[Air-L] Using brick-space measures- Online Education Beats the Classroom

[mhward]

I completely agree with Bill here. The addition of online resources to
existing f-t-f courses (sometimes online replacement of some f-t-f
experience; usually supplementation) is the way that our Uni has gone for
the last five years, and the evidence is beginning to be clear: both
students and staff are finding this enriches both student experience and
staff satisfaction. We are a research-intensive university with nearly
50,000 students, virtually all of whom are doing campus-based courses.
University policy has been strongly supportive of online development; I am
part of a well-resourced central unit that services this shift, and there
are also some grants available for staff to get teaching or marking relief
when they are preparing content.

Some examples of things we have been able to do include support for social
work and education students doing practicum work away from the campus,
preparation and revision activities for field trips in environmental science
and practical abattoir experience for Vet students. A lot of staff are
taking advantage of the new lecture videoing system, and the videos are then
available for revision and can also be edited and embedded in other learning
activities in the LMS. (Video downloads are doubling every semester, but
lecture attendance hasn¹t dropped significantly.) Smaller projects include
online activities for tutorial and lab preparation, and resources to support
the development of senior students¹ critical thinking.

The pedagogical approach of each project is determined through discussion
between our staff and the academic concerned to meet the needs the academic
has identified. The academic provides the content; our team provides the
educational framing (to match the agreed pedagogical approach) and the
technical ability. Training for staff to ensure they can maintain the
resource is part of each project.

I get very tired of the Œbricks or clicks¹ discussion. Bricks and clicks are
both supposed to support student learning; I¹m never clear why people
continue to think of them as in opposition to each other. Here the
e-learning team participates in discussions about (and sometimes drives the
provision of) all new teaching and learning spaces.

Mary-Helen

My credentials...
-- 
eLearning Project Manager
(Sciences and Technology)
Sydney eLearning
Office of the DVC (Education)
University of Sydney


On 20/08/09 11:44 PM, "William Brantley" <wbran001 at waldenu.edu> wrote:

> Steve brings up a good point here.
> 
> During the timespan of the metastudy (1996 to 2008), Internet technology has
> changed greatly while traditional classroom technology has changed little.  In
> fact, the biggest change in f2f teaching has been the increasing use of
> PowerPoint which probably diminished classroom interaction thus leading to
> less student engagement.  As Steve pointed out, the new media became less like
> the old media and developed methods to better engage the student.  Leaving out
> the differences in innovation makes for an unfair comparison.
> 
> To me, whether online or f2f is better is a false dilemma.  Online technology
> is valuable as a content delivery system but it is the conversations with
> peers and the teacher that turns information into knowledge.  As I read the
> report, I see it as evidence that a blended learning approach is the most
> effective 
> (http://thejournal.com/articles/2009/07/01/meta-analysis-is-blended-learning-m
> ost-effective.aspx).  And that fits in with my experience as both a
> traditional instructor and online instructor.  This is an interesting study
> but I think the debate should be more about how learning itself has changed
> rather than the learnings tools have changed.
> 
> Bill Brantley
> Credentials: http://www.linkedin.com/in/billbrantley
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------