The Psychology of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: A Brief Reflection on Challenges and Opportunities


Image: FSB Marketing/Adobe/Adobe Firefly
By Gloria Cavicchioli, Academic Support Coordinator & Trainee Lecturer in Health at FSB Croydon, and Henry Qian, Trainee Lecturer in Business at FSB Croydon.
“The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but to irrigate deserts” (Lewis, 2008).
When we think about education, it is easy to focus more on ‘content’ – what we teach and what students learn. Yet beneath the surface lies something far more influential, that is, the psychology of teaching and learning. Teachers and students alike can benefit from the growing recognition of educational psychology, as it provides a transformative framework to comprehend the complicated nature of education. Through understanding psychological principles, teachers can enhance their teaching and pedagogical approaches, while students are more likely to improve their learning strategies, leading to better outcomes for both. But how well are these principles being applied in our classrooms and are we doing enough to bridge the gap between theory and practice? This article will introduce three major concepts in educational psychology and will discuss and reflect on the current situations, desired outcomes, and how to reduce the gap for institutions, teachers, and students at FSB.
Cognitive Loads: The Limits of the Mind
Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) emphasises the constraints of human working memory in information processing (see Kirschner, 2002). According to CLT, when learners encounter excessive knowledge simultaneously — commonly termed ‘overloading’ — they find it challenging to retain and comprehend it. This has substantial implications for teaching and learning in higher education, where intricate subjects are typically addressed in a dense, information-laden environment.
For teachers, the challenge is clear: how do we balance the need to deliver comprehensive content knowledge while ensuring students are not overwhelmed? Ideally, breaking down material into smaller, more digestible chunks is one solution. Yet, in practice, higher education often demands a rapid pace, pushing through vast amounts of information in limited time.
Moreover, the traditional lecture format of teaching and learning, widely accepted in numerous universities, may not be the most efficient method for managing cognitive load Andrews et al. (2011), for instance, argue that higher education students, particularly undergraduate students, could face numerous challenges in learning as the result of the passive learning pattern of traditional lectures. Active learning methodologies, including problem-solving exercises and discussions, assist in reducing cognitive overload by prompting students to apply and synthesise knowledge (Chi and Wylie, 2014). Despite evidence supporting such practices, they have not yet become mainstream for many higher education institutions. Should universities allocate greater resources towards training educators in pedagogical methods that correspond with cognitive load theory, or are they excessively dependent on conventional models that emphasise information dissemination rather than active participation?
For this question, it would be interesting to mention another example of IOE, University College London (UCL). For the institution’s Master’s level programme in education, majority of the lectures had been transformed into online pre-recorded sessions, while the teaching sessions were taken place in the format of seminars. It can be argued that seminars, as live interactive sessions, offer opportunities to reduce cognitive overload by enabling students to clarify, apply, and solidify their learning. The seminar style provides an environment for active learning, enabling students to participate in discussions, cooperate on problem-solving activities, and pose enquiries. This connection can markedly improve memory and comprehension by enabling students to engage with information more profoundly.
It should be acknowledged, however, that students who attend the seminars without thoroughly examining the pre-recorded content may encounter cognitive overload, hindering their ability to engage effectively in discussions or problem-solving activities. For this hybrid model to function well, a careful balance must be established between the volume of content provided online and the duration designated for active participation in seminars. Imposing excessive pre-recorded material on students while anticipating complete engagement in lectures may result in exhaustion and superficial comprehension. Institutions must evaluate if the distinction between asynchronous (pre-recorded) and synchronous (seminar) sessions fosters significant cognitive engagement or simply shifts the cognitive strain from one format to another.
Motivation: The Engine of Learning
Motivation is central to how and why students engage with their learning. Niemiec and Ryan (2009) argue that “people are innately curious, interested creatures who possess a natural love of learning and who desire to internalize the knowledge, customs, and values that surround them” (p.133). Nevertheless, under many circumstances, instructors or teachers tend to introduce external controls (e.g. supervision, monitoring, evaluation followed by reward and punishment), which usually lead to external pressure that could easily replace the positive emotions of learning (Niemiec and Ryan, 2009; Reeve, 2009). This typically results in the self-fulfilling prophecy that students lose interest in the material being taught and teachers are compelled to exert external control over students in order to facilitate learning.
It is therefore indeed important to introduce Self-Determination Theory (SDT), which divides motivation into two categories: ‘intrinsic’ and ‘extrinsic’ (Moran et al., 2012). Intrinsic motivation participates in learning for its inherent value, fuelled by curiosity, enthusiasm, or interest, whereas extrinsic motivation is driven by external incentives, including grades or prospective employment opportunities.
Teachers should prioritise the cultivation of intrinsic motivation in their pedagogic approaches. Studies consistently demonstrate that students driven by intrinsic motivation exhibit enhanced engagement with the subject matter, improved material retention, and greater long-term achievement (Benware and Deci, 1984; Gregory and Kaufeldt, 2015; Guthrie et al., 1996; Reeve and Lee, 2014). Nevertheless, the pressure on educators to fulfil performance goals, complete curricula, and prepare students for examinations frequently emphasises extrinsic motivation. To what extent are students motivated to investigate issues only for their intrinsic curiosity, rather than for assessment purposes? Although higher education institutions usually aim to cultivate a passion for learning, the inflexible nature of majority types of assessment can occasionally hinder this objective.
And most likely students have the task of manoeuvring through a system that (either intentionally or unintentionally) emphasises grades rather than education per se. Do students engage in study for comprehension or solely for the purpose of passing? This performance-driven methodology may suppress intellectual curiosity and deter risk-taking, as students might avoid challenging subjects in favour of simpler assignments that ensure better grades. Higher education institutions must critically reflect on the balance between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, prioritising the cultivation of intellectual curiosity above the incentivisation of academic success through external rewards.
Growth Mindset: The Power of Potential
Carol Dweck’s concept of the ‘growth mindset’ has attracted much focus in the field of education (Yeager and Dweck, 2020). A growth mindset is the belief that intelligence and abilities can be developed through diligence and dedication, in contrast to a fixed mindset, which perceives abilities as inherent and inflexible. Studies indicate that students possessing a growth mindset exhibit more resilience when confronted with adversity and generally attain higher levels of success over time (Calo et al., 2022; Polirstok, 2017; Yeager and Dweck, 2012).
Fostering a growth mindset in students can be transformative for teachers. However, realising this in reality necessitates more than mere encouragement of effort. The manner in which teachers present feedback and assessments has a substantial impact on the perspectives of students. Are students evaluated solely on the basis of their performance, or are they commended for their effort and progress? In higher education, which is characterised by intense competition and the importance of grades (or, say, the paper of the final degree), individuals may perceive their talents as unalterable, which can lead to a dread of failure and an inclination to avoid challenging assignments. This is particularly relevant in fields like statistics, mathematics, or science, where students may believe that they are inherently incapable and subsequently give up on their endeavours when they face obstacles.
To foster a growth mindset, teachers need to change the way they talk about success and failure. Sahagun et al. (2021) suggest that growth mindset systems work best when students feel a sense of autonomy, which helps them stay persistent in their efforts. Without this, these systems might undermine the performance of students who have already achieved relatively high level of success. Nevertheless, implementing the systems in environments reliant on standardised assessment presents challenges, as institutions may be hesitant to move away from traditional grading in favour of formative evaluation that highlight efforts and development. This evidently requires a fundamental, cultural transformation, perceiving learning as a continuous process that encourages intellectual resilience.
Encouraging a growth mindset involves framing challenges and failures as learning opportunities rather than reflections of fixed abilities. This can be difficult in the high-pressure environment of higher education, where grades and results dominate. Students may struggle to maintain motivation in challenging courses, especially when outcomes are uncertain. To support students in developing a growth-oriented mindset and resilience, institutions should provide empathetic feedback, academic skills training, and enhanced mental health support.
Call to Action
Higher education is at a crossroads. The traditional models of teaching and learning, which prioritise content delivery and assessment, are being challenged by insights from educational psychology. Motivation, cognitive load, and growth mindset are not just theoretical constructs but powerful tools that can transform how students learn and how educators teach.
At FSB, we acknowledge the rapid evolvement of the field, and we are continuously attempting to explore and discover the most suitable approaches to promote teaching and learning in light of our philosophies – to equip students with knowledge and skills that they can actually put into practice.
It is time for higher education institutions like us to critically reflect on their current practices. Are we truly fostering a love of learning, or are we preparing students to merely survive a system that prioritises grades over understanding? Teachers must take an active role in designing learning experiences that promote intrinsic motivation, manage cognitive load, and cultivate a growth mindset. This involves rethinking how content is delivered, how feedback is given, and how students are assessed.
Students, too, must embrace their role in this process. Take charge of your learning journey by developing strategies to manage information overload and by viewing challenges as opportunities for growth, not as obstacles to success.
The time for change is now.
References
Abeysekera, L. and Dawson, P. (2014). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(1), pp.1–14. doi:10.1080/07294360.2014.934336.
Andrews, T.M., Leonard, M.J., Colgrove, C.A. and Kalinowski, S.T. (2011). Active Learning Not Associated with Student Learning in a Random Sample of College Biology Courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, [online] 10(4), pp.394–405. doi:10.1187/cbe.11-07-0061.
Benware, C.A. and Deci, E.L. (1984). Quality of Learning With an Active Versus Passive Motivational Set. American Educational Research Journal, 21(4), pp.755–765. doi:10.3102/00028312021004755.
Calo, M., Judd, B., Chipchase, L., Blackstock, F. and Peiris, C.L. (2022). Grit, Resilience, Mindset, and Academic Success in Physical Therapist Students: a Cross-Sectional, Multicenter Study. Physical Therapy, 102(6). doi:10.1093/ptj/pzac038.
Chi, M.T.H. and Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes. Educational Psychologist, [online] 49(4), pp.219–243. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.965823.
Clark, R.C., Nguyen, F. and Sweller, J. (2011). Efficiency in Learning : Evidence-Based Guidelines to Manage Cognitive Load. Somerset: Wiley.
Gregory, G. and Kaufeldt, M. (2015). The motivated brain : improving student attention, engagement, and perseverance. Alexandria, Virginia, USA: ASCD.
Guthrie, J.T., Meter, P., McCann, A.D., Wigfield, A., Bennett, L., Poundstone, C.C., Rice, M.E., Faibisch, F.M., Hunt, B. and Mitchell, A.M. (1996). Growth of Literacy Engagement: Changes in Motivations and Strategies During Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(3), pp.306–332. doi:10.1598/rrq.31.3.5.
Kirschner, P.A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction, [online] 12(1), pp.1–10. doi:10.1016/s0959-4752(01)00014-7.
Lewis, C.S. (2008). The abolition of man. New York: Harperone.
Moran, C., Diefendorff, J., Kim, T. and Liu, Z. (2012). A profile approach to self-determination theory motivations at work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, [online] 81(3), pp.354–363. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2012.09.002.
Niemiec, C.P. and Ryan, R.M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom. Theory and Research in Education, [online] 7(2), pp.133–144. doi:10.1177/1477878509104318.
Polirstok, S. (2017). Strategies to Improve Academic Achievement in Secondary School Students: Perspectives on Grit and Mindset. SAGE Open, 7(4). doi:10.1177/2158244017745111.
Reeve, J. and Lee, W. (2014). Students’ classroom engagement produces longitudinal changes in classroom motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, [online] 106(2), pp.527–540. Available at: https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2014_ReeveLee.pdf [Accessed 27 Sep. 2024].
Reeve, J.M. (2009). Why Teachers Adopt a Controlling Motivating Style Toward Students and How They Can Become More Autonomy Supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), pp.159–175. doi:10.1080/00461520903028990.
Sahagun, M.A., Moser, R., Shomaker, J. and Fortier, J. (2021). Developing a growth-mindset pedagogy for higher education and testing its efficacy. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 4(1). doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2021.100168.
Yeager, D.S. and Dweck, C.S. (2012). Mindsets That Promote Resilience: When Students Believe That Personal Characteristics Can Be Developed. Educational Psychologist, [online] 47(4), pp.302–314. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.722805.
Yeager, D.S. and Dweck, C.S. (2020). What can be learned from growth mindset controversies? American Psychologist, [online] 75(9), pp.1269–1284. doi:10.1037/amp0000794.