Positive Learning and Pluriliteracies

Growth in Higher Education and Implications for Course Design, Assessment and Research
  • Oliver MeyerEmail author
  • Margarete ImhofEmail author
  • Do Coyle
  • Mita BanerjeeEmail author


Deeper learning and the development of transferable knowledge and skills are highly desirable goals in Higher Education programs. However, current studies indicate that these goals are rarely achieved. In this article, we will present a model of deeper learning that promotes the development of disciplinary literacies and transferable knowledge. Based on our joint work we will outline a revised course design that aims at putting the principles of deeper learning into practice through a focus on affect, student engagement, knowledge construction, meaning making and active demonstration of understanding as well as reflective practice. Further, we will outline a research agenda for evaluating and assessing deeper learning processes and outcomes in Higher Education and discuss how deeper learning might pertain to the notion of positive learning envisioned by PLATO.


Constructive Competence Development Deeper Learning Designing Teaching and Assessment for Learning Quality Evidence-Based Teaching Higher Education Instructional Science Learner Engagement Pluriliteracies Systems Model of Learning and Teaching Teaching and Learning Teaching and Learning Ecologies 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. (Eds.). (2013). A Taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  2. Arnett, J. (2000). Emerging adulthood. A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480.Google Scholar
  3. Arnett, J., Zukauskiene, R., & Sagimura, K. (2014). The new life stage of emerging adulthood 18-29 years: Implications for mental health. Lancet Psychiatry, 1(7), 569–576.Google Scholar
  4. Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2010). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2014). Aspiring adults adrift: Tentative transitions of college graduates. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Joessey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Bandura, A. (2006). Adolescents’ development from an agentic perspective. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents (pp. 1–45). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Banks, F., Leach, J., & Moon, B. (1999). New understandings of teachers’ pedagogic knowledge. In J. Leach & B. Moon (Eds.), Learners and Pedagogy (pp. 89–110). London: Paul Chapman Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research and critique. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  10. Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham, UK: Society for Research on Higher Education.Google Scholar
  11. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university. New York: Mc- Graw Hill.Google Scholar
  12. Blaich, C. (2007). Overview of findings from the first year of the Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education. Retrieved from
  13. Blazar, D., & Kraft, M. A. (2017). Teacher and teaching effects on students‘ attitudes and behaviors. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1), 146–170.Google Scholar
  14. Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  15. Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 445–457.
  16. Chiriac, S. E., & Ghitu-Bratescu, A. (2011). Linking globalisation, sustainable development and knowledge transfer - A network based approach. Journal of Doctoral Research in Economics, 3(1), 13–22.Google Scholar
  17. Claxton, G., Chambers, M., Powell, G., & Lucas, B. (2011). The learning powered school: Pioneering 21st century education. Bristol: TLO Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  19. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216–253.Google Scholar
  20. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2015). Cognitive discourse functions: Combining content and language perspectives for CLIL teacher development. Conference presentation. CLIL Colloquium: Integrating content and language for teacher development in bilingual / multilingual settings: From research to practice. Madrid, June 2015.Google Scholar
  21. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The „what“ and „why“ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
  22. Delors, J. (1996). The treasure within. A Report for the European Commission.Google Scholar
  23. Douglas, J., & McClelland, Davies, J. (2008). The development of a conceptual model of student satisfaction with their experience in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(1), 19–35.
  24. Duckworth, A. (2013). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance. TED: Ideas Worth Spreading. Retrieved from
  25. Dweck, C. (2007). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  26. Eppler, M.J. & Burkhard, R.A. (2004). Knowledge Visualization: Towards a New Discipline and its Fields of Application. Institute for Corporate Communication. Retrieved from
  27. European Commission (2001). Making a European area of lifelong learning a reality. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  28. Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Hattie, J. (2016). Visible learning for literacy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  29. Forsyth, D. R. (2016). College teaching. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  30. Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. Toronto, ON: Pearson.Google Scholar
  31. González, A., Conde, Á., Díaz, P., García, M., & Ricoy, C. (2017). Instructors’ teaching styles: Relation with competences, self-efficacy, and commitment in pre-service teachers. Higher Education.
  32. Hart Research Associates (2015). Falling Short? College learning and career success. Selected findings from online surveys of employers and college students conducted on behalf of the Association of American Colleges & Universities. Retrieved from
  33. Happ, R., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., & Schmidt, S. (2016). An Analysis of Economic Learning among Undergraduates in Introductory Economics Courses in Germany. Journal of Economic Education, 47(4), 300–310.
  34. Hattie, J. (2014). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Heemsoth, T., & Heinze, A. (2016). Secondary school students learning from reflections on the rationale behind self-made errors: A field experiment. Journal of Experimental Education, 84(1), 98–118.Google Scholar
  36. Hefter, M. H., Berthold, K., Renkl, A., Riess, W., Schmid, S., & Fries, S. (2014). Effects of a training intervention to foster argumentative skills while processing conflicting scientific positions. Instructional Science, 42(6), 929–947.Google Scholar
  37. Hefter, M. H., Renkl, A., Riess, W., Schmid, S., Fries, S., & Berthold, K. (2015). Effects of a training intervention to foster precursors of evaluativist epistemological understanding and intellectual values. Learning and Instruction, 39, 11–22. 2015.05.002
  38. Kale, D., Little, S. and Hinton, M. (2011). Reconfiguration of Knowledge Management Practices in New Product Development: The Case of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry. In K.A. Grant (Ed.), Case Studies in Knowledge Management Research (pp. 102–119). Reading, UK: Academic Publishing International Ltd.Google Scholar
  39. Keller, M. M., Neumann, K., & Fischer, H. E. (2017). The impact of physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and motivation on students’ achievement and interest. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(5), 586–614.Google Scholar
  40. Kim, J. H. (2016). Pedagogical approaches to media literacy education in the United States. In M. N. Yildiz & J. Keengwe (Eds.), Handbook of research on media literacy in the digital age (pp. 52–74). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  41. King, R. B. (2015). Sense of relatedness boosts engagement, achievement, and well-being: A latent growth model study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 26–38.Google Scholar
  42. Konu, A. I., & Lintonen, T. P. (2006). School well-being in grades 4–12. Health Education Research, 21(5), 633–642.
  43. Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for Effective Educational Practices. Change, 35(2), 24–32.Google Scholar
  44. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education: Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2013). Transfer of learning transformed. Language Learning, 63(s1), 107–129.
  47. Liu, Y. & Grusky, D. B. (2013). The payoff to skill in the third industrial revolution. American Journal of Sociology, 118(5), 1330–1374.Google Scholar
  48. Lüftenegger, M., Schober, B., van de Schoot, R., Wagner, P., Finsterwald, M., & Spiel, C. (2017). Lifelong learning as a goal – Do autonomy and self-regulation in school result in well-prepared pupils? Learning and Instruction, 22(1), 27–36.Google Scholar
  49. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning. 1 – Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11.Google Scholar
  50. Marzano, R. J. (2017). The new art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD and Solution Tree.Google Scholar
  51. McEwen, L., Stokes, A., Crowley, K. & Roberts, C. (2014). Using role-play for expert science communication with professional stakeholders in flood risk management. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 38(2), 277–300.
  52. Mercier, J. (2016). Embedding positive youth development into tertiary learning and teaching. In H. Hamerton & C. Fraser (Eds.), Te Tipuranga - Growing Capability: Proceedings of the 2015 National Tertiary Learning and Teaching Conference (pp. 27–34). Tauranga, NZ: Bay of Plenty Polytechnic.Google Scholar
  53. Meyer, O., & Coyle, D. (2017). Pluriliteracies teaching for learning: conceptualizing progression for deeper learning in literacies development. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5.
  54. Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting, T. (2015). A pluriliteracies approach to content and language integrated learning – Mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 28(1), 41–57.Google Scholar
  55. Mohan, B., Leung, C., & Slater, T. (2010). Assessing language and content: A functional perspective. In A. Paran & L. Sercu (Eds.), Testing the untestable in language education (pp. 217–240). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  56. National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER). (2014). Everyone a teacher, everyone a learner at New NFER Enquiring School. Retrieved from
  57. National Leadership Council for Liberal Education & America’s Promise (LEAP) (2007). College Learning for the New Global Century. Washington: Association of American Colleges and Universities.Google Scholar
  58. Ning, K., & Downing, K. (2010). The reciprocal relationship between motivation and self-regulation: A longitudinal study on academic performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(6), 682–686.Google Scholar
  59. Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86(4), 548–571.Google Scholar
  60. OECD (2016a). PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and practices for successful schools. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  61. OECD (2016b). The survey of adult skills: Reader’s companion. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  62. OECD (2017). PISA 2015 Results (Volume III): Students’ well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  63. Oga-Baldwin, W. Q., Nakata, Y., Parker, P., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Motivating young language learners: A longitudinal model of self-determined motivation in elementary school foreign language classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 140–150.
  64. Ogbuigwe, A. (2017). Advancing sustainability in higher education through the UN’s sustainable development goals. Retrieved from
  65. Ormrod, J. E. (2011). Educational Psychology: Developing Learners. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  66. Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (Eds.). (2012). Education for Life and Work. Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  67. Pietarinen, Soini, T., & Pyhältö, K. (2014). Students’ emotional and cognitive engagement as the determinants of well-being and achievement in school. International Journal of Educational Research, 67, 40–51.
  68. Roberts, B. W., & Davis, J. P. (2016). Young Adulthood Is the Crucible of Personality Development. Emerging Adulthood, 4(5), 318–326.Google Scholar
  69. Schatzki, T. R., Cetina, K., & von Savigny, E. (Eds.). (2001). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  70. Schiefele, U., & Schaffner, E. (2015). Teacher interests, mastery goals, and self-efficacy as predictors of instructional practices and student motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 159–171.
  71. Schmidt, S., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., & Fox, J.-P. (2016). Pretest-Posttest-Posttest Multilevel IRT Modeling of Competence Growth of Students in Higher Education in Germany. Journal of Educational Measurement, 53(3), 332–351.
  72. Schroeder, S., Richter, T., McElvany, N., Hachfeld, A., Baumert, J., Schnotz, W., Horz, H., & Ullrich, M. (2011). Teachers’ beliefs, instructional behaviors, and students’ engagement in learning from texts with instructional pictures. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 403–415.
  73. Selingo, J. J. (2017). Why can’t college graduates write coherent prose? Washington Post, August 11. Retrieved from
  74. Shernoff, D. J., Kelly, S., Tonks, S. M., Anderson, B., Cavanagh, R. F., Sinha, S., & Abdi, B. (2016). Student engagement as a function of environmental complexity in high school classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 43, 52–60.
  75. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus 134 (3), 52–59.Google Scholar
  76. Shulman, L. S., & Shulman, J. H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257–271.Google Scholar
  77. Skulborstad, H. M., & Hermann, A. D. (2015). Individual Difference Predictors of the Experience of Emerging Adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 4(3), 168–175.Google Scholar
  78. Stoll, L., & Louis, K. S. (2007). Professional Learning Communities: Divergence, Depth and Dilemmas. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  79. Suhrcke, M., & de Paz Nieves, C. (2011). The impact of health and health behaviours on educational outcomes in high-income countries: A review of the evidence. Kopenhagen: WHO.Google Scholar
  80. Taylor, R. D., Oberle, E., Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Promoting positive youth development through school-based social and emotional learning interventions: A meta-analysis of follow-up effects. Child Development, 88(4), 1156–1171.
  81. Tillema, H. H., van der Westhuizen, G. J., & van der Merwe, M. P. (2015). Knowledge building through conversation. In H. Tillema, G. J. Westyhuizen & K. Smith (Eds.), Mentoring for learning “Climbing the Mountain” (pp. 1–19). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  82. Tough, P. (2012). How children succeed: Grit, curiosity and the hidden power of character. New York: Houghton Miffl in Harcourt.Google Scholar
  83. Trautwein, C., & Bosse, E. (2017). The first year in higher education—critical requirements from the student perspective. Higher Education, 73(3), 371–387.Google Scholar
  84. Trench, M., & Minervino, R. A. (2017). Cracking the problem of inert knowledge. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 66, pp. 1–41). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  85. Ulmanen, S., Soini, T., Pietarinen, J., & Pyhältö, K. (2016). The anatomy of adolescents’ emotional engagement in schoolwork. Social Psychology of Education, 19(3), 587–606.Google Scholar
  86. United Nations (UN) (2017). Substainable Development. Knowledge Platform. Retrieved from
  87. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2017). Education. The four pillars of learning. Retrieved from
  88. van Ewijk, R. (2011). Same work, lower grade? Student ethnicity and teachers’ subjective assessments. Economics of Education Review, 30(5), 1045–1058.
  89. van Ewijk, R., & Sleegers, P. (2010). Peer ethnicity and achievement: A meta-analysis into the compositional effect. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(3), 237–265.Google Scholar
  90. van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy, and Authenticity. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  91. Verloop, N., van Driel, J., & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 441–461.
  92. Vollmer, H. J. (2008). Constructing Tasks for Content and Language Integrated Learning and Assessment. In O. Eckerth & S. Siekmann (Eds.), Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching – Theoretical, Methodological, and Pedagogical Perspectives (pp. 227– 290). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  93. Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159–180.
  94. Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. (2014a). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using expectancy-value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Developmental Review, 33(4), 304–340.
  95. Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. (2014b). Staying engaged: Knowledge and research needs in student engagement. Child Development Perspectives, 8(3), 137–143.
  96. Wang, M.-T., Fredricks, J. A., Ye, F., Hofkens, T. L., & Linn, J. S. (2016). The math and science engagement scales: Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties. Learning and Instruction, 43, 16–26.
  97. Westrup, U., & Planander, A. (2013). Role-play as a pedagogical method to prepare students for practice: the students’ voice. Högre utbildning, 3(3), 199–220.Google Scholar
  98. Woolfolk, A., & Davis, H. A. (2006). Teacher self-efficacy and its influence on the achievement of adolescents. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents (pp. 117–138). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  99. Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981–1015.
  100. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  101. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Pant, H. A., Lautenbach, C., Molerov, D., Toepper, M., & Brückner, S. (2017a). Modeling and Measuring Competencies in Higher Education: Approaches to Challenges in Higher Education Policy and Practice. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  102. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia et al. (2017b). Positive Learning in the Age of Information. Unpublished Manuscript, Draft Proposal Cluster of Excellence, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Johannes Gutenberg University MainzMainzGermany
  2. 2.University of AberdeenAberdeenScotland

Personalised recommendations