1 / 26

Harnessing Insight into Disciplinary Differences to Refine e-learning Design

Harnessing Insight into Disciplinary Differences to Refine e-learning Design. Su White & Ilaria Liccardi FIE 2006 San Diego 28-31 October 2006 http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie2006/papers/1784.pdf. Overview. Introduction and Background Understanding Disciplinary Differences

rhea-tyson
Télécharger la présentation

Harnessing Insight into Disciplinary Differences to Refine e-learning Design

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Harnessing Insight into Disciplinary Differences toRefine e-learning Design Su White & Ilaria LiccardiFIE 2006 San Diego28-31 October 2006 http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie2006/papers/1784.pdf

  2. Overview • Introduction and Background • Understanding Disciplinary Differences • Approaches to e-learning • Survey • Discussion

  3. Survey of students attitudes Wanted to find out about their experience and perceptions of e-learning Identify user needs Compare experience with theory Because Disciplinary differences literature Ad hoc development of e-learning resources High cost of developing e-learning resources Sometimes structural barriers to change Background: our survey

  4. Indicative Areas Applied Social SciencesandHumanities Engineering Hard Soft NaturalSciences Nursingor Education Pure Biglan, 1973

  5. Mapping the differences

  6. Disciplinary Learning Neumann, R., Parry, S. & Becher, T. (2002) Teaching and Learning in their Disciplinary Contexts: A Conceptual Analysis. Studies In Higher Education, 27:4, 405-418. Reflecting on Biglan… “a sound understanding of key aspects of teaching and learning must depend on the recognition of the distinctive features of different knowledge domains and their social mileiux” (Neumann et al., 2002) And maybe taking into account perspective of authors??

  7. Hard Subjects… Hard Puree.g.Natural Sciences Hard Appliede.g.Engineering

  8. Soft Subjects… Soft Puree.g.Social Sciences and Humanities Soft Appliede.g.Nursingor Education

  9. different requirements specific to each of the four broad areas Can inform decisions related to curriculum design and pedagogic innovations approaches outlined relate to general educational methods different types of e-learning implementation match different educational methods Definitions are not absolute but….

  10. Framework Implications concerned for “indiscriminatory eagerness to embed methods found effective in one discipline area into other less amenable fields” • This observation may have special resonance to those who are making curricular changes which involve e-learning and blended learning Neumann Parry and Becher

  11. Approaches to e-learning

  12. Education + technology

  13. 1970s Kolb CBT-> CAI-> ->CAL->CBL->…. • One of many educational models • Recurs in many educational technology applications • Biglan drew on Kolb…

  14. Disciplinary Perspectives Biglan thought about Kolb… • But wanted to explain the specific context of academic disciplines and fields of study… The Knowledge The Processes Hard or Soft Pure or Applied Becher Parry and Neumann • relate this more specifically to educational processes… But what about my specialist area?

  15. discussion Teacher’s conceptualknowledge Student’s conceptualknowledge reflectiononstudentperformance adaptionofworld adaptionofactions reflectiononinteraction Teacher’s constructedworld Student’s experientialknowledge interaction 1990s Laurillard Laurillard’s Conversational Model “Rethinking University Education”, 1993

  16. Teaching approaches Wright and White, 2001

  17. Learning activities

  18. Our Student Survey Hard Pure:Bioscience, Earth Environment Science, Maths, Statistics, Operational Research, Physical Science Hard Applied:Built Environments, Engineering, Health Science and Practice, Computer Science, Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine, Psychology Soft Pure: Economics, English, History, Classic and Archaeology, Language Linguistics and Area Studies, Philosophical and Religious Studies, Sociology, Anthropology and Politics Soft Applied:Art, Design and Media. Business Management and Accountancy Education Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism, Law -Dance, Drama and Music Social Policy and Social Work

  19. Survey Focus • Experience & Perceived Needs • How do students regard e-learning Context • UK – high level of specialisation • Face to face, research intensive • Blended learning widespread Questions • Past and Present Experience • Rate Approaches (Five Types + VLE’s)

  20. Students in Hard areas valued online tutorials reference materials objective tests (also VLEs) Support the mastery of facts, principles and concepts. Quantitative, Closed Students in Soft areas valued synchronous discussions role play and games access to open web Access to online journals Support the development of argumentation skills and critical thinking Qualitative Open Major Findings The responses were broadly consistent with knowledge framework.

  21. Tensions in our areas… Neumann Parry and Becher • students In Hard fields of study experience a heavy workload, so technology which offers affordance which save or optimise the use of time will be powerful • However from the point of view of the academic there is also a “high incidence of face to face teaching and concern for substantial coverage” So… • Academics may be disinclined to invest large amounts of additional time preparing e-learning materials

  22. Broad Conclusions Confirmed the theory  Identified particular perceived needs  Pointers for future developments blended approaches… allow systematic selection of activities to best meet range of requirements supporting student learning making good use of faculty time streamline administrative tasks (monitoring and recording student progression and achievement) Relevance to e-learning?

  23. Further Questions • How can insight into disciplinary differences assist the selection of effective e-learning approaches? • How can understanding disciplinary preferences help identify ways of working with faculty to successfully embed e-learning and develop blended approaches? • What are the technology affordances of e-learning which might best be used in engineering and its cognate areas? http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie2006/papers/1784.pdf

  24. Thank You  Dr Su White Learning Technologies Group University of Southampton saw@ecs.soton.ac.uk

  25. About Dr Su White Su White is based in the Learning Technologies research group in Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton. Su is a member of the Advisory Group for the Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Information and Computer Science and is also one of their regional academic advisors. She is also a member of the Council for Professors and Heads of Computer Science Working Group on Learning Development. With an original working background in journalism and computer programming, Su has a first degree in the social sciences from the London School of Economics and post graduate qualifications in Computer Science and Education from the University of London. She has been based in Southampton since 1993 when she joined a university wide project developing an institutional approach to the use of computer based learning resources. She has had specific responsibilities as a Learning and Teaching co-ordinator in the University since 1998 where she has held this role at a Faculty and School level.

  26. references • [1] A. Biglan, "The Characteristics of Subject Matter in Different Academic Areas," Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 57, pp. 195–203, 1973. • [2] A. Biglan, "Relationships between Subject Matter Characteristics and the Structure and Output of University Departments.," Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 57, pp. 204–213., 1973. • [3] T. Becher, "The Significance of Disciplinary Differences," Studies In Higher Education, vol. 19, pp. 151, 1994. • [4] R. Neumann, "Disciplinary Differences and University Teaching," Studies In Higher Education, vol. 26, pp. 136-146, 2001. • [5] R. Neumann, S. Parry, and T. Becher, "Teaching and Learning in Their Disciplinary Contexts: A Conceptual Analysis," Studies In Higher Education, vol. 27, pp. 405-418, 2002. • [6] C. Jones, M. Zenios, and J. Griffiths, "Academic Use of Digital Resources: Disciplinary Differences and the Issue of Progression," presented at Networked Learning, 2004. • [7] N. V. Hammond and C. Bennett, "Using C&IT to Support Group-Based Learning: What's Effective and How Do Disciplines Differ?" presented at Online Conferencing in the Arts and Humanities: Proceedings of HAN Conference, 2001. • [8] N. Hammond, "Understanding Scholarly Teaching: Role of Discipline, Institution And National Context.," presented at Improving University Teaching 29th annual conference, Berne, 2004. • [9] D. Laurillard, Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology. London: Routledge, 1993. • [10] D. H. Jonasson, J. T. Mayes, and R. McAleese, "A Manifesto for a Constructivist Approach to Uses of Technology in Higher Education," in Designing Environments for Constructivist Learning, T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, and D. H. Jonassen, Eds. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1993, pp. 231-247. • [11] Knuth and Cunningham, "Tools for Constructivism. In," in The Design of Constructivist Learning Environments., T. Duffy, J. Lowyck, and D. Jonassen, Eds. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1993. • [12] R. Schank and C. Cleary, "Engines for Education." New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994. • [13] J. T. Mayes, "Learning Technology and Groundhog Day," presented at Hypermedia at Work: Practice and Theory in Higher Education, University of Kent at Canterbury, 1995. • [14] S. White and P. Maier, "Building Models Which Enable Change: An Examination of the Teaching and Learning Technology Support Network," presented at Bringing Information Technology to Education (BITE), Maastricht, 1998. • [15] V. Wright and S. White, "Technology and Language Learning," in Supporting Lifelong Language Learning. Theoretical and Practical Approaches, L. Arthur and S. Hurd, Eds.: Open University & CILT, 2001. • [16] W. W. Gaver, "Technology Affordances," presented at Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Reaching through technology, New Orleans, 1991. • [17] N. Entwistle, "Learning Outcomes and Ways of Thinking across Contrasting Disciplines and Settings in Higher Education," Curriculum Journal, vol. 16, pp. 67-82, 2005. • [18] N. Entwistle, J. Nisbet, and A. Bromage, "Teaching-Learning Environments and Student Learning in Electronic Engineering," presented at Third Workshop of the European Network on Powerful Learning Environments, Brugge, 2004. • [19] N. J. Entwistle, D. Hounsell, and F. Marton, The Experience of Learning: Implications for Teaching and Studying in Higher Education. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press 1997, 1997. • [20] N. Hammond, "Discipline-Based Research into Learning and Teaching: A Survey," presented at International society for the scholarship of teaching and learning, Indiana, 2004. • [21] E. McDowell, S. White, and H. C. Davis, "Changing Assessment Practice in Engineering: How Can Understanding Lecturer Perspectives Help?" European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 29, pp. 173-181, 2004.

More Related