Improving Learning in a Traditional, Large-Scale Science Module with a Simple And Efficient Learning Design

• Authors: Mikkel Godsk
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This article presents the experiences and results of using a simple learning design for transforming a traditional, large-scale, face-to-face science module in calculus into blended learning where all face-to-face lectures were replaced by webcasts and online activities. The article presents the impact on teaching and learning in terms of how the teacher and the students used the materials and the impact on the students’ performance and satisfaction. The article concludes that replacing face-to-face lectures with webcasts and online activities has the potential to improve learning in terms of a better student performance, higher student satisfaction, and a higher degree of flexibility for the students. In addition, the article discusses implications of using learning design for educational development, how learning design may help breaking with the perception that facilitating blended learning is a daunting process, and, ultimately, its potential for addressing some of the grand challenges in science education and the political agenda of today

Keywords

EN

Blended learning; learning design; science education; learning pathways; video; Justin- Time Teaching; efficiency

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 17
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 143-159

Dates

published

2014-12-01

online

2015-03-03

Contributors

author

Mikkel Godsk

• Aarhus University [http://www.au.dk], C. F. Møllers Allé 8, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark

References

• 1. Aarhus Universitet (2011). Den Faglige Udviklingsproces. Øvrige bilag. Universitetsledelsen den. 9. marts. Retrieved July 2, 2014 from http://medarbejdere.au.dk/fileadmin/res/fau/dok/fau_bilag_oevrige_bilag_090311.pdf.
• 2. Blumenfeld, P.C.; Soloway, E.; Marx, R.W.; Krajcik, J.S.; Guzdial, M.; Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. In Educational psychologist, 26(3-4), (pp. 369-398).
• 3. Bonwell, C.C. and Eison, J.A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. Washington, DC: School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University.
• 4. Britain, S. (2004). A review of learning design: concept, specifications and tools. A report for the JISC E-learning Pedagogy Programme, 2006.
• 5. Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. In The journal of the learning sciences, 2(2), (pp. 141-178).
• 6. Conole, G. (2013). Designing for learning in an open world. New York: Springer.
• 7. Conole, G. and Dyke, M. (2004). What are the affordances of information and communication technologies? In Association for Learning Technology Journal, 12(2), (pp. 113-124).
• 8. Conole, G.; Dyke, M.; Oliver, M. and Seale, J. (2004). Mapping pedagogy and tools for effective learning design. In Computers & Education, 43(1), (pp. 17-33).
• 9. Conole, G. and Fill, K. (2005). A learning design toolkit to create pedagogically effective learning activities. In Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2005(1).
• 10. Conole, G. and Oliver, M. (2002). Embedding theory into learning technology practice with toolkits. In Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2002(1).
• 11. Correll, A. (2014). Godt studiemiljø kan stadig forbedres. Retrieved from http://newsroom.au.dk/nyheder/vis/artikel/godt-studiemiljoe-kan-stadig-forbedres/.
• 12. Course Catalogue (2013). Calculus 2 (Q2) - Search Course. Retrieved March 04, 2014 from http://kursuskatalog.au.dk/en/coursecatalog/Course/show/41378/.
• 13. Creswell, J.W. (2014). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Fourth Edition. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
• 14. Cross, S. and Conole, G. (2009). Learn about learning design. Part of the OU Learn about series of guides. The Open University: Milton Keynes. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/OULDI/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Learn-aboutlearning- design_v7.doc.
• 15. Daniel, J.; Kanwar, A. and Uvalić-Trumbić, S. (2009). Breaking higher education’s iron triangle: Access, cost, and quality. In Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 41(2), (pp. 30-35).
• 16. The Danish Government (2012). Danmark i arbejde - udfordringer for dansk økonomi mod 2020. Retrieved from http://www.stm.dk/multimedia/danmark_i_arbejde_- _udfordringer_for_dansk__konomi_mod_2020_web.pdf.
• 17. The Danish Ministry of Education (2014a). Andel af en årgang der forventes at få en uddannelse - Undervisningsministeriet. Retrieved from http://uvm.dk/Service/Statistik/Tvaergaaendestatistik/ Andel-af-en-aargang-der-forventes-at-faa-en-uddannelse.
• 18. The Danish Ministry of Education (2014b). Metode bag fremskrivning af en ungdomsårgangs uddannelsesniveau samt deres tidsforbrug. Retrieved from http://uvm.dk/~/media/UVM/Filer/Stat/PDF14/140321%2014022014Metode%20bag%2 0profilmodellen_ny.ashx.
• 19. Earle, R.S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and challenges. In Educational Technology, 42(1), (pp. 5-13).
• 20. Garrison, D.R. and Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. In The internet and higher education, 7(2), (pp. 95-105).
• 21. Godsk, M. (2013). STREAM: a Flexible Model for Transforming Higher Science Education into Blended and Online Learning. In T. Bastiaens & G. Marks (eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2013, (pp. 722-728). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
• 22. Godsk, M. (2014). Efficient Learning Design - Concept, Catalyst, and Cases. Ascilite 2014: Rhetoric and Reality: Critical perspectives on educational technology, Dunedin, New Zealand, 23-26 November.
• 23. Hines, P.J.; Mervis, J.; McCartney, M.; Wible, B. (eds). (2013). Grand challenges in science education. Science, (p. 340).
• 24. Jones, S.R. (1992). Was there a Hawthorne effect? In American Journal of Sociology.
• 25. Mazur, E. and Hilborn, R.C. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. In Physics Today, 50(4), (pp. 68-69).
• 26. Novak, G.M.; Patterson, E.T.; Gavrin, A.D.; Christian, W. (1999). Just-in-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning with Web Technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• 27. Price, L. and Kirkwood, A. (2011). Enhancing professional learning and teaching through technology: a synthesis of evidence-based practice among teachers in higher education. The Open University. Retrieved from http://www.lth.se/fileadmin/lth/genombrottet/DTR/PLATP_Main_Report_2011.pdf.
• 28. Romiszowski, A.J. (2004). How’s the e-learning baby? Factors leading to success or failure of an educational technology innovation. In Educational Technology, 44(1), (pp. 5-27).
• 29. Simkins, S.P. and Maier, M.H. (eds.) (2010). Just-in-Time Teaching: Across the Disciplines, and Across the Academy. Sterling: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
• 30. Twigg, C. (2009). Improving Learning and Reducing Costs for Online Learning. In P.L. Rogers, G.A. Berg, J.V. Boettcher, C. Howard, L. Justice & K. Schenk (eds.), Encyclopedia of Distance Learning, (pp. 1148-1154), Second Edition. Hershey: IGI Global.
• 31. Twigg, C. (2013). An overview of course redesign. The National Center for Academic Transformation. Retrieved from http://www.thencat.org/Articles/An Overview of Course Redesign.pdf
• 32. Weller, M. (2002). Delivering learning on the Net: The why, what & how of online education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/eurodl-2014-0025