Successfully training large undergraduate classes

636 views

Published on

Members' Sharing Session presentation delivered by David Meehan at the 2009 BBSLG Conference, hosted by the Irish Management Institute, 1-3 July 2009.

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
636
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Successfully training large undergraduate classes

  1. 1. Successfully training large undergraduate classes: the experience at Dublin City University David Meehan DCU Library BBSLG Conference 1 July 2009 IMI
  2. 2. Analysing the management of large classes
  3. 3. Some themes • Experience of IL delivery • Role of liaison • Re-appraisal of IL delivery • Programme content • Assessment of ‘new approach’
  4. 4. Early days: 2002-03 Potential Business School market: • 500+ new UG students per year • 5 programmes (2 large, 3 medium) Main actors: • Programme chairs (for each year) • Module co-ordinators
  5. 5. Early days: 2002-03 Training offered: • To two years of each programme • To a total of 1,050 students • Mostly standalone • Sessions generally 1 hour long – 2-hour session offered to 2 large classes
  6. 6. Early days: 2002-03 Outcome: • Average turnout: 45% – Big variations within this figure • Turnout for ‘freshers’: 39%! • Judgement on early approach: – Ambitious, but overextended
  7. 7. Emergence of a target market: 2003-04 Definite need to focus. Offer reduced to: • two large programmes; and • one medium sized programme IL for one large programme embedded in a new ‘Skills for Success’ module: • 1-hour session divided into four groups • Online assessment through VLE
  8. 8. Emergence of a target market: 2003-04 • Overall turnout: – No improvement! • Emergence (through two programmes) of core target market of ‘freshers’: – Turnout for both fresher classes: 51% – In the ‘SfS’ module: 78%!
  9. 9. So you thought you had it cracked!: 2004-06 • Focused on fresher training through ‘SfS’: – But turnout rates down to 50-60% • Nevertheless, definite advances being made in course organisation: – But some operational problems evident, especially annual change of module coordinator
  10. 10. Review in summer 2006 • Liaised with originator of module: – Queried suitability of ‘SfS’ to deliver IL? • Observations: – ‘SfS’ worked for target market – ‘SfS’ to be refitted at programme level – Clearer link with module coordinator – Maintain Library structure of IL delivery – Monitor turnout
  11. 11. Payback! • ‘SfS’ attendance from 2006-07: – Class surpassed 200 students! – Attendance stabilised around 90% • But behind the figures: – 2006-07 returns indicated we were already at capacity! – Confirmed in 2007-08
  12. 12. Review in summer 2008 • Evaluated constraints… – Limited timetable options; limited capacity (Library training rooms & staff) • … and resources: – Library facilities; online resources; LETS (our e-tutorial); lecture theatre; excellent liaison • Re-evaluated essential student needs • Developed new programme
  13. 13. New information literacy programme for business ‘freshers’
  14. 14. Aims • To provide a richer student experience, but not at expense of face-time • To keep features which worked in past • To use available technologies to engage and assess students • To ‘future-proof’ our IL offer
  15. 15. The programme • Lecture theatre (whole class) 30 minutes – Intro to overall IL programme, i.e. – General business resources; catalogue; LETS; quiz • Self-directed learning using LETS – Envisaged to corroborate lecture theatre session and prepare for hands-on session • Hands-on session in Library (30 mins / group) – Demonstration of e-journals database – Quick exercise • Quiz though VLE (5% of module marks)
  16. 16. Appraisal of new programme • No major change in turnout (still high) or quiz scores (still high) • It seems to be a sustainable model for larger student numbers • Emerging hybrid model of training and assessment • Potential to add new elements/features – Plagiarism; Citing and referencing
  17. 17. Delivering successfully? • Yes, according to: – Student turnout – Student feedback (assessment marks, engagement at sessions) – Lecturer feedback
  18. 18. Delivering successfully? • Own (subjective) evaluation? Yes, according to: – Preferred maintenance of substantial face-to- face and hands-on elements – Already realised and potential future use of online elements (VLEs, e-tutorials, video guides, social networking) – Flexible? Striking the right balance: • hybrid, or a greater bias towards online? – Sustainability of approach

×