Connecting learners and learning across modular content and technologies offers rich new opportunities to improve student engagement and enhance access to diverse blended learning activities (Vo et al, 2017). This approach also enables both deeper linking across teaching topics for more effective horizontal and vertical integration of the curriculum (Brauer & Ferguson, 2014) and access to in-class learning moments alongside online content in the VLE. Where previously students would experience a disconnect between access to learning through the VLE and their face-to-face experiences in teaching settings (lecture, practicals, seminar and online activities), subtle changes in current classroom technologies, and their practice, are opening up new possibilities the learner.
This situation has emerged from technology changes and external educational factors (Schwab, 2016) being driven by demand for capture of teaching beyond the lecture, the blending of social media tools in teaching sessions, and more accessible content, such as from searchable transcripts (Dommett, et al, 2019). Additionally, solutions already available allow for the ‘rebundling’ of education (Czernowicz, 2018) into micro-, flipped-, blended- and coalescent learning approaches, which can complement existing on-campus teaching practices or offer new alternatives. These offer the potential to rethink conventional on-campus teaching methods, and use technologies to connect learners and learning.
This session will explore these new technological opportunities, and include a focus on the challenges for institutions, educators and students of adjusting to this new form of teaching and learning; in particular, with the adaptation of classes to active learning (Freeman et al 2014), teaching online and at scale (Cronin et al, 2016), using technology in the classroom (White, 2016), and ensuring institutional policies are suited to these new teaching paradigms (Nordmann & McGeorge, 2018). It will use a global perspective, drawing from the experiences of an academic champion programme across North America, the UK, Australia and New Zealand, to identify good practice approaches that are emerging across different institutions, disciplines and teaching settings.
Bandini, J., Mitchell, C., Epstein-Peterson, Z., Amobi, A., Cahil, J., Peteet, J., Balboni, T., Balboni, M. (2015). Student and Faculty Reflections of the Hidden Curriculum: How Does the Hidden Curriculum Shape Students’ Medical Training and Professionalization? American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, Vol 34(1), pp: 57-63.
Brauer, D., Ferguson, K. (2005). The integrated curriculum in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 96. Medical Teacher, Vl 37(4), pp312-22.
C. Cronin, T. Cochrine, A. Gordon, J. Verjans. “Nurturing Global Collaboration and Networked Learning in Higher Education”. Research in Learning Technology 2016, 24
Dommett, E. J., Van Tilburg, W., Gardner, B. (2019). A case study: Views on the practice of opting in and out of lecture capture. Education and Information Technologies. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09918-y.
Czernowicz, L. (2018) “Unbundling Rebundling Higher Education”. Networked Learning, Zagreb.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S.L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okorafor, N., Jordt, H., Wenderoth, H. P. (2014) “Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 23, 8410–8415.
Nordmann, E., McGeorge, P. (2018) “Lecture capture in higher education: time to learn from the learners”. PsyArXiv, 1 May 2018. Web.
Schwab, K. (2016) “The Fourth Industrial Revolution”. Portfolio Penguin
White. D (2016) “Coalescent spaces”. Blog post, 22 January 2016.
Vo, H., Zhua, C., Diep, N. (2017). The effect of blended learning on student performance at course-level in higher education: A meta-analysis. Studies in Educational Evaluation, Vol 53, pp 17-28.