Higher Education 4.0: The Digital Transformation of Classroom Lectures to Blended Learning

296 Pages·2021·10.641 MB·English

by  Kevin Anthony Jones, Ravi S. Sharma

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