Abstract:

The impression of students in higher education often implies young people eager to learn, interested in exploring different aspects of their field and rather self-efficient. This is true for many, but still we find their efficiency to sometimes disturb a more inquiring and explorative mindset.

Using a problem-based approach we expect them to experience first, then discuss and deliberate those experiences connected to theories and relevant research. What happens then, when students strive for efficiency rule out everything they do not find relevant enough? How do we balance the idea of learning through exploring and experience if what they want is answers first to justify the effort of every exercise?

To illustrate this we use “walk and talk”. This is an acknowledged method used in a variety of fields from drug-therapy to education and leadership but unknown to most of our students. Incorporated in their first projects, previous students report it enjoyable and useful, and due to corona, we thought it to be even more welcome as a break from digital communication. Recommended for anyone except those being ill or isolated, student groups of four or five could walk-and-talk as one whole group or divide themselves in two units. Due to corona, this year they could also change it for another exercise, knowing some groups had members in isolation or living far apart.

Surprisingly to us only two out of ten student-groups actually “walked-and talked”. During project-presentation we therefore asked them why not, knowing only two groups had relevant reasons. The answers was never academically- or corona-reasoned. They, or usually the leader, simply did not think it mattered “just to walk”. When asked why they thought they were given the exercise, as this is part of their curriculum, it seemed, they neither checked it up in their syllabus, or even googled it, thus challenging our strive to aspire “idle curiosity”.

What concerns us is how important is seems for today’s students to know explicitly why they should do different exercises, pointing out that this is “relevant for exams”. If they are not sure, they seem to rule it out. Thinking they are lazy could be one explanation, though we tend to think that is not the case. Rather, the focus on efficiency and lots of tips and tricks available tend to focus on minimum effort for maximum outcome in a way that lead students away from exploring, afraid this will be a waste of time.

Focus on efficiency might contribute to explain why students perceive tasks as less important if they do not immediately get an explanation or justification that it will be relevant for exams. As another colleague noted, student’s evaluation of her course vas brilliant except they wanted more “exam-related lectures”…but this was the week before exams and she was in charge of exam-questions so what were they thinking? That “exam” came falling from the sky, unattached to the course or her lectures?

We will further explore this in terms of problem-based learning, as we might too often rely on student’s experiences as a basis for learning, combined with a belief that their curiosity will help them explore topics if we give them open tasks.
Especially during online-teaching, where our control over what they do is low, the need for justification seems to be higher than with campus-classes.

Keywords:

Emerging trends, problem-based pedagogy, walk-and-talk, meaning, idle curiosity, organizational development.