way democratic learning is implemented at the UvA. In the next sections, the opinions of participants regarding course management policies, studentship policies, lecturers’ working conditions as well as other institutional regulations will be presented.
5.3.3.1. Course management policies
Lecturing vs. working groups: According to the general teaching policy at UvA and the demands of each course, time is allocated between large lectures and the so-called “working groups”, which constitute classes of smaller size where students are expected to interact and work together towards the completion of an assignment. Most interviewees have participated in teaching and learning both in large classes and in
