Higher Education 4.0: The Digital Transformation of Classroom Lectures to Blended Learning PDF
Preview Higher Education 4.0: The Digital Transformation of Classroom Lectures to Blended Learning
Kevin Anthony Jones Ravi S. Sharma Higher Education 4.0 The Digital Transformation of Classroom Lectures to Blended Learning Higher Education 4.0 · Kevin Anthony Jones Ravi S. Sharma Higher Education 4.0 The Digital Transformation of Classroom Lectures to Blended Learning KevinAnthonyJones RaviS.Sharma CenterforInclusiveDigital ZayedUniversity Enterprise(CeIDE) Dubai,AbuDhabi Singapore UnitedArabEmirates ISBN978-981-33-6682-4 ISBN978-981-33-6683-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6683-1 ©TheEditor(s)(ifapplicable)andTheAuthor(s),underexclusivelicensetoSpringerNature SingaporePteLtd.2021 Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsaresolelyandexclusivelylicensedbythePublisher,whether thewholeorpartofthematerialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuse ofillustrations,recitation,broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,and transmissionorinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilar ordissimilarmethodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped. Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthispublication doesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromtherelevant protectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse. Thepublisher,theauthorsandtheeditorsaresafetoassumethattheadviceandinformationinthisbook arebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublication.Neitherthepublishernortheauthorsor theeditorsgiveawarranty,expressedorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinorforany errorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregardtojurisdictional claimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations. ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSingaporePteLtd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore Preface Thisresearchtracesitsorigintothefirstauthor’s(later,researcher)firstfewyearsof employmentasanacademic,2002–2005,asalecturerforthecomputerengineering school in a Southeast Asia university. After a brief stint in algorithms and Java programming,theteacherwasappointedasthefulltimecoordinatorandlecturerof the‘SoftwareEngineering’course. As course coordinator, the author began to notice minor incongruities in the students’ behaviours. Fleeting glimpses transformed into an acute awareness of a malaise exhibited by the students towards the established learning and teaching. The situation became increasingly evident: except for a small proportion of high achievers,studentsseemedverydetachedfromandapathetictowardstheirlearning, almostasifitweresomeonerouschoretheywereforcedinto.Ofcourse,thestudents weremuchtooreservedtovoicesuchasentimentopenly,buttheirbehaviourspoke volumes. (cid:129) Notattendinglecturesandtutorials—Inthefirstfewlearningsessions,theatten- dancewashigh,butitquicklydiminisheduntilbymid-semester,theattendance generally stabilized to under 50%. This was in stark contrast with the near-full attendanceinthelabsessions. (cid:129) Notaskingquestionsoftheteacher—Askingquestionsduringlecturesprettywell neverhappens.Askingafterclassesinaone-to-oneinteractionandemailingare the preferred approaches for posing questions; the highest number of students toaskquestionsoftheteacherinasemesterwas15inaclasssizeofover100. In casual dialogue, students showed cognizance of the effectiveness of seeking clarificationfromtheteacheronareasofuncertaintyinthenewknowledge.When pressed to explain the inconsistency of their understanding and their actions, some students claimed that they had no uncertainties. Yet, subsequent on-the- spotassessmentsshowedthatthemajorityofthesestudentswerenowherenear the degree of material comprehension thus professed. Other students purported shynessastheirreasonfornotaskingquestions. (cid:129) Notattemptingtake-homeformativeassignmentsandpracticequestions—Inthe first couple of tutorials, a few students have started the assignment, with none v vi Preface havingcompletedit.(Notethattheseareformative,intendedtobuildknowledge.) Thereafter,thenumberofstudentshavingstartedtheassignmentdropstonil. (cid:129) Notreviewingandrevisingnewknowledgeregularlyorevenatall,exceptduring afewdaysofintensecrammingbeforetheexamination—Theevidenceforthis wassituationalandtestimonial.Therearenumerousstudytablesfortheschool’s student. Typically, in the teaching weeks of the semester, they are occupied by studentsfromotherschools.Onlyduringtheexamrevisionweekdotheschool’s studentsoccupythetables.Inthecourseofcasualdiscussions,severalstudents candidly admitted to focusing their learning efforts solely to passing the exam, afterwhichtheywould(metaphorically)‘dump’theknowledge.Otherstudents explained it was a learned habit to cram. The corollary of this was that the studentswerenotapplyingrelevantknowledgefrompriorlearningopportunities totheacquisitionofnewknowledge,essentiallyderailingtheprocessofiterative constructionofpersonalknowledgethatisthecornerstoneoftheformaleducation system. (cid:129) Notstudyingtheprescribedreferencesforthenewknowledge—Evidenceforthis wasusagereportsfromtheuniversity’slearningmanagementsoftware,andon- the-spotassessmentsandworkshops.Supportingthecoursewereapproximately 50 primary references (presentations slide packages, assignment questions, lab instructions and handouts) and approximately 30 enrichment references (video lecture recordings, YouTube videos, and industry and scholarly articles). The references with standout usage statistics were lab instructions with the highest one-time-onlyusage(about80%ofcohort)andrecordedlectureswiththehighest repetitiveusage(about30%ofcohort).Otherwise,theoverallusagewasunder 10%ofcohort,witharticleshavingthelowest(borderingonnil).Thoughpossibly thestudentswerestudyingreferencematerialsfromothersourcesliketheweb, thestudents’dismalperformancesonunannouncedassessmentsandworkshops clearlyindicatedthateffort,ifitexistedatall,wasinsufficient,ineffectualorboth. Uptothispoint,thesehadbeenoneperson’sobservations.Regrettably,theconclu- sionsweresubjectiveandretrospectivesincetheteacherhadnotcollecteddatareal time. (Data collection of the classroom operation had not been mentioned in the orientation.) Also possible was that these observations were a misinterpretation, a naturalmistakemadebyanewfacultysettlingintotheappointmentandnewenvi- ronment. (After all, this was the Western teacher’s first immersion into an Asian institutionthatis99%comprisedofAsianstudents).Yet,havingformedtheseopin- ions,itwasalsonaturaltosharethemwithcolleagues.Muchtothechagrinofthe teacher,hisobservationsweresubstantivelycorroborated.Theagreedandconsistent opinionofthemajorityofschool’steacherswasthattheirstudentsalsoexhibitedall oftheobservedbehavioursandevenmoreintheirlearningsessions.Incidentaltothe mainthemeoftheinformationsharing,itwasdiscoveredthatnoonewascollecting dataonthissituation. Beingmotivatedbytherevelationoftheveracityoftheproblem,thefirstauthor formulatedathree-semesterprojectandqualitativeanalysisin2006-2007todeter- mine if authentic improvements to select artefacts and procedures in his course Preface vii would generate a commensurate improvement in the student’s learning behaviour, e.g.increasedreferencestudy,higherattendanceandincreasedundertakingofassign- ments. The artefacts and procedures selected for improvement—lecture presenta- tionorganization,learningactiveness,skillbuilding,formativeassessmentandlab experiment—were recognized as being seriously divergent from the best practice of learning and teaching in higher education, according to a 150-hour course on learningandteachingthattheteacherwasattendingatthetime.Thoughthechanges wereextensive,pervasiveandtraceabledirectlytothebest-practiceprescriptions,an ensuing qualitative analysis showed an insubstantial increase in student behaviour (JonesandGagnon,2007).Thereportidentifiedthreepossiblecausesforthatresult: language,priorconditioning,andinnatelearningmechanisms.Thatis,thesecausal agentswereimpedingthestudents’abilitiestoinvesteffortintothelearningoppor- tunity.Thisfirstattemptatlearningandteachingresearch—retroactivelytheprelude oftheteacher’sresearchinblendedlearning—endedwithnoanswersandstillmore questions. Itwasatthistimethattheconventionsoflearningandteachingintheuniversity wererockedbythreeprominenteventsinquicksuccession.First,inanunpublished experimentintheAugust2007,theschooldramaticallyreducedtheclasssizeinone computerengineeringcourse.Thecohortforthatcoursewaspartitionedintothree groups,andassignedthreeseparatesetsoflecturing,tutoringandsupervisingfaculty. Theresultswereequallydramatic.Attendanceshotup,andparticipationinformative assignmentsincreasedsignificantly.However,thedrainonmanpowerwastoomuch fortheschooltosustain,andtheinitiativewasquietlyshelvedaftertwosemesters. Second,draftcopiesbegancirculatinginOctober2007ofagroundbreakingreport on the state of the undergrad experience in the university. Officially released in March2008,thereport,BlueRibbonCommission,calledforsweepingimprovements in pedagogy and learning spaces. Third, in August 2008, a new degree, computer science,waslaunchedintheschooltooperateinparallelwiththeincumbentcomputer engineeringprogramme.Whenthefirstcoursesbeganrunninginthefirstsemester of2009,students’attendanceandparticipationinlearningactivitieswereveryhigh. These three events revealed a way forward in resolving the problems experi- encedintheschool.Clearly,attendanceandparticipationproblemswerenotinsur- mountable; however, they were expensive. To achieve a substantive improvement, the evidence suggested that the change to the course and its learning and teaching hadtobeequallysubstantial.Inthecaseofthethreeevents,thesupportoriginated withtheuniversity;afacultymemberactingalonecouldneverenactachangeofsuch magnitude.Moreover,theschoolwashighlyunlikelytoprovidesuchsupport.Ifit couldtolerateyearsofthestudentparticipationproblems,whywouldthepresentbe perceived as the timetosupportamelioration? Under theseconditions, thechange wouldhavetobesignificantlyimpactfultoinvokethekindofchangeinthestudents’ behavioursthatwouldbeworththeeffortandwithintheteacher’spurview.Inother words,thechangewouldhavetobelimitedtothesoftwareengineeringcourse.About thistime,thesecondauthorreturnedtoresumehisacademiccareeratthesameinsti- tutionafteradecadeinindustry.Bothauthorsremainpractice-orientedresearchers, havingfirstmetin2001asIBMconsultants.Thesecondauthorwasalsosuccessful viii Preface insecuringanNRFgrantwiththemissionofapplyinginteractivedigitalmediain sectorssuchaseducation,healthcareandentertainment. Havingsuspectedthattraditionallecturingwasaprominentcontributingfactorin thestudents’poorattendanceandparticipation,theteacherstraightawayprescribed animplantationintothecourseofanewinstructionaldesign,plusthediminishment or even elimination of lecturing. Out of several competing instructional designs, blendedlearning—comprisingofeLearningandface-to-facelearning—cameouton topasthemostfeasibleandimpactfulchoiceforthesereasons. (cid:129) Blended learning was implemented neither in the university nor in any of the secondary education institutions feeding students into the university. In other words,thelearningexperienceinthecoursewouldbecalibratedtoalevelplaying fieldbecauseitwouldbecommonlyunfamiliartoallstudents,andmeasurements ofthereceptivityoflearningpreferencewouldbeasauthenticandunprejudiced aspossible. (cid:129) TheeLearningpartoftheblendedlearningmodelwasinherentlyextensiblesuch that it could support activities and instruments more capable of enforcing the student’scontinuancethroughthesessionsthanotheronlinemodelslikeflipped classroom,blogandforum. (cid:129) Theface-to-facepartoftheblendedlearningmodelwasa‘cleanslate’thatcould behosttomanyoptionsforactiveandparticipativelearningactivitiesthatwere notlecturing. Ataboutthetimethattheteacherwascompletingthefinaltouchesontheplanfor hisnewinstructionaldesignproject,theCentreforExcellenceinLearningandTech- nologyissuedacallforeducationalprojectstobesubmittedforMinistryofEducation funding.So,withtheprojectalreadyinmotion,theteacherwroteaproposalforthe projectandsubmittedit,unperturbedwhetheritwouldbeacceptedornot.Serendipi- tously,thesubmissionwasaccepted,andtheteacherwasawardedagrantofSGD90K for2years,affordinganestimatedthreesemestersofdata. Fromthatpointonwards,theteacheradoptedadualroleofresearcherplusteacher. Theblendedlearninginstructionaldesignwaslaunchedasaresearchplatforminthe firstsemesterof2008todeterminewhateffectitwouldhaveontheacademicperfor- manceofthestudents.Afterweighingseveralalternativeinvestigationapproachesfor theirdegreeofallowableindependentactionandavailablesupport,thedesign-based researchmethodology(AmielandReeves,2008)wasadoptedfortheexperiment.A learningmodel,basedonProsserandTrigwell(1999),wasdevelopedfortheexper- imenttoidentifythedatavariablesthatweretobeprocessed.Finally,adatabaseof thelearningpreferenceofthecohortswascontinuedforthepossibilitythatitmight leadtoapredictivemechanism. Insummary,theideas,findingsandperspectivessharedinthisbookwerepreceded byyearsinthetrenchesstartingfrom2002,ofimmersion,introspection,reflection andprobingintoimprovingthelearningandteachingintheuniversity,inparticular, inthesoftwareengineeringcourseofferedbytheschool.Theauthors’experienceas teachersshapedtheendeavour,suchthattheresearchandthelearningandteaching are unified. In other words, the research cannot be envisioned as being an entity Preface ix independent ofthelearning andteaching, and thepropositions ofthelearning and teachingcanbeunderstoodthroughthesuppositionsoftheresearch. Singapore KevinAnthonyJones Dubai,UnitedArabEmirates RaviS.Sharma Acknowledgements We are grateful to numerous professional colleagues who have supported this exploratoryjourney. Aboveall,toourfamilies. Singapore&Christchurch KAJ&RSS October2020 xi
The list of books you might like
