Engage Students Online Learning
•
0 likes•131 views
Presented at 15th European Conference on e-Learning, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Engage Students Online Learning
Similar to Engage Students Online Learning (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Engage Students Online Learning
- 1. Engage the Students with Learning: A new approach for an old challenge Andrea Benn Julie Fowlie Rachael Carden Stuart Francis Vincent Kane Craig Wakefield
- 2. Engaging the students The Proposal: To design an online learning environment with a positive and effective experience in order to influence the epistemological beliefs of prospective students before we have had a chance to meet them
- 4. Maximising their enthusiasm Managing their transition from College to Uni Communicating our expectations Managing their expectations
- 5. Choice of Content Market Entry: Should Amazon enter the Polish market?
- 6. Design Framework Requirements analysis: who are they? Choosing the project team The Content Agreeing the Learning Outcomes Why Who HowWhen What
- 7. Gilly Salmon’s Five Stage Model for Online Learning Source: http://www.gillysalmon.com/five-stage-model.html
- 8. Original Framework: College 1 College 2 College 3 Finance Marketing HR Economics College groups work collaboratively as a subject team, both online and in person Work as a college group on a joint assignment submission - drawing from the subject areas
- 10. The Learning Points Students were very keen to work with us Students rated the video content and liked to learn this way Timing of the trial too late Too reliant on others making it work We learned to collaborate
- 11. Revised Learning Outcomes Work independently Use technology as part of their learning Understand that a business solution may look different depending on which perspective it is viewed Unintended Outcomes
- 12. References Baggaley, J. (2013) MOOC rampant, Distance Education, 34:3, 368-378 Billsberry, J. (2013) MOOCs: Fad or Revolution, Journal of Management Education, 37:6, 739-746 Fitzgerald, R., Anderson, M., Thompson, R. (2014) MOOCs Mass Marketing for a Niche Audience, European Conference for E-Learning, 30-31 October 2014, Aalborg University, Copenhagen, Denmark Gale, T. and Parker, S. (2014) Navigating Change: a typology of student transition in higher education, Studies in Higher Education, 39:5, 734-753 Gerber, E. and Carroll, M. (2011) The psychological experience of prototyping, Design Studies, Vol 33:1, 64-84 Hussain, I. (2012) Use of Constructivist Approach in Higher Education: An Instructor’s Observation, Creative Education: Scientific Research, Vol 3, No 2, 179-184 Kahu, E.R. (2013) Framing student engagement in higher education, Studies in Higher Education, 38:5, 758-773 Laurillard, D. Stratfold, M. Luckin, R. Plowman, L. Taylor, J. (2000) Affordances for Learning in a Nonlinear Narrative Medium, Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2000 (2) Laurillard, D. (2009) The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 5-20 Laurillard, D. (2012) Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning & Teaching, Oxon: Routledge McCabe, A. and O’Connor, U. (2014) Student-centred Learning: the role and responsibility of the lecturer, Teaching in Higher Education, 19:4, 350-359 Tangney, S. (2014) Student-centred Learning: a humanist perspective, Teaching in Higher Education, 19:3, 266-275 Yang, M. C. and Epstein D.J. (2005) A study of prototypes, design activity and design outcome, Design Studies, Vol 26:6, 649- 669
- 13. Engage the Students with Learning: A new approach for an old challenge Andrea Benn Julie Fowlie Rachael Carden Stuart Francis Vincent Kane Craig Wakefield
- 14. Nationally, 33.0% of young entrants to full-time first degree courses with known classification (excluding NS-SEC class 8, long-term unemployed or never worked) are classified in groups 4 to 7. Source: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/performance-indicators/summary
- 17. Original Framework: College 1 (a group of 4) College 2 College 3 Finance 1 student from each College will represent each of the subject areas and will work collaboratively as a subject team: Marketing Subject area output: Each individual student will determine for themselves what they are taking from this team back to the College Group as input to the Group discussions HR Economics The 4 students from each College will work as a group on a joint assignment drawing from the subject areas and will have one group (College) Submission
Editor's Notes
- The rationale: to provide opportunities for prospective students to experience a dynamic and applied approach to business while demonstrating the level of commitment they would be required to undertake before they applied/enrolled. Observations and conversations with our own students informed us that students were expecting something different about Uni, not sure what that meant, but knew they would need to be more independent, but not sure how to go about this. So our objectives at this stage were to demonstrate expectations of student engagement through completion of individual and group activities; gauge the students transition prior to their arrival at Uni; improve retention by demonstrating the expectations of HE and providing opportunities for making a few friends before they joined. In essence we wanted them to realise that they would be working as individuals, managing their own learning, but by doing so they would be contributing to a group or team’s effort for completing a task. In other words, reducing the reliance on the tutors
- Research & Observations tell us that the 1st year for any HE student is the most critical time likely to inform their success or failure. We wondered along with Fitzgerald et al whether this transition period can begin before they join any university. We started by focussing on the periods of time when their enthusiasm is going to be at its highest (along with their anxiety levels) and to ensure that we maintain that: We wanted to communicate that we expect them to take greater responsibility for their own learning; develop into proactive and committed undergraduates So we had to ensure that we could offer a variety of activities that would build on and encourage motivation, and active participation – thinking also about timely individual input to group working; opportunities for peer working and maybe some interaction with tutors rather than just being fully online.
- Rq A: understanding who the target audience is, what their goals may be, balancing these with the reqs of all stakeholders – as is the norm for any curriculum design. We started with who our Sponsors were: The Compact Operations Outreach Group/Widening Participation – WP in the UK is a Govt initiative to encourage HEIs to recruit from regions identified as non-typical for university applications, or low participation neighbourhoods. Our sponsors work very closely with local 6th forms and colleges to promote the concept of HE study to students who may not be considering it as a next step for various reasons identified/classified under the WP remit. Our brief was to work with them to produce a Taster Course that students could ‘sample’ and try to see for themselves. The Team: were chosen for their subject knowledge; their experience of working with L4 (first year students) making their transition into Uni and in some cases for their prior experience of working in the 6th Form/College environment – knowing how to engage with the students, their level of knowledge and expectations, experience with designing curriculum and activities (not nec’y e-tivities. Craig guided and advised us in relation to the software available, its limitations, its tools and skills development and a lot of patience A parallel consideration was for the content; being the subject itself “Business” – our first year covers 4 main subjects: economics, finance, marketing and HR - The Los were tp Work independently; work as a team with people they had not yet met; work as a group within their own group; use tech as part of their learning; prepare for time spent wih tutors; manage their time to meet a specific deadline Talk about these in more …….. How they developed from what we want them to achieve.
- The next consideration was for what each stage would look like and how we needed the technology to be able to support us and the students/ what would the technology aspect look like Go through the stages
- This was our idea: it was based on 3 colleges working with us and 4 students representing each college. The design introduced a brief whereby each College group should produce one solution to the same problem. The solution should draw on 4 subject areas associated with general business and required one student member from each college to represent one subject area and to work collaboratively within the subject teams and a subject tutor, to enhance their knowledge. A team space and online discussion board was created in the VLE to allow for this collaboration to “build knowledge” (Laurillard, 2012). They were given opportunities to independently work through online activities, engage in discussions with peers within their subject teams and at given times, spent time with the subject tutors online to discuss issues and ask questions. The message for the last point was that the time is precious and must be prepared for and used well. Finally, they each took back a summary of what they have learned to their College group. The Group needed to discuss and agree a response to the same problem but taking into account each other’s views and learning points. By maintaining the ‘silos’ the students could be allowed to choose a subject that they are comfortable with or be encouraged via their own tutors to try another in order to generate some skills or knowledge development. It also ensured that each student would have to work with others that they have not previously met, would overcome any shyness by drawing on previous team building experiences which hopefully would then motivate each student to be prepared in advance of any team meetings to avoid the embarrassment of having nothing to contribute, and instead demonstrate the reward and pleasure of being engaged. The College Group would produce one submission to be uploaded by a given date/time and would receive feedback from their tutors also online. The choice of submission format was left to the students for example an audio-recorded presentation, video, written report whatever they considered to be the most appropriate format. The opportunity for the student collaborative learning at this point will demand more than discussion, argument, question and answer but a group consensus on producing the output, (Laurillard, 2009). Our LTA was confident that “we will cope” and that this is part of the learning outcomes for us. The timescale for this taster was a period of one week. This should allow the students some time for independent study before meeting as a subject team and returning to their groups to produce the joint submission.
- Using Coursesites – similar to the VLE we currently use – knew what we could achieve – highlight the module areas on the left – restricted to the students only who had agreed in advance to represent a subject area. Add videos, set up group areas/discussion boards, embed quizzes via other software (Nearpod) Downside – needed the students to be able to log in, could monitor/track their progress
- This was our idea: it was based on 3 colleges working with us and 4 students representing each college. The design introduced a brief whereby each College group should produce one solution to the same problem. The solution should draw on 4 subject areas associated with general business and required one student member from each college to represent one subject area and to work collaboratively within the subject teams and a subject tutor, to enhance their knowledge. A team space and online discussion board was created in the VLE to allow for this collaboration to “build knowledge” (Laurillard, 2012). They were given opportunities to independently work through online activities, engage in discussions with peers within their subject teams and at given times, spent time with the subject tutors online to discuss issues and ask questions. The message for the last point was that the time is precious and must be prepared for and used well. Finally, they each took back a summary of what they have learned to their College group. The Group needed to discuss and agree a response to the same problem but taking into account each other’s views and learning points. By maintaining the ‘silos’ the students could be allowed to choose a subject that they are comfortable with or be encouraged via their own tutors to try another in order to generate some skills or knowledge development. It also ensured that each student would have to work with others that they have not previously met, would overcome any shyness by drawing on previous team building experiences which hopefully would then motivate each student to be prepared in advance of any team meetings to avoid the embarrassment of having nothing to contribute, and instead demonstrate the reward and pleasure of being engaged. The College Group would produce one submission to be uploaded by a given date/time and would receive feedback from their tutors also online. The choice of submission format was left to the students for example an audio-recorded presentation, video, written report whatever they considered to be the most appropriate format. The opportunity for the student collaborative learning at this point will demand more than discussion, argument, question and answer but a group consensus on producing the output, (Laurillard, 2009). Our LTA was confident that “we will cope” and that this is part of the learning outcomes for us. The timescale for this taster was a period of one week. This should allow the students some time for independent study before meeting as a subject team and returning to their groups to produce the joint submission.