Sie sind auf Seite 1von 243


Annual International Conference

Improving University Teaching

The Collaborative Classroom

Conference Proceedings 2011

Bielefeld, Germany July 19th -22nd

Conference Director James Wilkinson, Harvard University, USA Conference Hosts: Andrea Frank, Bielefeld University, Germany Janina Lenger, Bielefeld University, Germany IUT Advisory Board Dirk Bissbort, University of Oulu, Finland Anna Kwan, The Open University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Ray Land, University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom Kethamonie Naidoo, University of Limpopo, South Africa Robert Pithers, University of Technology-Sydney, Australia Peter Seldin, Pace University, USA Todd Zakrajsek, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA John Zubizarreta, Columbia College, USA Advisor Emeritus Wilbert J. McKeachie, University of Michigan, USA Program Coordinator Deb Van Etten, International Teaching Learning Cooperative, USA

Opening Plenary International Perspectives on Building Collaborative Frameworks Ray Land (UK), Kethamonie Naidoo (South Africa), Robert Pithers (Australia), Anna Kwan (Hong Kong) and Todd Zakrajsek (USA)

A panel of experts from institutions around the globe will discuss how collaborations that promote student learning is facilitated in their classrooms. The conversation will provide both a framework and concrete methods that can be incorporated in your classrooms. Time will be allocated to respond to challenges faced by delegates at the conference.

Invited Plenary Host Institution Katharina Kohse-Hinghaus

Bielefeld University, Germany

Teaching Science

Addressing global challenges in areas such as climate, energy and health needs young people with a vision and rock-solid science knowledge. Science is, however, not everyone's favorite subject, and it is often regarded as difficult. How can we prepare students to choose science disciplines for their studies? Can we keep them enticed to learn science during their university education? How can we enable them to find their ways into their future profession as scientists? The talk aims will offer some thoughts and examples. Professor Dr Katharina Kohse-Hinghaus is senator of the Helmholtz Association for the Research Field "Key Technologies" and has been university professor for physical chemistry at

Bielefeld University since 1994. She studied chemistry at the Ruhr-Universitt in Bochum where she attained her doctorate in 1978. After terms at the German Aerospace Center (DLR) in the Helmholtz Association and at the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Stanford University, as well as with the Molecular Physics Laboratory at SRI International, USA, she obtained her habilitation in 1992. In the following year she was granted a Heisenberg Fellowship and the annual "Baetjer Lectures" of the School of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Science of Princeton University, also completing research stays at ONERA in Paris. From 2001 to 2003 she was vice-rector for research and young scientists at Bielefeld University. In 2007 she received the Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany from Federal President Horst Khler honouring her commitment to the "teutolab" project and, in 2008 she was awarded an Honorary Guest Professorship of the University of Science and Technology of China. Professor Kohse-Hinghaus holds positions in various science organisations for example, she is President-Elect of the International Combustion Institute and a member of the senate and of the Joint Committee of the German Research Foundation (DFG). She is also a member of the University Council of Bielefeld University and the German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina National Academy of Sciences (since May 2008).

Closing Plenary John Zubizarreta

Columbia College, USA

International Perspectives on Teaching Excellence: Reflections of a Carnegie/CASE U.S. Professor of the Year
One of our perennial questions as educators around the world is the thorny issue of what defines creative and inspiring excellence in teaching and learning. We invest much of our work in the notion that innovative, dynamic pedagogies help to facilitate rich, transformative learning. Certainly, the U.S. Professor of the Year program, sponsored by the Carnegie Foundation and the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education, celebrates the kind of excellent teaching that results in deep and lasting learning. Other nations, too, honor their best teachers with various awardsall of them predicated on recognition of excellence. What can we agree on as the basic principles of excellence in our work as teachers and learners? This plenary workshop presentation by a recently named Carnegie/CASE award recipient is a hands-on, interactive opportunity to explore the theoretical and practical benefits of the kind of teaching that we applaud for producing significant learning.

John Zubizarreta is Professor of English, Director of Honors and Faculty Development, and former Dean of Undergraduate Studies at Columbia College. He has published widely on modern American, British, and comparative literatures; teaching pedagogy; honors education; teaching,

learning, and administrative portfolios; academic leadership; and faculty development. A Carnegie Foundation/C.A.S.E. Professor for South Carolina, he has also earned recognition for teaching and scholarly excellence from the American Association for Higher Education, the South Atlantic Association of Departments of English, the National United Methodist Board of Higher Education, the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education, and other educational organizations. John has led faculty development workshops and delivered keynote addresses worldwide, and he has mentored faculty nationwide and abroad in enhancing and documenting teaching and learning. His most recent interests have turned to student learning portfolios designed to improve learning through reflection, collaboration, and evidence.

36th Annual International Conference

Improving University Teaching

The Collaborative Classroom

Pedagogical Research
Bielefeld, Germany July 19th -22nd

Works of Pedagogical Research Cochrane, M. & Woolhouse, C., We Thought thats What youWanted! Using Student Focus Groups to Collaborate in Course Development. (Paper Panel July 22, 2011). Bissbort, D., Jrvel, S., & Nenniger, P., Advancing Conditions for Self and Shared Regulation in Collaborative Learning Settings in Higher Education. (Paper Panel July 20, 2011). Farley-Lucas, B. & Sargent, M., Enhancing Faculty-Student collaborations through Out-of-Class Communication. (Paper Panel July 20, 2011. Wafula, J., Embracing Collaborative Testing for Formative Assesment at Universities. (Paper Panel July 20, 2011). Pithers, R. & Holland, T., Measuring and Building Classroom Communities. (Paper Panel July 22, 2011). Remmer-Nossek, B., Engaging University Teachers in a Reflections of the Study Programme. (Paper Panel July 22, 2011). Gerhardt, B. & Borst, A., The Stuttgart Model- Phase- Overlapping Modules. (Presented July 22, 2011). Bar-Yishay, Hanna., International Collaborative Teaching Using Interactive Distance Learning- A Case Study. (Paper Panel July 20, 2011).

Title: WE THOUGHT THATS WHAT YOU WANTED!: USING STUDENT FOCUS GROUPS TO COLLABORATE IN COURSE DEVELOPMENT Theme: Collaboration and Active Learning * Matt Cochrane Faculty of Education Edge Hill University St Helens Road Ormskirk, L39 4 QP United Kingdom Dr. Clare Woolhouse Faculty of Education Edge Hill University St Helens Road Ormskirk, L39 4 QP United Kingdom * Author who will be the primary contact


Course evaluation frequently takes the form of a questionnaire completed towards the end of a module. High student satisfaction ratings can sometimes disguise difficulties experienced by the students during the course. This paper describes how focus group interviews where held with some students while their course was still in progress. This allowed the researchers to get a clearer insight into student expectations and how they can be driven by assumptions the students make about the course from the pre-course information.

Summary A comparative study of the conclusions drawn from questionnaire data and from focus group interviews. Analysis of questionnaire data can appear to be over-simplistic and can mask important detail.

Introduction Some students wishing to become science or mathematics teachers in English secondary schools (for ages 11-18) lack sufficiently strong subject knowledge to qualify for the training programmes. Many English universities provide a range of Subject Knowledge Enhancement (SKE) courses to meet the gap between the knowledge they gained in their degree and the knowledge required for teaching. The authors are carrying out a longitudinal research project

seeking to investigate the impact of such a course on the students careers. Does attendance on this course provide them first of all with the appropriate knowledge-based skills to train as a teacher, and secondly with sufficient confidence to enter the teaching profession? And do prospective employers, colleagues and pupils view differently teachers who have entered the profession by this route? In other words, are the students welcomed into the community of science and mathematics teachers, and/or do they feel a part of that community? The research team decided to use focus group interviews to discuss these issues with the students. Questionnaire responses carried out as a routine evaluation of the course suggested

that satisfaction with the course was high, and that all students felt that subject knowledge had progressed significantly. However, analysis of the interviews suggested a degree of mismatch between student expectation and course design. Because of the interviews, the course team were able to make adjustments to the course design which would otherwise not have taken place. This paper discusses the use of focus groups as a methodology for student collaboration with course teams in the evaluation and design of teaching programmes. Literature review In England there is a significant shortage of secondary teachers (covering ages 11-18) in certain subjects particularly mathematics, physics and chemistry. The UK Government funds a

Subject Knowledge Enhancement (SKE) course in these subjects to enable graduates with degrees in other (but related) subjects to bring their subject knowledge up to the standard required for an Initial Teacher Training (ITT) course. This kind of support is essential (Lucas and Robinson 2003) to support entry into the teaching profession for individuals who would otherwise not be able to qualify. The authors are carrying out a research project to determine the extent to which the SKE course prepares the trainees for their engagement with ITT, and for their subsequent entry into the teaching profession. The project involves researching the views of the participants themselves through questionnaires and interviews, and also the views of pupils and teachers at the schools attended by these trainees both during their professional practice while on their ITT course, and finally when they have entered the profession. We wanted to know if the participants felt that the SKE course helped them to develop their subject knowledge so that they felt adequately prepared when compared to other trainees on their ITT course, adequately prepared to face pupils in the classroom, and adequately prepared to enter the competitive jobs market. Our first conclusions from discussions with the trainees (Woolhouse and Cochrane, 2009) were centred on the trainees ability to join the community of practice (see for example Lave and Wenger, 1991:98) of mathematics, physics and chemistry teachers their postgraduate programme would prepare them for. Further (forthcoming) papers will report on the success of this cohort in entering the profession, and on the quality of their teaching. While analysing the interviews of the trainees, it became evident that while much of the conversation covered the participants improving confidence as mathematicians (Burton, 2004) some of the information from the trainees was useful in evaluating the quality of the course (see for example Rowls and Swick 2000), and provided far richer information than the more usual

methodology we had employed for this purpose namely a questionnaire completed towards the end of the course. The questionnaires and interviews conducted for this research took place both during the SKE course and also in the year after the course, once the trainees had had some time to put their new level of subject knowledge to some use. Implicit in the title to this paper is the conclusion that the trainees in the interviews gave far more revealing information face to face and in groups than they had through the anonymous questionnaires. Where the questionnaires tended to ask questions such as are you satisfied with the course? Has your subject knowledge developed as much as you hoped? Has the course met with your expectations? the responses indicated a high degree of satisfaction. Using a fivepoint Likert scale, it is possible to gain a measure of student satisfaction through the average response to each question. Methodology In this research we both conducted interviews and analysed questionnaires, and for this paper we consider a comparison of responses to similar questions drawn from the two media. It emerges that over some issues where student satisfaction appeared to be high, there were nevertheless some points they were keen to raise when faced with the same questions in person and in a group. This paper discusses the outcomes of six of the questions from the questionnaire delivered to 20 mathematics trainees at the end of the SKE course. A focus group interview was undertaken with five of these trainees while they were in the university taking their ITT course. Focus groups have become prevalent in Social Science research only in the last 20 years or so after being developed for use chiefly in market research (Kitzinger 1995). The significant feature of focus group research is the interaction between participants a focus group session enables participants to pick ideas off one another and to develop their opinions.

Onwuegbuzie et al. (2009) also stress the need to consider interactivity in focus group analysis and are critical of much research which purports to conduct focus group interviews but often presents data as a series of individual statements. In this paper therefore, we present some findings from analysis of the focus groups which demonstrate conclusions which can be drawn after some interactivity between the participants. An additional quantitative analysis of the responses in the interview was carried in an attempt to measure the degree of interactivity taking place: a case of presenting regularities in numerical form (Onwuegbuzie et al. 2009: 14).

Findings The results of the six questions extracted from the questionnaire are presented in the appendix. It can be seen that satisfaction is generally very high: at least 75% feel that the course is good or better, and virtually all felt that their knowledge had improved. (One of the

respondents scored their knowledge as very good before the course and adequate afterwards. We were able to determine that this was a result of the respondents improved understanding of the subject knowledge requirements. This raises possible questions about the validity of

comparisons between these two questions.) We then conducted a very simple quantitative conversation analysis on the overall conversation. Throughout the recorded session, the

interviewer offers questions and prompts to develop the contributions of the participants. In fact there are a total of 94 prompts and 211 responses throughout the session. For the first half of the session, the participants are expressing largely positive statements about their progress through the course, and their expectations of the teaching profession. In this period there are 70 prompts and 108 responses (only 1.5 responses for each prompt) indicating the strong individual nature of the responses, and the fact that the interviewer found it necessary to intervene often. At this point, the interviewer invites the group to offer criticisms of the course:

Ok and then the final question is how do you think this course could be improved? Hit us with it. In the remainder of the interview, there are only 24 further prompts and 103 responses (4.3 responses per prompt). The participants are clearly more animated about the prospects of improving aspects of the course, and significantly, are keen to share their opinions with each other. In particular there are four lengthy interchanges of opinion providing information which either challenges the questionnaire data or adds to it: Workload

The participants discuss the varying workload in the course, and express a desire to have more information about it, and more control over course content. They are particularly concerned with the presence of advanced topics in the course when they are expecting to teach at a more basic level. This challenges the notion that 75% feel that the course is meeting individual needs. Pacing

In a similar vein, some felt that parts of the course went too quickly for them: So like you could be on your stats [statistics] one which you can pretty much fly through the first half of it whereas the decision one [decision mathematics] took me a lot longer so it is hard trying to figure out where you should be up to and how much time you should be leaving for everything. Yes pacing it is very difficult because it goes up the difficulty almost exponentially as you are going through the things so if you say I will do two chapters for instance a week, you do the first two chapters then you are fine and you are suddenly running out of time

Again are they saying that their individual needs are not being met? Support

Participants are happy with support, but negotiate their way towards preferring a regular face-to-face tutorial session, while acknowledging that this cannot work for everyone (some of the trainees live a considerable distance from the university) .and I needed that yes, yes. I agree and I love the thought that you could sort of come over if you were having difficulty because you were just sitting and thought my head is going to explode with the knowledge you could come in and ask people Assessment but no generally I would say once a week would be good, again different people, different circumstances. We were given the option if you had of wanted or needed to be here every week. Yes tutorial week It just favors those who live fairly locally.

Assessment The assessment pattern for the course is unusual, and as with an earlier discussion

(Cochrane and Woolhouse 2009), uses personal reflection to build understanding of the individuals own needs so that they can better address them personally. The group initially discusses difficult with the concept of starting the course without having had a formal assessment to identify needs, but finally the group concludes that I think one of the things the course maybe has given me is the confidence that if I am going to be asked to teach a subject I am not too well aware of or not up on

that I know now I can go back into learning myself and pull that knowledge [together]. Again this is one of the criteria that we are trying to achieve self study, because when you are a Teacher nobody is going to sit you at a desk and tell you how to do things it is just over to you and you are going to have to learn it, if you dont know a topic you are going to have to learn it. There was a slight inconsistency in the responses to questions 5 and 6 the trainees were asked to judge their subject knowledge both before and after the course without any clear guidance on how to judge this. One of the aims of the course is that trainees should develop their ability to assess accurately their own subject knowledge needs. The responses above suggest that by the end of the course this has been achieved, so their opinion of their pre-course knowledge may have been overestimated. Conclusions The research has illustrated two themes which are of interest: first, the analysis of focus group data is more complex than simply extracting information from the participants, and a study of the interactivity of the data should be conducted. Interactivity is an integral part of focus group analysis (Kitzinger 1995, Onwuegbuzie et al. 2009), and so the parts of the discussion used for
this analysis were those parts which demonstrated a degree of interaction between the participants and not just between the interviewer and an individual. Significantly, the critical evaluation of the course took place largely in those periods of the discussion.

The second theme is the discussion of the meaning of responses to evaluative questions: it is important to note that we are not seeking to contradict or criticise the data drawn from evaluative questionnaires, simply that by collaborating more interactively with students we can

gain a clearer understanding of the reasons behind some of the responses they give to questionnaires. The wording of questions can be critically misunderstood, and when the

questionnaire is analysed false data results. The conversations with the trainees shows that they were developing a clearer understanding of the purpose of the course and of their own development through engaging with the course. They have made some constructive and

thoughtful contributions which have since been incorporated into later versions of the course. In particular, the frequency of face-to-face sessions has increased, and the pre-course assessment has been changed so that students are able to start the course with a better understanding of their route through it, and therefore a better understanding of how to organise their workload.

Burton, L. (2004) Confidence is everything perspectives of teachers and students on learning mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7: 357-381.

Cochrane, M. and Woolhouse, C. (2009) Turning teachers into learners: evaluating the impact of a professional development program, Navigating innovations in teaching and learning, Improving University Teaching, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, 14th-17th July

Kitzinger, J. (1995) The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants, So covering topics related to the questionnaires: Sociology of Health and Illness, 16 (1): 103-212.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Lucas, T. & Robinson, J. (2003) Reaching them early, identifying and supporting prospective teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 29 (2): 159-175.

Onwuegbuzie, A., Dickingson, W., Leech, N. and Zoran, A. (2009) A Qualitative Framework for Collecting and Analyzing Data in Focus Group Research, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8 (3): 1-21

Rowls, M & Swick, K.J. (2000) The voices of pre-service teachers on the meaning and value of their service learning. Education, 120 (3): 463-475

Woolhouse, C., Cochrane, M. (2009) Is subject knowledge the be all and end all? Investigating professional development for science teachers, Improving Schools, 12(2): 166-176

Appendix Questionnaire data

Please indicate the extent to which you agree/disagree with the following statements (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=not sure, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree -- Please indicate one) 1. The course addresses my individual training needs 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 10.0% 10.0% 5.0% 35.0% 40.0% 2 2 1 7 8

2. I am making significant gains in subject knowledge during the course 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 25.0% 65.0% 1 0 1 5 13

3. The course is enabling me to identify my areas of strength and areas of development 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 5.0% 10.0% 0.0% 35.0% 50.0% 1 2 0 7 10

4. I would recommend this type of course to other trainees 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 5.0% 0.0% 15.0% 15.0% 65.0% 1 0 3 3 13

In relation to the topic/area of knowledge most important to you assess your development by indicating one number. (1 = no knowledge, 2 = very poor knowledge, 3 = poor knowledge, 4 = adequate knowledge, 5 = good knowledge). 5. What is your appraisal of your knowledge of the topic/area of knowledge prior to starting the SKE course? 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 5.6% 22.2% 38.9% 27.8% 5.6% 1 4 7 5 1

6. What is your appraisal of your knowledge of the topic/area of knowledge now? 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 27.8% 72.2% 0 0 0 5 13

Title: ADVANCING CONDITIONS FOR SELF AND SHARED REGULATION IN COLLABORATIVE LEARNING SETTINGS IN HIGHER EDUCATION Theme: Collaboration and Active Learning or Enhancing Collaboration through Instructional Technology

Authors: * Dirk Bissbort Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education Learning and Educational Technology Research Unit (LET) P.O.BOX 2000 90014 University of Oulu Finland Prof. Dr. Sanna Jrvel Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education Learning and Educational Technology Research Unit (LET) P.O.BOX 2000 90014 University of Oulu Finland Dr. Hanna Jrvenoja Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education Learning and Educational Technology Research Unit (LET) P.O.BOX 2000 90014 University of Oulu Finland Prof. Dr. Peter Nenniger Institute for Educational Science University of Koblenz-Landau Buergerstr. 23 76829 Landau Germany

* Author who will be the primary contact

Abstract Self- and co-regulated learning is widely seen as a most effective combination of skills in collaborative and work- place learning contexts to face the challenges of todays learning society. Higher Education aims at advancing autonomous academics who are able to use their knowledge and skills for taking high responsibilities in their contexts of activity. Earlier research of different traditions in SRL aims either a) at a deeper understanding of active motivation and emotion regulation in shared learning situations considering complex interactions in changing learning contexts or aims b) at developing more adequate explanation models of the influence of study conditions on individuals approach to self-direction and its regulation in academic learning. However, improving university teaching requires knowledge from both research traditions. In consequence, this paper suggests an integration of multiple theoretical perspectives to focus on the reciprocal relations between individual and collaborative learning including the respective forms of self-direction and regulation. Our own empirical results from two different studies (1) enable a deeper understanding of how motivation and emotion is regulated in collaborative learning using the instructional technology, and (2) provide empirical evidence of how different study conditions in higher education impact the dynamic forces of self-direction and its regulation in learning. The discussion will reflect both, the microlevel challenges of collaborative learning when regulating motivation, and, macrolevel issues of the modified study conditions due to the Bologna reform processes in Europe. Finally, as a consequence, a combination of both research methodology approaches is suggested that may lead to powerful tools for each predicting effect of study conditions on individual and collaborative learning.

Enhancing faculty-student collaborations through out-of-class communication Improving University Teaching, July 2011 Bielefeld, Germany Conference subthemes: Bonnie S. Farley-Lucas Margaret M. Sargent Southern Connecticut State University

Enhancing faculty-student collaborations through out-of-class communication

Abstract Using a faculty-student collaborative research approach, this study explores faculty- student out-of-class communication. Out-of-class communication is linked to student learning, engagement, and success and is the wellspring for mentoring, advising, supplemental instruction, and collaborative inquiry. Student-researchers conducted depth interviews with a diverse group of 33 undergraduates regarding behaviors, statements, and practices that contributed to out-of-class-communication. Narrative analysis attends explicitly to students interactions with faculty in and out of class and students perspectives on instructional practices. Suggested strategies for effective out-of-class communication are presented, as well as key issues experienced while collaborating with undergraduate student-researchers. (93 words) (Key words: out-of-class communication; faculty-student interaction, student perspectives) 2 Sentence Summary A faculty-student collaborative research project, involving depth interviews with a diverse group of 33 undergraduates, explored the specific behaviors, statements, and practices that contributed to out-of-class-communication, as well as the instructional practices that those students reported as facilitating faculty-student communication. Suggested strategies for effective out-of-class communication are presented, as well as key issues experienced while collaborating with undergraduate student-researchers.

3 Enhancing faculty-student collaborations through out-of-class communication

Faculty-student collaborations are facilitated by out-of-class communication. Out-of-class communication includes mentoring, academic advising, supplemental instruction, faculty involvement in student organizations, and student-faculty discussions about non-class related issues (Nadler & Nadler, 2001). This paper summarizes a recent study on out-of-class communication that examined, in part, personal characteristics and behaviors students experienced as contributing to out-of-class communication and instructional practices students found to be helpful in supporting out-of-class communication (Farley-Lucas & Sargent, In Press). Process-related issues concerning the faculty-student research collaboration employed in the study will also be addressed. Related Literature Student-faculty communication is central to teaching and learning. Students rank studentfaculty interaction as a high priority (Astin, 1993). They want to connect with professors and often cite the valued relational qualities of equality, mutuality, and respect (Garko, Kough, Pignata, Kimmel, & Eison, 1994). One of the two environmental factors most predictive of positive change in college students academic development, personal development and satisfaction, and one of the five benchmarks of student engagement, is interaction between faculty and students (Astin, 1993; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, 1995). Expressing care, building rapport, and creating positive learning climates all contribute to positive faculty-student interaction, and thus to student motivation and learning (Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett & Norman, 2010; Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Dobransky & Frymeir, 2004; Fusani, 1994; Meyers, 2009; Richmond, Gorham, & McCrosky, 1987). Since faculty-student interaction

promotes student motivation and success, professors are coached to increase contact, maximize office hours, and talk with students (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006). Despite its many benefits, face-to-face out-of-class communication is infrequent and electronic consultations via e-mail have largely replaced traditional office hours (Duran, Kelly, & Keaten, 2005). Regardless of context, students, unfortunately do not always encounter positive faculty behavior. Teacher misbehaviors are defined as those behaviors that interfere with instruction, and thus, learning (Kearney, Plax, Hays, & Ivey, 1991, p. 310). In class, faculty misbehaviors negatively impact both students and faculty. Students report less learning, less engagement, and less enactment of recommended classroom behaviors when teachers misbehave (Dolin, 1995). Teacher misbehaviors are linked to student resistance (Kearney, Plax, & Burroughs, 1991), teachers lack of credibility (Banfield, Richmond, & McCroskey, 2006) and negative teaching evaluations (Schrodt, 2003). Assertiveness, responsiveness, student liking for the teacher and affect toward the material are all negatively associated with teacher misbehavior (Banfield, et al, 2006; McPherson, Kearney, & Plax, 2003, 2006; Myers, 2002; Wanzer & McCroskey, 1998). Not surprisingly, students can also encounter teacher misbehaviors out-of-class, including: inaccessibility to students, missing scheduled appointments, not showing up for office hours, and/or not making time for students when they need additional help (Kearney et al, 1991). The consequences can be quite negative. Students can experience barriers to learning, public embarrassment, harassment, frustration, and the violation of expectations for faculty professionalism, all contributing to impoverished learning (Farley-Lucas & Sargent, 2007). Clearly, faculty wishing to engage students in out-of-class communication or collaborative projects must be mindful to avoid teacher misbehaviors both in the classroom and out of the classroom.

5 With an explicit focus on specific behaviors, interactions, and verbal statements that

students defined as encouraging out-of class communication, we can make clearer connections to pedagogical practices that contribute to learning as well as to practices that contribute to collaborative student-faculty relationships. Specifying behaviors also allows for an exploration of the nature, development, and consequences of particular classroom dynamics. Two key issues will be addressed here. RQ1: What personal characteristics and faculty behaviors have students experienced as encouraging out-of-class communication? RQ2: What specific instructional strategies did students report as effective in encouraging them to engage in out-of-class communication with professors? Method To enhance student research experience and to allow for more candid interviews, three undergraduate interviewers collaborated with two professors on this project. Student-researchers were recruited and selected according to university-specific procedures for hiring student workers, a process which consumed four weeks. The three were selected according to their experience, communication and interviewing skills and career interests. The student-researchers then completed an on-line Protecting Human Research Participants training session and reviewed relevant literature. During training, they were briefed on project goals and timelines, provided with uniform interview protocols, and trained on best practices, including rapport building and confidentiality and anonymity procedures. To foster accountability, each student-researcher submitted an individual work plan with goals and deadlines. To encourage collaboration, student-researchers worked together in role-playing and evaluating each others practice interviews. Student-researchers were compensated monetarily and were offered potential co-

authorship of conference papers and articles. One faculty served as primary liaison with the student-researchers, keeping abreast of work schedules and university-required paperwork. Each student-researcher interviewed eleven undergraduates. They aimed for intentional diversity (Anderson & Jack, 1991), selecting participants for diversity concerning age, gender, ethnicity, major, and universities attended. Due to limited experience, first-year students were not heavily recruited. To protect identities, participants were asked to think about particular professors when answering questions, but to avoid using names. To enhance anonymity, participants created their own pseudonyms, and tapes were submitted directly to a professional transcriptionist. Audio-taped interviews averaged 35 minutes each, resulting in 402 pages of verbatim transcripts. A total of 33 undergraduate students, representing a diverse population, participated, including16 females and 17 males. Self-described ethnicity included Caucasian or White (18), Hispanic (6), African American (2), Native American (1), Polish (1) Black and White (1), a regular walking U.N. (1) and three declined labeling themselves. Ages ranged from 19 to 32, with an average of 21.8 years. Sixteen different majors were represented, with 16 attending the same university only, 14 transfers representing 12 institutions, and 3 at other universities. Participants were 2 first-year students, 8 sophomores, 9 juniors, and 14 seniors. Using inductive analysis (Anderson & Jack, 1991), interview transcripts were analyzed by the lead researchers first to identify themes and trends for each participant, and then to identify themes and patterns across research questions. While participants varied in degree of details provided, their experiences point to a wide variety of behaviors and instructional practices. Exemplars were selected according to three criteria: representativeness, the degree to which quotes represent common perspectives or describe problematic interactions experienced

by others (similar views); intensity, the degree to which language reflects emotional, cognitive, or behavioral attachment to the category (strong views); and uniqueness, the degree to which quotes capture unique viewpoints not previously expressed (different views) (Van Manen, 1990). Students descriptive language adds authenticity to the study (Manning, 1995). Key Themes and Findings Behaviors Encouraging Out-of-Class Communication RQ1 addressed personal characteristics and behaviors that encourage students to engage in out-of-class communication. Participants provided a total of 174 comments about encouraging out-of-class communication, with ten key qualities discernable. Clearly, in-class communication sets the stage for whether or not students approach faculty outside of class. Table 1: Qualities Most Likely for Out-of-Class Communication

Characteristic Positive Personal Qualities Invited Out-of-class Communication Caring Instrumental Help Positive Interpersonal Skills Availability Challenging/Raising the Bar Express/Discuss Common Interest Good Teacher in Class Recognize Students as Individuals

# of Studentsa 21 21 16 14 10 8 7 7 5 4

# of Statementsb 36 29 29 20 13 16 11 8 8 4

8 Prior to achieving outside connections, teachers must connect with students in class.

Students variously described the most important characteristic that led them to engage in out-ofclass communication as showing empathy or caring about what students are dealing with. Those who showed interest in students lives, and particularly those who showed interest in student success beyond classroom boundaries, received high praise. Along with caring behaviors, positive personal qualities encouraging interaction include nice, honest, great sense of humor, down to earth, open and friendly. Similarly, faculty described as having good interpersonal skills, especially being a good listener encouraged out-of-class communication. The most accessible teachers were described as inviting out-of-class communication, both implicitly and explicitly. Implicit invitations took the form of being approachable, or giving off that inviting feeling that we could meet anytime. Explicit invitations emanated from classroom introductions during the first day of class with faculty actively creating a positive classroom climate. Often mirrored in the course syllabus, statements concerning the teachers commitment to student success and expectations for conversations beyond classrooms were seen as indicative of teachers welcoming of student contact. Typically, approachable teachers provided more time than official office hours, offering help anytime. Several reported teachers who invited feedback via e-mail or cell phones, and a few reported text-messages. Helpfulness was the next key theme. Once students approached professors out-of-class, they expected to receive the help they sought. Students reported receiving tangible assistance on projects, essays, and exams that led to improved understanding and quite often, higher grades. Helpfulness extended to being resourceful and referring students to other on-campus resources. Students are more likely to engage in out-of-class communication with faculty perceived as recognizing individual students needs. They appreciated when faculty knew their names and

were aware of any circumstances the students may be dealing with. Students shared positive anecdotes of faculty helping them cope with illness, absences, study strategies, and opportunities to raise grades. At the same time, students are likely to engage in out-of-class communication with professors who challenge students, raise the bar, and help students improve. As one stated, They push you along, but dont hold your hand. Strategies for Encouraging Out-of-Class Communication RQ2 explored specific instructional strategies students reported as effective in encouraging out-of-class communication with professors. Students provided several suggestions that faculty can use to inform their practice. Most obviously, faculty need to be present for office hours, keep appointments, and make time for students when they need help. Students expressed appreciation for positive, one-on-one time, particularly when they received the help they expected. To facilitate quick questions when students are likely to have them and allow for brief exchanges, students expect professors to arrive early to class and stay after class. Classroom management practices also contribute to out-of-class communication. Students responded well to syllabus statements inviting students to visit during office hours. Including a by appointment option is critical since it is likely that professors office hours conflict with students class or work schedules. Letting students know on the first day, with regular reminders throughout the semester about availability for extra help was reassuring. Several students pointed out faculty who wrote e-mail and office hours on the board every class. They were impressed by faculty who seemed to provide a 24/7 open door by providing home phone numbers or cell phone numbers in case students ran into emergencies. One student succinctly suggested, Let us know that you enjoy talking with us, particularly about the course.

10 Students expect respect, positivity, and professionalism. When professors learned

and used students names, they felt more valued, more connected, and more likely to interact out-of-class. Students also suggested that faculty recognize and greet students when they encounter them around campus, and, if possible, exchange basic pleasantries. Given that e-mail is the primary channel for academic and social connections, it is imperative that faculty respond promptly and politely. In addition to brief responses, including a friendly opening and closing personalizes the communication. Students reported faculty sending periodic e-mails to the class offering assistance on projects as they progressed throughout the semester. This was very helpful and positively impacted students performance. In order to increase opportunities for one-on-one exchanges and specific feedback, students responded well to mandatory meetings. A few mentioned mandatory meet-and greets held early in the semester to get acquainted and set goals. Mid-term consultations held with each student to review progress helped motivate them to participate in class and earn higher grades. In summary, positive out-of-class communication begins inside the classroom, with the level of competence a professor enacts, as well as students perceptions of professors caring and helpfulness. Outside the classroom, students benefit from faculty described as approachable and helpful, and those who recognize students as individuals. Positive out-of-class communication transforms student-faculty relations from impersonal to interpersonal, opening doors for mentoring, advising, and collaboration. Students specific suggestions are helpful for engaging students in academic discourse and facilitating deeper understanding. Associated outcomes are increased academic success, increased integration and retention, more engaged learning, and increased satisfaction with academic experiences.

11 Faculty-Student Research Collaboration: Process-Related Issues This study on out-of-class communication was conducted via a faculty-student

collaborative model, with many positive outcomes. This project allowed student-researchers to enhance interpersonal communication and interviewing skills. The project also allowed students an active voice in the research process; both as researchers and participants. Since the studys focus was both relevant and meaningful, it allowed for greater buy-in for the studentresearchers. A key advantage was that participants were most likely more candid with student researchers (as opposed to professors). Information gained by the student-researchers from the 33 student participants was instrumental in developing faculty development workshops and resources and it has been widely disseminated throughout our university. Workshops on enhancing out-of-class communication and on best practices in student advisement have been delivered. A short article was included in our electronic newsletter, a summarized list of students suggestions was included on the back of brochures distributed at a pre-semester faculty forum, and is included in new faculty orientation. While faculty-student collaborative research affords unique leaning opportunities, it has limitations. First, implementing this project took much longer than anticipated; including following university procedures for student employment, and allowing time for recruitment, Institutional Review Board (IRB) training of each student, and IRB approval processes. By the time the data was collected, transcribed, analyzed for emergent themes, and initial outcomes reported, all three student-researchers had graduated and were unavailable to complete the entire project, thus defeating the collaborative process as it was originally designed. Faculty-student collaborative research also assumes a skill set and degree of self-directed learning that may not be practical for all students. In listening to completed interview audiotapes,


it was evident that some student-researchers were more invested in their role than others. Lacking apparent questioning and probing abilities, some interviews produced minimal information, resulting in less than optimal data. On a positive note, interview transcripts point to common interviewer errors that can be informative to students studying the interview process. This research began as a faculty-initiated project. Although students had opportunities for input, the project was led by the faculty researchers. To be maximized, learning must be a partnership between dedicated teachers and motivated students. Since a critical component of collaborative inquiry is equitable ownership in the research process, it requires careful selection and training of student-researchers, dedication to team-based meetings, and investment in time beyond a typical semester. For us, for the student-researchers, and for the faculty who will benefit from the outcomes of this project, the investment is certainly worthwhile.

13 References

Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M.W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: 7 research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Anderson, K., & Jack, D. C. (1991). Learning to listen: Interview techniques and analysis. In S. B. Gluck and D. Patai (Eds.), Womens words: The feminist practice of oral history (pp. 11-26). New York: Routledge. Astin, A. (1993). What matters most in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Banfield, S.R., Richmond, V.P. & McCroskey, J.C. (2006). The effect of teacher misbehaviors on teacher credibility and affect for the teacher. Communication Education, 55, 63-72. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in higher education. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 39, 3-7. Dobransky, N. D. & Frymier, A. B. (2004). Developing teacher-student relationships through out of class communication. Communication Quarterly, 52, 211-223. Dolin, D. J. (1995). Aint misbehavin: A study of teacher misbehaviors, related to communication behaviors, and student resistance. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). West Virginia University, Morgantown. Duran, R. L., Kelly, L. & Keaten, J. A. (2005). College faculty use and perceptions of electronic mail to communicate with students. Communication Quarterly, 53, 159-176. Farley-Lucas, B. S., & Sargent, M. M. (In Press). Enhancing out-of-class communication: Students perspectives. To improve the academy: Vol. 31, Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


Farley-Lucas, B. S., & Sargent, M. M. (2007, July). Checking out mentally: Faculty misbehaviors and impact on students. Conference Proceedings for the international conference on Improving Undergraduate Teaching, Jaen, Spain. Fusani, D. S. (1994). Extra-class communication: Frequency, immediacy, self-disclosure, and satisfaction in the student-faculty interaction outside the classroom. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 232-255. Garko, M. G., Kough, C. Pignata, G., Kimmel, E. B. & Eison, J. (1994). Myths about studentfaculty relationships: What do students really want? Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 5(2), 51-65. Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., & Burroughs, N. F. (1991). An attributional analysis of college students resistance decisions. Communication Education, 40, 325-342. Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Hays, L. R. & Ivey, M. J. (1991). College Teacher misbehaviors: What students dont like about what teachers say or do. Communication Quarterly, 39, 309324. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H, & Whitt, W. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Manning, K. (1995). Authenticity in constructivist inquiry: Methodological considerations without prescription. Qualitative Inquiry, 3 (1), 93 115. McKeachie, W. J, & Svinicki, M. (2010). McKeachies teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers, 13th ed. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin. McPherson, M. B., Kearney, P. & Plax, T. G. (2003). The dark side of instruction: Teacher anger as norm violations. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31, 76-90.


Meyers, S. A. (2009). Do your students care whether you care about them? College Teaching, 57 (4), 205-210. Myers, S. A. (2002). Perceived aggressive instructor communication and student state motivation, learning, and satisfaction. Communication Reports, 12, 113-121. Nadler, M. K. & Nadler, L. B. (2001). The roles of sex, empathy, and credibility in out-of-class communication between faculty and students. Womens Studies in Communication, 24, 241-261. Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S., & McCrosky, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. Communication Yearbook 10, 574-590. Schrodt, P. (2003). Students appraisals of instructors as a function of students perceptions of instructors aggressive communication. Communication Education, 52, 106-121. Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Wanzer, M. B. & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). Teacher socio-communicative style as a correlate of student affect toward teacher and course material. Communication Education, 47, 43-52.


Embracing Collaborative Testing for Formative Assessment at Universities

Formative Assessment to Promote Collaboration
Judith A. Wafula Daystar University, Kenya Admissions and Records Department 19th-22nd July, 2011

Abstract: Collaboration involves working together in small groups to accomplish a task. Collaborative testing (as opposed to individual testing) entails students working together in small groups to answer examination questions. It is based on the premise that group examinations reflect the reality of the work place where professionals work in teams, come up with a set of results and are judged on the basis of the group rather than individual performance. The paper provides an insight into the context of formative evaluation at the Universities and provides suggestions for action. Summary: Individual tests have a tendency of labeling students as poor if they do not meet the set requirements, yet students have specific abilities and talents that can be tapped through collaborative tests. A balance between the approaches in formative and summative evaluation is thus needed in order to have a good picture of students strengths and weaknesses (Garrison & Ehringhaus, 2011).

SECTION 1 Introduction Collaboration is a way of creating consensus while working together to accomplish a task. Learning Point Associate(2010) describes it as a philosophy of interaction and personal lifestyle. Thus it develops ones way of interaction with othersand involves the dialogue between students and the curriculum.However one skill that has been found by employers to be lacking in most graduates is the skill for collaboration(Kapitanoff, 2009). Studies reveal that the bulk of collaboration occurs at team level(Keyton, Ford, & Smith, 2008). Hencecollaborative testing entails students working in teams to handle examination tasks. Relevant to the testing of students are the psychoeducational process model and the task analysis model (Helton, Workman, & Matuszek, 1982).The psychoeducational process model assumes that learning difficulties result from deficits in processing skills such as visual perception, auditory perception and short-term memory. As a result, adequate processing skills are a pre-requisite to academic success and any deficits need to be identified and corrected. On the other hand the task analysis model assumes that learning difficultiesresult from past failures to master pre-requisite academic skills incorporated in a hierarchy of skills. For instance students must learn how to count before learning how to carry out addition. As a consequence it is crucial to identify lower level skills that have not been mastered and to help students master the skills to facilitate academic success. This ensures a sequential fashion of acquisition of skills. Tests should therefore help to identify students deficits whether in the processing skills as advanced by the psychoeducational model or in the mastery of pre-requisite skills as advanced

by the task analysis model. Sandahl (2009) describes collaborative testing as a learning strategy that fosters knowledge development, critical thinking and group processing skills.Interactive environments are created where students take responsibility for their own learning and that of their peers(Panitz, 1996). Further, collaboration benefits remembering (Badsden, Badsden, & Henry, 2000).Hence collaborative testing can help to reduce the gaps in some of the learning deficits asstudentsare given conditions that allow them to learn more from one another during the tests. This method is contrary to the traditional method that emphasizes on individual accountability in the examination process. The traditional school of thought raises concerns on how to deal with those who sit quietly and do not offer any inputs in collaborative testing on one hand and those who impose their ideas on others irrespective of accuracy.These issues are discussed in this paper. The paper focuses on the student-student collaboration with the instructor as the facilitator. It begins by providing an insight into collaborative testing delves into the context of formative evaluation at universities and gives suggestions for action. It is based on the documentary analysis of cases of collaboration in the job industry and personal experiences of classroom collaboration and work collaboration. Though the aim of workplace collaboration is productivity while that for classroom collaboration is student learning the lessons from the corporate and classroom collaboration are mutually instructive(Pelt & Gillam, 1991). Review of Literature Results of a study on collaborative testing and test performance for students in a sociology course done in the College of Charleston showed that collaborative testing alone

(independent of prior collaborative learning) had a significant positive association with test performance that varied with the level of cognitive processing of the test question,(Breedlove, Burkett, & Winfield, 2004). The performance on test questions that emphasized recall was not affected by lack of prior collaborative learning while those that needed higher levels of cognitive processing; such as explaining, interpretation, application, making inferences, drawing conclusions and making generalizations were affected negatively by lack of collaborative learning. Therefore collaboration testing of students without prior collaborative learning gives better performance in less complex questions as opposed to higher cognitive level questions. Consequently for good results, collaborative learning and testing should go hand-in-hand. An experimental study done on the effectiveness of collaborative testing in a computer programming class revealed some positive results such as increased student engagement in the group processes; reinforcement of answers; management by exception;increased quality of questions set by faculty thus increasing the amount of learning,(Simkin, 2005). Further the effectiveness of collaborative testing on student performance was determined in a study at a chiropractic college in USA. A comparison of two cohorts of students: control group (did weekly quizzes, unit examination and final examination individually) and experimental group (did the quizzes collaboratively and the unit and final examinations individually) was made,(Meseke, Nafziger, & Meseke, 2008). The experimental group was found to obtain higher means both in the quizzes and the unit/final examinations evidence that collaborative testing produced increased student performance.

SECTION 11 Collaborative Testing Collaborative testing is an extension of collaborative learning into the evaluative setting,(Breedlove, Burkett, & Winfield, 2004). Students benefit as they sit for the collaborative tests hence are a continuation of the learning process. As opposed to individual testing they entail students working together in small groups of two to six members, Kapitanoff (2009) to answer examination questions. One common set of results that represent the groups collective input can be presented at the end of the interaction or individual results depending on the aim of the test. Consequently, Pelt and Gillam (1991) give two categories of collaboration: Collaborative group work (teamwork collaboration) and shared document collaboration. In collaborative group work one uses input from a team but retains final responsibility of the work and decisions while in shared document collaboration there is shared authority and decision making responsibility for important aspects of the work. In the formative evaluation of students any or both of the two forms can be applied. Collaborative testing is based on the premise that group examinations reflect the reality of the work place where professionals work in teams, come up with a set of results and are judged on the basis of the group rather than individual performance, (Simkin, 2005). As a result the academic practice should prepare students to fit well in work settings. Studies show that it is possible to learn collaborative skills by collaborating,Cortez, Mussbaum, Woywood, & Aravena(2007) thus a need to incorporate collaboration in preparing students for work. Research reveals some benefits of collaborative testing which include elimination ofcheating in examinations; loweringof test anxiety and stress; improvement in student

satisfaction and motivation leading to improved test performance; more learning and development of conflict resolution skills(Meseke, Nafziger, & Meseke, 2008). Studies divulge that anxiety towards tests negatively influences recall of learned information,(Russo & Warren, 1999). Hence collaborative testing helps to eliminate the problem. Students are allowed to work together and build upon each others knowledge thus enhancing understanding.Subsequently collaboration helps one to learn that their way of perceiving situations may not be the only way and that others may have differing and perhaps more accurate perceptions that must be accepted(Tebeaux, 1991) Besides, collaborative testing helps students to perceive exams as learning experiences rather than a chore or punishment(Kapitanoff, 2009). Apart from developing a well versed person in their field of training, collaborative testing also develops positive attributes such as understanding among people, patience, good listening skills, honesty, accommodation for one another and consultative skills as opposed to competition skills. One is involved in the examination process while at the same time learning.The traditional school of thought views the faculty in the collaborative model as a passive facilitator and high scores obtained in collaborative testing as resulting from tasks that are too easy (Kapitanoff, 2009).However, students should be exposed in all spheres of life and not intellectually only. Consequently collaborative testing is a way of developing all-rounded students able to meet challenges in life. Formative Testing at Universities In reality tests can be motivators or on the converse, paralyzing. Nault (1994) gives two analogies of Nina and Alex: For Nina tests are motivators as they make learning happen since they make her read several books and articles adding to her store of knowledge and skills. On the

other hand, Alex is so fearful of the test that he avoids thinking about it. He does no preparation until the night before the test. He spends many hours reviewing the entire course and on the day of the test he forgets whatever he read and only remembers fear, panic and exhaustion surrounding the test. Hence, in the case of Alex the test did not make learning to occur. He does not view tests as valuable parts of his education and only studies out of fear of failure or punishment. These two analogies give a picture of how tests are perceived by students. Collaborative testing makes test experiences more students friendly and enhances learning. Tests are generally used by instructors to obtain information about their students strengths and weaknesses. They can be formative or summative. Summative assessment is done periodically to determine what students know at a particular point in time. They include end of chapter or unit examinations, end of semester examinations, national examinations among others. They help to evaluate the effectiveness of programmes, curricula and goals and to determine student placement in programmes. However the assessment happens too far down the learning path that is does not provide information at the classroom level to make instructional adjustments and interventions during learning, (Garrison & Ehringhaus, 2011). This is achieved through formative assessment. Formative assessment as opposed to summative is a step by step process of evaluation in the course of students learning. It informs instructors about students abilities and enables them to make necessary adjustments in good time while learning continues. Individual tests are usually an easy way of going about the formative evaluation of students. In addition they are more often than not used in the summative evaluation of students at the end of a given learning period therebytraining students to be competitors with one another as opposed to collaborators. The

individual tests do not therefore adequately prepare students for the work environment that requires teamwork to accomplish tasks. SECTION 111 SUGGESTIONS FOR ACTION Introduction Most of the approachesdiscussed below have frequently been used in the teaching and learning of students but have rarely been applied as modes of testing students. The paper emphasizes theapplication of these methods in testing to enhance collaborative skills as opposed to individual testing in the formative evaluation process. These suggestions serve to expand our thoughts in relation to the formative evaluation of students. Designing Collaborative Tests The effectiveness of tests depends on how they are designed, administered and the outcomes they are seeking to achieve(Slusser, 2004). Therefore in designing the collaborative test the instructor ensures that the tasks created are relevant to students needs and require interdependence of the team members to accomplish; the test should fit students skills and abilities and allow a fair division of labour(Davis, 1993). The creativity of the instructor inidentifying tasks that reflect the diverse abilities and needs of students is thus vital. The objectives of the collaborative test should be clear and students can be involved in setting the grading standards.Decisions on the skills to be accomplished; the duration for the test, the venue (in-class or outside class)and the mode of presenting results (team, individual or both) have to be made.The instructor then plans how to organize students into teams. It is helpful for

the instructor to discuss with students some skills they would need to succeed in the teams(Tinzmann, Jones, Fennimore, Bakker, Fine, & Pierce, 1990). In addition students need the liberty to choose from various options that go with their interests to achieve the expected goals. Written contracts that list each members obligation to the team and deadlines for tasks can be made. A variety of test formats(single answer multiple choice, multiple answer multiple choice, short answer test, essay, testlets, drag-and-drop, simlets, simulations, guided designs) can be used in collaborative testing(Garrison & Ehringhaus, 2011). In testlets the test is divided into smaller tests. For instance it can present a case and each testlet can have a different aspect of the case to beanalyzed and resolved. Simulations and simletspresent role playing situations that operate like in real life situations(Western Governors University, 2011). In simulations, students play roles of opposing stakeholders in problematic situations, Smith & MacGregor, (1992), that are very relevant to the job industry. For example, Daystar University commerce students participated in Kenyas Nairobi Stock Exchange Simulation challenge in the year 2010 where they had to buy and sell shares. High profits indicate effectiveness in business strategies by the team.Teamsafterwards reflect and analyze the simulation experience, their actions and those of others. Guided designs use real world problems to teach decision making skills. They can be print, web based or computerized(Wales & Stager, 1978).For instance they can present written simulations to be tackled by teams. The main emphasis is for students to experience the design process as they deliberate on decisions for example in coming up with a patient care plan. Students define a problem; state objectives listing constraints, assumptions and facts known;

generate possible solutions and evaluate using some criteria then select one solution; implement decision; evaluate results and make recommendations (White & Coscarelli, 1986). Ensuring Participation in Collaborative Testing There are different ways of testing students collaboratively yet ensuring participation by all students. For instance, the test can be divided into discrete parts and each member of a team given a section to tackle with exchange of ideas among members. Members of the team then share their work and write a team document or individual document depending on the test requirements. Alternatively two members can tackle a section instead of one. The whole teamcan also tackle the whole test together as in the instances of team projects. Members of the team assume different roles to enable a smooth process. The team generates content then holds sessions to edit and review the content, writing style and other aspects of the work to produce the final results. Hence the use of computers in collaborative tests should be encouraged as they foster interaction, review of documents and merging. Besides, sections of the test can be tackled by different teams followed by discussions among the different teams but eachteam comes up with their final results.Review teams can also be used to review the work of various teams. During the collaborative work, studies show that students experienced a variety of social challenges but they are able to regulate emotions collaboratively(Jarvenoja & Jarvela, 2009). Therefore students should be allowed to develop the experience of solving their conflicts. In scoring ateam document the instructor can decideto re-administer the same test to individual studentsthen take the weighted mean of the two scoresor opt to give a single score to all the students in the small team, (Simkin, 2005).For example in a collaborative assignment

todeterminethe best measure of central tendency for thewealth of aprovince and reasons thereof in my Introduction to Statistics class; students were required to do the assignment individually followed by a collaboration of three. The individual results differed with the group responses evidence of re-evaluation of ideas. A policy is then requiredto specify the weight to be allocated to the individual and collaborative score. . Conclusion Collaborative testing is more relevant to the work environment for which the students are being prepared and enhances the test-taking skills of students even in individual examinations,(Lusk & Conklin, 2003). It is more effective in fostering student learningnot only in the subject area but also personality and life skills.It also helps students to detach themselves from their notions, accept and evaluate criticisms and suggestions of others, and incorporate both their own views and others views in their work(Pelt & Gillam, 1991). Consequently there is the development of the group identity and strategies for working together. By embracing collaborative testing students have so much to benefit.

Badsden, B. H., Badsden, D. R., & Henry, S. (2000). Cost and Benefits of Collaborative Remembering. Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14(6), 495-507. Breedlove, W., Burkett, T., & Winfield, I. (2004). Collaborative Testing and Test Performance. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8(3). Cortez, C., Mussbaum, M., Woywood, G., & Aravena, R. (2007). Learning to Collaborate by Collaborating: A Face-to-Face Collaborative Activity for Measuring and Learning Basics about Teamwork. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(2), 126-142. Davis, B. G. (1993). Collaborative Learning: Group Work and Study Teams. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Garrison, C., & Ehringhaus, M. (2011, January 25). Formative and Summative Assesments in the Classroom. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from National Middle School Association: Helton, G. B., Workman, E. A., & Matuszek, P. A. (1982). Psychoeducational Assessment: Integrating Concepts and Techniques. New York: Grune & stratton. Jarvenoja, H., & Jarvela, S. (2009, September). Emotion Control in Collaborative Learning Situations: Do Students Regulate Emotions Evoked by Social Challenges? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(3), 463-481. Kapitanoff, S. H. (2009). Collaborative Testing Cognitive and Interpersonal Processes Related to Enhanced Test Performance. Sage Journals, 10(1), 56-70. Keyton, J., Ford, D. J., & Smith, F. I. (2008, August). A Mesolevel Communication Model of Collaboration. Communication Theory Journal, 18(3), 376-406. Learning Point Associate. (2010). Heterogeneous Grouping. Retrieved January 19, 2011, from North Central Regional Educational Laboratory: Lusk, M., & Conklin, L. (2003, March). Collaborative Testing to Promote Learning. Journal of Nursing Education, 42(3), 121-124. Meseke, C. A., Nafziger, R. E., & Meseke, J. K. (2008). Student Course Performance and Collaborative Testing: A Prospective Follow-On Study. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 611- 615. Nault, W. H. (1994). Testing. In M. M. Liebenson, L. A. Klobuchar, M. Feely, J. T. Peterson, & M. Norto, The World Book of Study Power (Vol. 2, pp. 238-260). New York: World Book Inc. Panitz, T. (1996, June). A Definition of Collaborative vs Cooperative. Retrieved January 12, 2011, from

Pelt, W. V., & Gillam, A. (1991). Peer Colaboration and the Computer-Assisted Classroom. In M. M. Lay, & W. M. Karis, Collaborative Writing in Industry: Investigations in Theory and Practice (pp. 170-209). New York: Baywood Publishing Company,Inc. Russo, A., & Warren, S. H. (1999). Collaborative Testing. College Teaching, 47. Sandahl, S. (2009, May). Collaborative Testing as a Learning Strategy in Nursing Education: A Review of the Literature. Retrieved January 20, 2011, from HighBeam Research: Simkin, M. G. (2005). An Experimental Study of the Effectiveness of Collaborative Testing in an Entry- Level of Computer Programming Class. Journal of Information Systems Education. Slusser, S. (2004, August). Group Quizzes and Attitudes: Collaborative Testing's Effect on Students Attitudes. Retrieved January 16, 2011, from Allacademic Research: Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. T. (1992). What is collaborative Learning? In A. Goodsell, M. Maher, V. Tinto, B. L. Smith, & J. MacGregor, Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education. National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning and Assessment at Pennsylvania University. Tebeaux, E. (1991). The Shared-Document Collaborative Case Response:Teaching and Research Implications of an In-House Teaching Strategy. In M. M. Lay, & W. M. Karis, Collaborative Writing in Industry: Investigations in Theory and Practice (pp. 124-145). New York: Baywood Publishing Company Inc. Tinzmann, M. B., Jones, B. F., Fennimore, T. F., Bakker, J., Fine, C., & Pierce, J. (1990). What is the Collaborative Classroom? Retrieved January 19, 2011, from NCREL: Wales, E. C., & Stager, R. A. (1978). The Guided Design Approach. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications. Western Governors University. (2011). Difference Between Simlets and Simulations. Retrieved March 14, 2011, from White, P. G., & Coscarelli, C. C. (1986). The Guided Design Guidebook. Morgantown, WV:West Virginia University: National Center for Guided Design.

Title: Measuring and Building Classroom Communities Conference Title: 35th International Conference on Improving University Teaching in Bielefeld, Germany. Conference Sub-Theme: Collaboration and Active Learning Authors: Dr Tony Holland & Dr Robert Pithers University of Technology Sydney Australia

Abstract: This paper looks at a study of the concept of Classroom Community within several student cohorts. The literature shows that success for a student at university in terms of academic achievement as well as course engagement can be enhanced by the development of a sense of community within the learners. This can take the form of both the social community and the learning community. The data collected in this study using a Classroom Community Scale shows that different student cohorts within a single Faculty have different senses of community and looks at the factors for developing an increased sense of community.

Measuring and Building Classroom Communities Introduction In recent years as evidenced in the published literature, there appears to be increased attention given to the concept and function of community. Indeed the development and support of learning communities are suggested as a way to facilitate student motivation, persistence and learning. For example, Booker (2008) has stated that the need to belong to a sense of community is quite important during an undergraduate experience, especially now that higher education institutions are faced with an influx of students from diverse populations. Added to this challenge, of course, is the fact that many institutions have pursued flexible delivery options such as distance education and e-learning, leading to a decrease in attendance rates and face to face teaching/learning opportunities. A lack of opportunity for face to face communication and potential interaction with teachers and peers, it has been argued, will weaken the development of a sense of learning community (eg Palloff & Pratt 1999; Rovai, 2002). As Rovai et. al. (2004) have noted, research has indicated that a strong sense of community is related to the construction of cognitive knowledge and as well as increased student persistence and satisfaction, especially important for students in distance and e-learning courses where attrition rates tend to be relatively high (Carr, 2000; Tinto, 1993). Of course, just what is meant by the term community remains a point of issue in the published literature. Osterman (2000) has pointed to the fact that multiple terms are used in the literature about campus community, including terms like: engagement, belongingness, relatedness and connectedness, An instance here is, for example, McMillan (1996, p. 315) who views a sense of community as belonging together, including a view that there is a trusted authority structure within which trade and mutual benefits progress from togetherness and a developing spirit that comes from shared experiences. Other researchers have added important points such as Cheng (2004), who sees a most important principle of community is one which must involve faculty and students in a common focus of teaching and learning. Rovai (2003) has gone further to distinguish two distinct aspects of a campus community: social community and learning community. Social community tends to be based on the sort of dimensions just outlined, whilst learning community is about the extent of students feelings about their shared group norms and values, concerned with how their perceived educational goals and expectations are satisfied by group membership. Here the learning environment or situation is important. In all the forgoing, however, it should be noted how different aspects of community could vary from situation to situation and, in a psychological sense, how difficult it is to operationalise the community sub-concept notions. Nonetheless, the published literature does show attempts to research collaboration and culture as integral to the learning process (eg Colbert, 2010) using empirical analytical approaches. Some examples are as follows: Ritter et. al. (2009) investigated the perceptions of educational leadership, post-graduate students concerning how well their face to face, online and hybrid classes developed a sense of community, using a Classroom Community Scale which purported to measure sense of community, connectedness and learning. A greater sense of community was found in the face to face classes and in the hybrid classes than in the online classes. Connectedness was also statistically higher in these groups than in the online group. There appeared to be no between-group differences in the students perception of their learning.

A study by Brooker (2008) examined student perceptions of their most and least favoured classroom community by interactions with faculty and peer group. A greater number of students attributed positive experiences and a sense of connection to their teacher in the favourite classroom. Female students, it was found, rated teachers in their favourite classes higher than male students. Other studies have considered a different focus to connectedness and community. For example, Colbert (2010) looked more at teacher beliefs, values, understandings and assumptions about their students and the need to recognise different student qualities and then redesign classroom interactions to connect content with student backgrounds. Other studies have looked at the outcomes of participation on intensive long-term learning communities (Etelapelto, et. al. (2005) or more important here, at the issue of classroom community and student goals (Summers & Svinicki, 2007). These authors found that classroom community was significantly higher when associated with cooperative learning classes, compared with lecture style groups, though performance approach was significantly lower in the cooperative learning groups. Vescio et al. (2007) completed a review of chosen studies on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. They chose and examined 11 empirically based studies in this area and concluded that, overall, the results suggested that well developed professional learning communities can have a positive impact on teaching practice and student achievement. Findings included, amongst other things, greater teacher student centredness, increased collaboration and a renewed focus on learning and achievement. This later factor of the learning community had most effect on student achievement. Faced with the challenge associated with operationalising the concept of classroom community, one worker in the field namely, Rovai (2002) has developed and field tested the Classroom Community Scale (CCS) and determined its validity and reliability for use with university students in the USA. Following his study of the preliminary CCS, using 375 students from 28 different courses, he found that the scale did appear to be both a reasonably valid and reliable instrument for the measurement of classroom community. Furthermore, a statistical analysis of the data indicated two factors were involved; connectedness and learning. The test instrument therefore, generates an overall measure of classroom community as well as the two aforementioned subscales. It should be recalled that connectedness represents student community feelings of cohesion, spirit, trust and interdependence. Learning represents community feelings of between-others interactions as they pursue understanding as well as the degree of shared values and beliefs about the degree to which their goals are being satisfied. Rovai et. al. (2004) refined the CCS further and after examining their further data on validity and reliability measures, concluded that there was now sufficient evidence to use the CCS in educational research. The instrument will be used in the present research. It is interesting to note that the results from Rovais (2002) study showed that Classroom Community scores were relatively stable across ethnic groups and by course content area. Rovai also claimed some evidence that female students on average, possessed a significantly higher mean Classroom Community score. There appears to have been a rather limited number of published studies which have used the CCS in university settings. Rovai (2002b) once again used the scale to find a significant relationship existed between Classroom Community and perceived cognitive learning but only with online learners. He argued this was because those learners with a perceived sense of community, should feel less isolated and have greater satisfaction with their academic work. The major problem here, however, was

that no independent measure(s) of learning was undertaken; results were based on their own perception. Furthermore, improved learning may lead to an increased sense of community and not vice-versa. Nevertheless the use of the CCS as a useful educational research tool was further enhanced by a study by Dawson (2006) using 464 Australian university students. Again the students data was obtained from online courses but it did demonstrate the existence of a significant positive relationship between the frequency of student communication and a sense of community as measure by Rovais (2002) CCS. Given the relatively focussed and limited use of the CCS so far, it was decided to use the CCS with another group of university students of diverse backgrounds, experiences and ethnic origins. Subjects The participants were all current students enrolled in education or organisational learning courses at a major Australian University. There were 50 students in all who completed the CCS. There was approximately a 70:30 mixture of males and females whose ages ranged from 19 to 55 years. There were 30 students in a Post-Graduate Group and 20 students in an Undergraduate group. The undergraduate students were studying full time, while the post-graduate students were all enrolled on a part-time basis. Research Instrument The research instrument used to gather the data was basically the Classroom Community Scale (CCS) developed and refined by Rovai (2002) and Rovai et. al. (2004). The CCS is a self-report scale which, as already mentioned, measures sense of community. The scale consists of 20 items such as I do not feel a spirit of community and I feel confident that others will support me. Some of the items examine a sense of connectedness in the classroom, while others look at it in terms of the learning environment. A 5-point Likert Scale is attached to each item (Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree). Total points were assessed using these 5-point items (some items of which are reverse scored to reduce response bias). Higher scores reflect a higher sense of community, as do higher scores for the Connectedness and Learning Sub-scales. The basic meanings of these two sub-scales concepts were explained briefly earlier in the introduction. Reliability for the CCS was found to be .93 (Cronbachs alpha) and for the Connectedness and Learning subscales were .92 and .87, respectively. Demographic questions were added to the CCS to look at variables that might cause the results to vary. Procedure The data were collected during Semester 1. Students were all volunteers, under no obligation to complete the scale. The data were collected in 2 different small group settings within a week of each other (approximately week 4-5 of semester). Results Descriptive statistics were used to determine results for the three key measures of classroom community, namely Connectness, Learning and Classroom Community. Table 1 summarises the average scores obtained from the CCS as well as providing similar comparative data from several other relevant studies.

Table 1. Means for Connectness, Learning and Classroom Community. U/G Group Connectness Learning Classroom Community 24.5 28.4 52.9 P/G Group 21.3 28.6 49.9 Rovai Group 26.5 30.2 56.7 Dawson Group 22.1 25.5 47.6

A between-group comparison for the means reported from this study, showed a classroom community score for the undergraduate group and the post-graduate group of 52.9 and 49.9, respectively. Means scores for the learning sub-groups were almost identical. The post-graduate group scored lower for the sub-scale Connectness. A 2x2 Chi-squared analysis by group and sub-scale score was significant at the p<.05 level (Chi-Squared = 4.5). Discussion: Overall scores for Classroom Community compared favourably with Dawsons, (2006) overall results for a sample of Australian University students situated in another state. It should be noted that whereas the students in this study were mostly enrolled in face to face, full time or parttime study, Dawsons subjects appeared in on-line studies. Mean scores in this study were almost identical across postgraduate and undergraduate groups for the sub-scale of Learning community. There was a divergence, however, in the group mean scores for the Connectness subscale with the undergraduate group scoring significant higher than the postgraduate group. It should be remembered, however, that in this study although both groups were involved in face to face activities, the postgraduate sample were part time students with job responsibilities, whereas the undergraduate students were enrolled full-time with only some causal job responsibilities. The results from this study for the Connectness subscale for the part-time student group were also similar to Dawsons results for his mostly female (84%) post-graduate students. The sub-group results for the Learning subscale were slightly higher than for Dawsons subjects but did not reach the level reported for Rovais et al.s (2006) subjects. The results obtained were similar to those found by Ritter (2010), who found a greater sense of community in a face to face rather than online situation. One difference could be due to the more multi-cultural nature of the student cohort who are attending a major downtown campus of a secular university, like the one used in the present study. Similar results were obtained by by Dawson (2006), who also used students from a large city based, secular university. The results of this study are hopefully informative in terms of adding to the limited research literature about the perceived sense of community

connectedness and social learning focus, especially in terms of on-line and face to face learning. Nevertheless, a key issue remains as Rovai et. al. (2006) have noted: the issue of whether an enhanced sense of community is related not only to reports of increased satisfaction but is also related to the construction of knowledge as well as to increased learning performance as this has the greatest impact on University outcomes (job attainment and further study). The results of Vescio et. al.s (2007) review of studies, indicated some positive links between developed professional communities and teaching practice as well as student achievement. The reported achievement impacts, however, were likely to be student perceptions (via a survey) of their focus and the likely achievement of goals, rather than independently verified measures of learning outcomes. Indeed community feelings of connectedness, cohesion, spirit, trust and independence do not appear to have a causal relationship to learner performance. Yet this surely is a critical issue, which the present authors suggest would make for very useful further research. It is especially so if it turns out to the case, that improvements in cognitive knowledge and learning performance causally influence the community variables and not vice-versa. References. Booker, K. C. (2008). The role of instructors and peers in establishing classroom community. Journal of Instructional Psychology. March, 1-15. Carr, S. (2000). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. Chronicle of Higher Education. 46, A39-A41. Cheng, D. X. (2004). Students sense of campus community: What it means and what to do about it. NASPA Journal, 41, 216-232. Colbert, P.J. (2010). Developing a culturally responsible classroom collaborative of faculty, students and institution. Journal of College Teaching and Learning. 7, 1524. Dawson, S. (2006). A study of the relationship between student communication interaction and sense of community. Internet and Higher Education. 9, 153-162. Etelapeleto, A., Littleton, K., Lahti, J. & Wirtanen, S. (2005). Students accounts of their participation in an intensive long-term learning community. International Journal of Educational Research. 43, 188-207. McMillan, D. W. (1996). Sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology. 24, 315-325. Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students need for belonging in the school community. Review of Educational research. 70, 323-367. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning Communities in Cyberspace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ritter, C., Poinick, B., Fink, R., & Oescher, J. (2010). Classroom learning communities in educational leadership. Internet and Higher Education. 13, 96100. Rovai, A. P. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. Internet and Higher Education. 5, 197-211. Rovai, A. P. (2002b). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. Internet and Higher Education. 4, 319-322.

Rovai, A. P., Wighting, M. J., & Lucking, R. (2004). The classroom and school community inventory: Development for educational research. Internet and Higher Education. 7, 263-280. Summers, J., & Svinicki, M. (2007). Investigating classroom community in higher education. Learning and Individual Differences. 17, 55-67. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College. Chicago: Uni. Of Chicago Press. Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education. 24, 80-91.


Theme: Collaboration and Active Learning Author: Brigitte Rmmer-Nossek Center for Teaching and Learning University of Vienna Dr.-Karl-Lueger-Ring 1 1010 Vienna Austria

ABSTRACT This paper will briefly outline some

Section I: Introduction
In 2002 a new university law UG 2002 (bm:bwk, 2006) released Austrian Universities into autonomy, allowing self-accreditation of curricula. At the same time, the universities had to implement the Bologna system without additional budget, while the old study programmes are running out. What makes the situation rather unique is the fact that Austrians who successfully completed secondary education (Matura) are granted access to almost any course of study at any Austrian university without tuition fee and all European citizens are to be treated equal. This lead to a considerable increase in student numbers (accompanied by a far less considerable increase in university budgets), student numbers at the University of Vienna increased by one third (66 000 to 88 000) within six years. Among faculty and students the resulting situation, as well as individually experienced anger and frustration caused by it, make it difficult to disentangle problems caused by the Bologna-system from those caused by the individual curriculum or underfunding. Since the introduction of the UG 2002 university law and the Bologna process taking shape at Vienna University since 2004, the organisation has undergone significant restructuring. In this context it is important to note that the role of the study programme director, usually a university teacher with facultas docendi who takes office for a period of two years, is currently changing from an administrator allocating teaching hours towards a guarantor for quality of the study programme. This creates a potential source of conflict, arising from the necessity to discuss the predominant interpretation of scholarly freedom as my course is my castle. With the explication of learning outcomes in the curriculum, which describe what graduates of a given module or curriculum should be able to do (European Commission, 2009), the question arises how the individual course taught contributes to building the competencies described. Thus, the implementation of the Bologna-system, which initially was mainly addressed on a structural level, is challenging the traditional university cultures and self-perception of actors in different roles. Starting in 2008, the University of Viennas Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) has worked closely with a small number of pilot study programmes with the aim to improve quality in teaching and learning as a bottom-up initiative. Initiator and owner of a study programme development process within the study programme is usually the study programme director, who in turn is confronted with anything ranging from support to outright rejection on the part of faculty members. While some chose to work on particular areas of the study programme, two aimed at a broader discussion of the study programme within workshops provided by the CTL. Conceptually the challenge was to create a setting which would engage university teachers in a factual reflection of the study programme with the goal to develop a common view on strength and weaknesses of the study programme and to understand the role of their course in the curriculum. The next section will explain the World Caf setting used and describe how the initial results are analysed, linked to the structures of the curriculum, and fed back. In section three results of the process, the acceptance by faculty members, and the connection to other workshop components developed will be discussed. In this paper the term curriculum is used to refer to the legal document containing the description of type of programme (bachelor, master, PhD, etc.), learning outcomes on curricular and module

level, types of modules and how they relate to each other, number and types of teaching hours allocated to the module, assessment methods allowed, and regulations for graduation. Study programme refers to the realisation of the curriculum, where teaching- and learning as well as assessment methods chosen, infrastructure, disciplinary and local traditions, policies, as well as communication and supporting means for teachers play a role.

Section II: Workshop components for developing a common perspective

In study programme development the CTL takes the role of a facilitator, who provides counselling, moderation, research findings, and an international perspective. Counselling is based on evidence where possible (data from the data warehouse, graduate survey, etc.) and usually provided for the study programme director. Workshops may be provided as a single measure or as part of a broader process. Contents and goals are always coordinated with the study programme director and tailored to needs and goals identified. As described above, not all faculty members may happily embrace a study programme directors intention to initiate a study programme development process. A workshop component which has engaged even the most critical university teachers in a constructive discussion is the World Caf. The original World Caf developed by Brown and Isaacs (2005) is based on three assumptions: The group collectively holds the solution to a given problem Participants can access this knowledge A suitable context and focus must be provided Thus, according to Brown and Isaacs (2005) Caf conversations are designed on the assumption that people already have within them the wisdom and creativity to confront even the most difficult challenges. In order to create a Caf setting, small tables are spread throughout a room, each table covered with paper and equipped with pens, maybe cards. At the tables groups of four to five persons are encouraged to search for questions, listen to each other, write and sketch. After 15-30 minutes they are asked to join another table with a new group and engage in the discussion there. Only a table host is staying at one table to welcome new guests. The participants pass through three rounds of discussion, the first to focus in on the topic, the second one to contextualize, and the third to forecast. This setting is particularly interesting, because it scales and is limited only by room size. Other than in a public debate of a large group, where few participants dominate the scene, this setting allows for an in-depth discussion in small groups, guaranteeing that everyone can contribute and has a voice. For the purpose of the workshop, the original setting was adapted in several ways: - Since many faculty members are not willing to invest much time in teaching matters, the overall workshops were rather dense and the time per round was reduced to 10 minutes. - The table hosts were briefed to act more like moderators in keeping the discussions close to the topic and to involve all group members. While there was an invitation to write and sketch ideas, the table host was additionally briefed to document the conversation. - The participants didnt pass through several phases of discussing one topic, instead they were asked to discuss three separate questions concerning their current experience with the study programme, each of them triggering a discussion of competencies:

1. Which of your expectations towards the students are often disappointed? 2. What do you aim to convey in your teaching? 3. What are the strengths of the graduated of this study programme? After three rounds the table hosts presented a first summary of the inputs on each table for discussion. After the workshops the documentation from the tables was analyzed more thoroughly: The input was categorized roughly following the Tuning project (Tuning, 2006) and allotted to either subject-specific knowledge, subject specific methodological competencies, or generic competencies, adding a new row for each competency mentioned (see Tab. 1). By structuring the results of the World Caf this way, gaps between expectations, aims in teaching, and perceived strengths of graduates are revealed immediately.
Which of your expectations towards the students are often disappointed? subject-specific knowledge methodological competencies generic competencies What do you aim to convey in your teaching? What are the strengths of the graduated of this study programme?

Tab. 1: Template for the categorization of World Caf inputs with regards to competencies. The analysis of the World Caf has been fed back in two ways: 1. A meeting with the study programme director and aggregated presentation at the follow-up workshop. 2. A written interpretation sent to the study programme director. When the workshops were held there were no graduates of the new Bologna study program yet, so the exercise shed light on the old programmes and raised the question which strengths and weaknesses have been transferred to the new system. Once there is a significant number of graduates it will obviously make sense to map the competencies named to the learning outcomes of the curriculum. The World Caf addresses the university teachers experience of the study programme. This is complemented by a gross analysis of the study programme provided by the CTL. It comprises a visualization of the curriculum on module-level and shows - Size and types of modules (Compulsory, alternative or optional) - Dependencies between modules (hierarchies) - No. of ECTS and percentage of the curriculum dedicated to method courses - No. of ECTS and percentage of the curriculum dedicated to courses characterized by small groups, obligatory presence and possibility of ongoing assessment (e.g. seminars, labs). This analysis is then used to trigger a debate on building competencies across the curriculum, especially those regarding research methodologies and generic competencies.

This section introduced the World Caf as a method to engage faculty in a deep discussion of the study programme and described a way to further harvest the results of the debate and link them to an analysis of the structures of the curriculum.

Section III: Report on experiences

The initial trigger to use the World Caf in the context of a study programme development workshop was the engaging potential of the use of small groups. The setting turned out to involve all faculty members, even the most critical ones, in deep discussions immediately. Changing the tables after each phase and dissolving the groups caused colleagues to join into discussion who rarely interact. The questions forced faculty members to think and talk about competencies built by rather than contents. Thus they were thinking about the study programme in Bologna-terms without the word Bologna being mentioned. The thorough analysis of the World Caf after the workshop, as described in the previous section, immediately revealed whether university teachers expectations, their own goal in teaching and the competencies of the graduates are aligned or if there are significant deviations between expectations, teachers aims, and competencies a graduate must have. In other words, with this tool, gaps in responsibility and thus teaching of competencies can be spotted easily. Interestingly, even though participants are free to consider any competencies, in both study programmes there was a focus on methodological and generic competencies. In both cases it turned out that gaps appeared not so much in the area of subject-specific knowledge, but concerning methodological and even more generic competencies. Since workshop participants used their own expressions, which differ between disciplines as well as individually, for clarity I therefore categorized and summarized those competencies which are identified as lacking in students, but which are either not addressed as an aim in teaching (one study programme) or which are those where faculty members are not sure if these are competencies of all graduates of the programme: - Ability to reflect - Academic reading and writing competencies - Ability to contextualize knowledge - Taking responsibility for ones own learning process Another area of competences which was explicit in the results of one study programme and which appeared as problematic in the discussion of the other was the ability to frame a research question and conduct research autonomously. The critical discussion of the curriculum analysis which followed the World Caf was a first opportunity to develop a view which was focused on building competencies rather than transfer of contents.

Section IV: Conclusion and outlook

The World Caf and an analysis of the curriculum taken together are suitable tools to make transparent that individually experienced shortcomings in students competencies is part of a larger picture in which university teachers, their expectations, and role of their course in the curriculum are part of. In the context of a study programme development process, these workshop components play an important role as they much contribute to building a common perspective on strengths and weaknesses of a study programme, thus providing a starting point and identifying fields of work.

Section V: References

Brown, J., Isaacs, D. (2005). The World Caf - Shaping Our Futures through Conversations that Matter. Mcgraw-Hill Professional. bm:bwk (2006) Universittsgesetz 2002. Stand: 2006. Reihe sterreichisches Hochschulrecht, Heft 14. Wien:Bundesministerium fr Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur. European Commission. (2009). ECTS Users Guide. Luxedmbourg:Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Tuning. (2006). Eine Einfhrung in Tuning Educational Structures in Europe. Der Beitrag der Hochschulen zum Bologna-Prozess. Allgemeine Broschre zur Beschreibung des Tuning-Projekts.



IUT Conference, Improving University Teaching Germany, Bielefeld 2011, July 19-22 The Collaborative Classroom

Collaboration and Active Learning Interaction across Institutions

* Dr. Bert Gerhardt, Studiendirektor (Musik) Staatliches Seminar fr Didaktik und Lehrerbildung, Stuttgart Alexander Borst MA Staatliche Hochschule fr Musik und Darstellende Kunst, Stuttgart JProf. Dr. Jens Knigge Staatliche Hochschule fr Musik und Darstellende Kunst, Stuttgart

Bert Gerhardt / Alexander Borst / Jens Knigge


ABSTRACT The Stuttgart Model describes a new collaboration of university, teacher seminar and Ministry of Education in educating and training young teachers. As a model teacher training scheme it was awarded a prize involving a considerable financial funding. Our general objective is to make the training phases at university and the teacher seminar more transparent and overlapping. The professional dialogue between university, teacher seminar and schools is supposed to promote new ideas of efficiently monitoring and educating young teachers on an individual basis. The project is based on constructivist learning theory. The Stuttgart Model is continuously being accompanied by formative evaluation.

The Stuttgart Model is designed to optimize teacher training by achieving a much higher exchange between all phases of studies and personal development, relating to all ages and intending lifelong-learning. It offers communication between all targeted groups including the trainers and a professional scientific evaluation.

Bert Gerhardt / Alexander Borst / Jens Knigge


I INTRODUCTION New ideas about basic and advanced training of young teachers of music (at high school level / college) are the focus of the conception. These were developed to make the entire process of teacher training more effective and to introduce individualized monitoring. The project scheme links different levels of competencies at university, the teacher seminar and the first years of actually teaching at schools to make them a diverse and consistent offer for all three groups: students, interns and young teachers. The project designers hope that this will lead to an improved linking and dialogue between the three teacher-training phases at university, teacher seminar and Ministry of Culture and Education. The Stuttgart Model offers phase-transparent, phase-overlapping further training courses for the three target groups on a 2-day-workshop basis and continuous monitoring organized as individualized coaching (see Erbring 2007). These are the possible benefits: Students can experience an early linking of study content to classroom practice, they can focus consciously on practical aspects of their university course and they are offered the possibility of exchanging ideas and experiences with young teachers. Interns are given the chance of discerning individual deficits, working on them and simultaneously having fruitful discussions with young teachers, who have already gained some experience on the job. Young teachers have the opportunity to balance out deficits that only come to light within the first years of teaching. This way they can be supported in terms of their

Bert Gerhardt / Alexander Borst / Jens Knigge


teaching and musical skills and their personality. They are encouraged to take individual coaching. Developing the model In the past the federal state of Baden-Wrttemberg has been reluctant to introduce reforms that have been praised as being modern in other federal states. In the field of school and cultural education, politics has rather consolidated the already familiar and has waited for educational trends to impact elsewhere. However, the fundamental reforms that since 2002 have been affecting schools first and then universities and teacher seminars have become strikingly recognizable in Baden-Wrttemberg and Stuttgart. Guided by Hartmut von Hentigs preface to the curricula of 2004 (see: Ministerium fr Kultus, Jugend und Sport 2004), educational standards, competencies and substantiating of skill-levels (see: Federal Ministry of Education and Research 2004) were introduced to all school-related institutions. As a result the process of networking began. First didactic courses were introduced at university level, which resulted in employing more teacher trainers at the university. In the first part of the university course an internship of six months at schools has been implemented. This gives students a clear picture of what is really asked of them in becoming teachers. Because of different consecutive internships, pupils, students, young teachers, experienced teachers, teacher trainers and professors of music education get the chance of getting together in various constellations. Finally, the modularization of the curriculum in teacher seminars and university has led to further development of our phase-overlapping project to make it a phase-transparent one - the Stuttgart model was born.

Bert Gerhardt / Alexander Borst / Jens Knigge


The project can be characterized as: phase-transparent and yet phase-overlapping special focus on an individual monitoring during the first years on the job professional evaluation which involve empirical research projects development and evaluation of modern and transferable structures promoting the discussion by offering widespread publicity word and series of publication (see: Gerhardt 2011)

Bert Gerhardt / Alexander Borst / Jens Knigge


II APPRAISAL The aim of all partners in the project is to give as much space for individual development as possible in all phases of teacher training as well as the continuous build-up of necessary skills and competencies. Due to the modularization of study courses for teaching degrees according to the bologna reform (see: Sekretariat der stndigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Lnder 2008; Nakamura 2008), the percentages of specialized didactics (see: Dressler / Beck 2010) have increased and different practical training phases have become obligatory. Music as a subject can give an example in designing these training phases because of long standing experiences and it can offer successful and transferable concepts even today. Implementing structures to exchange experience Exchanging experiences, learning from each other, while meeting the requirements of everyday school life as closely as possible and yet even developing these further these are the general ideas of collaboration between schools, university, seminar of teacher training and Ministry of Culture and Education. The staff of the seminar of teacher training and of the Ministry of Culture and Education have long been teaching and accompanying students in their first steps towards teaching experience, the semester of teaching experience and the seminars at university concerning didactics, psychology and pedagogy. Resources come from all partners involved. Final Exams are organized by the three institutions in a well-functioning network.
Bert Gerhardt / Alexander Borst / Jens Knigge


Opening up the phases and Individualizing In all three described phases of teacher training (see: Terhart 2008) there are two underlying developments, which should be focused on clearly. First of all this is the individualization of the process, which gives room for everyone to act and develop independently. Secondly, this is the possibility to create new ideas of how schools can develop and learning can take place, because only freedom to re-think musical education will prevent the subject and its profession from becoming outdated. Every participant is offered a coaching visit by one of the instructors, taking place in their schools. These sessions are supposed to assure the practical application of the newly learned skills and give the opportunity to supervise individuals in a real and concrete situation of teaching.

Bert Gerhardt / Alexander Borst / Jens Knigge


III CONTINOUS LEARNING AND TRANSFERRABLE STRUCTURES Focus on the Third-phase Especially in reference to the "third phase", from the project teams point of view, there is great room for improvement. This is now being integrated in the evaluation and the development of the project. In training sessions and workshops young teachers referred to above are especially in the focus, with courses particularly being tailored to their needs. The students, interns and young teachers still perceive the three individual phases as fragmented. The reason for this is that up to now between university and teacher seminar there has been limited networking (including the exchange of information) only, almost exclusively restricted to singular events. The Ministry obliges the young professionals to take part in a seminar in retreat after one year of teaching, where individual reflection of the role as a teacher and problems can be addressed in a protected environment. However, there is no continuous coaching for them yet. Here network structures of all three phases of training are strongly needed, possibly in the form of a mentoring system. Keeping the project continuous In the long run, working in the project is supposed to be independent from individuals and continuous. Therefore the main thoughts and ideas of the project have to be documented in written form like a portfolio of the overall concept. The single steps from the conditions at

Bert Gerhardt / Alexander Borst / Jens Knigge


the beginning through the different stages and finally to milestones have to be defined. A successive updating of the internal curriculum by the particular groups of instructors has to be included here. Communication between partners of the project should be institutionalized. These could be regular meetings every half a year that include introducing new colleagues and guests to make discussions more lively and stimulating and keep the development of the focused topics sustainable. Transferable Structures Many aspects of the design and strategy of the project are easily transferable to other subjects, settings and institutional constellations, affecting teacher education as well as university teaching completely. Particularly the development of a concept for only a small profession like music education excellently shows the main possibilities of communication between phases and the different aspects of the general structures in learning and education. Transferability inside the profession: Competencies from all three phases can be summarized, coordinated and illustrated. An example would be the use of the piano while working with a choir: it is necessary to be able to do this even standing or standing diagonally to the instrument. To achieve this ability in phase III, it is very helpful to see the need for this even as late as in phase I in order to practice and work in a different way (e.g. not only to practice Chopin-etudes in an olympic tempo).

Bert Gerhardt / Alexander Borst / Jens Knigge


Transferability outside the profession: The basic idea of the phase-overlapping modules in the Stuttgart Model involves the awareness that competencies, which are developed during university education and at the teacher training seminar, will later be made useable in the teaching profession. They have to be continuously modified there. There always have to be adaptations to professional needs (see: Sliwka 2008) and appearing deficiencies have to be worked on. Particularly this transferability will turn out as a great strength of the model. Transferability directly into schools: The support and supervision offered by the Stuttgart Model to the young teachers on the job seem to be highly effective in a pedagogical manner. For example using classroomsituations in seminars is helpful to build up a rich repertoire of patterns how to act and react as a teacher of Music. These might be video-material or even pupils taking part in workshops as a case-study.

Bert Gerhardt / Alexander Borst / Jens Knigge


EVALUATING THE MODEL The Stuttgart Model is continuously monitored by formative evaluation. On the one hand, this evaluation allows assessing the implementation of the underlying concepts in practice and on the other hand finding and addressing possibilities of optimization (see: Bortz / Dring 2006: 109f.). On the basis of a conceptual design outlining the Stuttgart Model (Scharenberg / Gerhardt / Amann 2010), central objectives have been identified. These can be used as a basis for an evaluation design. The objectives can be summarized as follows: On Model level: 1. Enhancement of teacher education This relates to the workshops as unique parts of the model as well as to applying impulses gathered in the evaluation-process to the institutions that participate in the project. 2. Designing future-oriented and transferable structures The Stuttgart Model focuses on music teachers at schools. Its transferability to other subjects and e. g. school types are to be discussed. 3. Potential and problems of cooperation concepts between institutions The Stuttgart Model is a collaborative project between three institutions. The accompanying concept of cooperation is to be evaluated, especially to improve and potentially expand the cooperation.

Bert Gerhardt / Alexander Borst / Jens Knigge


4. Increasing the publicity concerning the model through generally accessible information and public relations work The effectiveness of the public relations work is constantly monitored. 5. Involving the workshop trainers in the model-related development of the workshops As the central connection between the model and the workshops, the trainers have an important role in implementing the models concepts. It is necessary to point out the special properties of the model to the trainers and to help them implement those methodically. On workshop level and individual level: 6. Achieving individual development: addressing individual needs and increase of competencies One of the central focuses of the Stuttgart Model is to help teachers in their first years of work. Thus, it is necessary to gather data concerning their individual needs in this regard and to implement these topics in the workshops across groups. An important goal of the workshops is the increase of the participants competencies; this process will be evaluated. 7. Implementing phase-overlapping workshops to increase phase-transparency The central concept of the Stuttgart Model is to allow different participating groups to generate impulses and feedback to support each other. This demands relatively unrestrained and above that focused communication

Bert Gerhardt / Alexander Borst / Jens Knigge


between the participants of the workshops. Methods to make this form of communication possible and to increase its likelihood have to be developed. 8. Create productive team-teaching The workshop trainers work in pairs of two. The general idea behind this is to let experienced teachers work together with university lecturers or specialists to allow the reconnection of educational science to school practice. Furthermore, teams of trainers may work more oriented towards individuals and have the opportunity to react flexible to the needs of the group. These divergent dimensions of the evaluation made the development of an elaborate evaluation design necessary. Because the evaluation is at an early stage, the following section discusses only methodological aspects without a presentation of results and conclusions. Methods of Evaluation The aim of the evaluation is to generate information for the project team in order to revise and enhance the model. Certain aspects of the model can be more readily evaluated in the process of implementation (in the sense of formative evaluation) than others, which call for a more summative approach. This and the otherwise rather divergent dimensions of the evaluation demand differing methods. Thus, the evaluation design is based on a mixedmethod approach (Triangulation, e.g. Flick 2008) that combines various qualitative and quantitative methods. Regarding the evaluation of the workshops the following methods are to be used:
Bert Gerhardt / Alexander Borst / Jens Knigge


1. Participative observation (e.g. Flick 2005, chapter 5.5, Scholz 2005: 381ff.) of the whole workshop 2. Standardized questionnaire for participants at the end of the workshop 3. Group discussion with participants (e.g. Flick 2005, chapter 5.4, Przyborski / Riegler 2010: 436ff.) at the end of the workshop 4. Problem-centered Interviews (Witzel 2000) with selected participants based on theoretical sampling (see Strauss / Corbin 1996: 149ff.) in the week after the workshop 5. Problem-centered Interviews with the lecturers in the week after the workshop Several of the more general aims require further data. Therefore, the following methods are used additionally: 1. Expert interviews (e.g. Bogner et al. 2005) 2. Document analysis (e.g. Lamnek 2005) 3. Standardized questionnaire regarding the general needs of the participating groups Due to relative small samples (N < 30 per workshop) the analysis of the quantitative data can mainly be descriptive. Analysis and interpretation of the qualitative data is based on qualitative content analysis (Mayring 2007).

Bert Gerhardt / Alexander Borst / Jens Knigge


Outline of model objectives and related evaluation methods

Objectives Model level Development of the education of teachers


Questionnaire regarding individual needs Expert interviews

Designing future-oriented and transferable Expert interviews structures Interviews with instructors Potential and problems of cooperation Expert interviews concepts between institutions Increasing the publicity concerning the Questionnaire for participants model through generally accessible infor- Document analysis (Access of homepage and mation and public relations work press releases) Involving the workshop trainers in the Interviews with instructors model-related development of the workshops Workshop and individual level Achieving individual development: addres- Participative observation sing individual needs and increase of Questionnaire for participants competencies Group discussion Interviews with participants Interviews with instructors Implementing phase-overlapping workshops Participative observation to increase phase-transparency Group discussion Interviews with participants Interviews with instructors Create productive team-teaching Participative observation Group discussion Interviews with instructors

Bert Gerhardt / Alexander Borst / Jens Knigge


IV PERSPECTIVE Developing and establishing trendsetting structures The workshops and seminars offered during the first year of the project have to meet the current requirements. From the project designers point of view it would be very desirable in the future to keep the offered courses oriented towards the students, Interns and young teachers needs, and at the same time effective and stimulating. A clearly open system is absolutely needed to realize both, developing and establishing those trendsetting structures. Plans and developments: Modalities of testing and examining

A further very important part of the tasks of the projects is the development and implementation of new modalities in testing and examining. These have to be oriented much more towards practical aspects and their relevance to the third phase. New ways of examining during studies (e.g. testing of modules and integrative exams) and at the teachers seminar (e.g. being tested in ones presentation-skills) can be integrated into this process. Especially new and more diverse ways of consulting students, interns and young teachers are directly related to the modalities of examining and testing. These consultations are supposed to adjust deficiencies on an individual basis related to the offered phase-overlapping modules in the Stuttgart Model. This relates to the project design and evaluation, the setup of workshops and coaching sessions and also the communication between all groups involved. The experiences with the first steps into self-dependent teaching and the semester
Bert Gerhardt / Alexander Borst / Jens Knigge


of teaching experience illustrated above strongly suggest continuing the close interchange of ideas of the three institutions involved. The transition from being a trainee at the teachers seminar to a young teacher at school has to be focused on even more in the future. Continuous development of the model

To be able to develop and preserve the Stuttgart Model and its built-in network independently from private funding, new local partners for collaboration have to be recruited. They should be reachable in Stuttgart and able to cope with part of the demands and offers. Their work would ideally be financed by institutions that are interested in educating and training teachers and therefore would not expect any financial compensation. This may lead to an opening of the Stuttgart Model in the near future towards the fourth phase of learning, including the idea of life-long learning and even practicing music education in old peoples homes and integrating those involved there. In order to combine theory and praxis much better, it seems of vital importance to us to make phases of studies and training more transparent and overlapping, particularly when we take the conclusions of constructivist learning theory (see: Harnischmacher 1997; Rein 1997) in university teaching, teacher training and beyond seriously. The first positive experiences of the Stuttgart Model make us believe that at least part of the concept will be transferable to other places and fields of academic education in the future.

Bert Gerhardt / Alexander Borst / Jens Knigge


V REFERENCES Bogner, Alexander / Littig, Beate / Menz, Wolfgang (2005): Das Experteninterview. Theorie, Methode, Anwendung. Opladen: Leske + Budrich. Bortz, Jrgen / Dring, Nicola (2006): Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation fr Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler. Heidelberg: Springer. Dressler, Bernhard / Beck, Lothar (Ed.) (2010): Fachdidaktiken im Dialog. Beitrge der Ringvorlesungen des Forums Fachdidaktik an der Philipps-Universitt Marburg. Marburg: Tectum. Erbring, Saskia (2007): Pdagogisch professionelle Kommunikation: eine empirische Studie zur Professionalisierung von Lehrpersonen unter Supervision. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Ed.) (2004): The Development of National Educational Standards, An Expertise. URL: (22.04.2011). Flick, Uwe (2008): Triangulation. Eine Einfhrung. 2. Aufl. Wiesbaden: VS. Flick, Uwe (2005): Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch. Reinbek: Rowohlt. Gerhardt, Bert (2011): Website Stuttgarter Model. URL: (22.04.2011).

Bert Gerhardt / Alexander Borst / Jens Knigge


Harnischmacher, Christian (1997): "Perspektivische Musikdidaktik - Musikpdagogik und Radikaler Konstruktivismus". In: Thomas Henker / Daniel Mllensiefen (Ed.), Medien - Musik - Mensch: neue Medien und Musikwissenschaft (p.79-90). Hamburg: Bockel. Lamnek, Siegfried (2005): Qualitative Sozialforschung. Lehrbuch. Weinheim: Beltz. Mayring, Philipp (2007): Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag. Ministerium fr Kultus, Jugend und Sport des Landes Baden-Wrttemberg (2004): Bildungsplan 2004; URL: (20.04.2011). Nakamura, Yoshiro (2008): Vielfalt in der Einheitlichkeit. Lehrerbildung unter den Bedingungen von Bologna. URL: (19.04.2010). Przyborski, Aglaja / Riegler, Julia (2010): Gruppendiskussion und Fokusgruppe. In: Gnter Mey / Katja Mruck (Ed.), Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie (p.436-448). Wiesbaden: VS. Rein, Kersten (1997): Systemisch-konstruktivistische Pdagogik. Einfhrung in Grundlagen einer interaktionistisch-konstruktivistischen Pdagogik. Neuwied: Luchterhand. Scharenberg, Sointu / Gerhardt, Bert / Amann, Andrea (2010): Phasendurchlssige Module. Das Stuttgarter Modell. URL: _von_der_hochschule_in_den_klassenraum.pdf (18.04.11).

Bert Gerhardt / Alexander Borst / Jens Knigge


Scholz, Gerold (2005): Teilnehmende Beobachtung: eine Methodologie oder eine Methode. In: Gnter Mey (Ed.), Handbuch Qualitative Entwicklungspsychologie (p.381-411). Kln: Klner Studien Verlag. Sekretariat der stndigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Lnder (Ed.) (2008): Lndergemeinsame inhaltliche Anforderungen fr die Fachwissenschaften und Fachdidaktiken in der Lehrerbildung. URL: (20.04.2011). Sliwka, Anne (2008): Professionalisierung durch Selbstregulierung: Teaching Counsils in Irland, Kanada und Australien. In: journal fr lehrerInnenbildung, No.3, p.45-51. Strauss, Anselm / Corbin, Juliet (1996): Grounded Theory: Grundlagen qualitativer Sozialforschung (Trans.: S. Niewarra / H. Legewie; unchanged reprint 1996). Weinheim: Beltz. Terhart, Ewald (2008): Die Lehrerbildung. In: Kai S. Cortina / Jrgen Baumert/ Achim Leschinsky/ Karl Ulrich Mayer/ Luitgard Trommer (Ed.), Das Bildungswesen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Strukturen und Entwicklungen im berblick (p.745-773). Reinbek: Rowohlt. Witzel, Andreas (2000): Das problemzentrierte Interview. In: FQS, Vol. 1, No.1, Article 22. URL: (17.04.2011).

Bert Gerhardt / Alexander Borst / Jens Knigge

International Collaborative Teaching Using Interactive Distance Learning- A case Study Hanna Bar-Yishay The Center for Academic Studies School of Education Abstract: The purpose of this study was to explore the cost effectiveness of a unique model of international collaborative teaching using an interactive distance learning (IDL) system as implemented by a corporate university operating in the UK and Israel. A retrospective study using qualitative research methods was carried out. Analysis of results has revealed that despite the usage of a systematically designed protocol of teaching, the effectiveness of the model implemented, as perceived by the tutors, was questionable. Pedagogical and design issues, content issues and technological issues are identified as defining the experience of tutors with the blended model. Taking into consideration the high cost of IDL, the viability of this model should be reconsidered.

Introduction This paper investigates the cost-effectiveness and cost efficiency of a unique collaborative teaching project using online technologies, designed to offer postgraduate courses in education to students abroad. The model involved the usage of an Interactive Distance Learning system (interwise) by Derby University, a UK based university, and its partnership in Israel (Israel Extension). Increased demand for higher education in the last decades had transformed higher education into mass education, and led to the creation of international universities all over the world (Rovai & Downey, 2010). The rapid growth of international universities generated demands for new modes of distance learning and new forms of quality control over programs abroad. Technological advances in e-Learning, the increased availability and reliability of technology, and the declining costs of its implementation, all contributed to the wide spread adaptation of online distance learning technologies in higher education. (Allen & Seaman, 2008; Chen, 2009; Jones, 2008). Web Conferencing became the most widely used format for delivery of lessons between sites in higher education (Geri, 2011) . Most usage of Video Conferencing (VC) technology in higher education is still asynchronous (self-pace) (Hyder et. al. 2007 ). Synchronous Distance Learning (SDL) has grown rapidly in most organizations, including institution of higher education (Frank & Kurtz, 2002, Knipe & Lee, 2002, Agosti et al, 2006, Ng, 2007, McBrien et. al., 2009). However, despite its growing presence, there is still great uncertainty as to the design, usage, and outcomes of this strategy of teaching (Hyder et. al., 2007). Moreover, most research focuses on the effectiveness of e-learning, seldom on issues of e-teaching associated with SDL (Frank & Kurtz, 2002, Knipe & Lee, 2002, Agosti et al, 2006, Ng, 2007, McBrien et. Al., 2009). Because we believe that teachers are the most eminent component in any learning process, including e-learning, we decided to go back and examine e-teaching as perceived by tutors using a Synchronous Distributive Learning model employing video conferencing and a unique form of blended learning.

Synchronous Distance Learning Synchronous distance learning is usually described as "the use of web conferencing software to support live interactive learning events delivered on the Web" (hyder et al, p. 1). It is regarded as one of the 3 most important strategies, as the "third leg" after face-to face teaching and Asynchronous Distance Learning, of teaching and learning (Ibid). Like in any other form of distance education, the learner is physically distanced from the tutor and the organization delivering the course (Frank, Kurtz & Levin, 2002). In asynchronous e-learning students are separated by space and time from their tutor, and can progress on their own pace. Synchronous e-learning, on the other hand, allows students to participate simultaneously in the lecture. It enables real time interaction between tutor and students and in-between students, making possible the creation of a "community of learners" (Ibid; Mabrito, 2006). Synchronous elearning is an attempt to simulate a face-to-face classroom, by allowing students to actively participate in class and receive immediate response from tutor ( Ng, 2007). This helps prevent feelings of loneliness and isolation which typifies asynchronous online learning, and helps promote social interaction usually found in conventional classes (Salmon, 2000, Kurtz &Porto, 2006). The most suited technology for synchronous e-learning in higher education is video conferencing. It is best suited for lectured-based education and for teaching a number of groups in various locations (knipe & Lee, 2002). SDL using VC technology is not merely a replica of a real classroom. It is a teaching strategy on its own right that has its advantages and disadvantages and needs to be carefully studied and implemented. Most studies investigating SDL reported that, in general, both students and tutors had a positive learning experience. However, the main drawbacks of the system were the lack of human and social dimensions of learning, caused mainly by the lack of physical presence of a teacher in the virtual classroom (Hyder et. al. 2007, Guterman 2010).

The findings that on-line distance learning, whether synchronous or asynchronous, lacks personalization and socialization, and limits the degree of engagement of students in the learning process, may explain the rapid rise in the usage of blended or hybrid learning in e-learning (Frank, Kurtz & Levin, 2002). The term "blended learning" refers to any combination of synchronous and asynchronous learning experiences. In most cases it refers to some form of mixed face-to-face and on-line teaching, usually asynchronous teaching (hyder, 2007, Geri, 2011). It is usually designed to overcome the lack of human and social interaction involves in DL, and support students who find it difficult to learn in a virtual classroom (Frank, Kurtz, Levin, 2002). Various types of blended learning are described in the research literature, all designed to reduce the "distance" that students may experience in online learning (Agosti et. al. 2006; Kurtz & Porto, 2006; Guterman et. al., 2010 & Geri, 2011). All the studies reviewed indicated that students prefer some type of blended learning model to a fully online course. The Method For a period of 5 years eight postgraduate education courses were delivered from the UK using a distance learning system called interwise (iClass platform). Courses were delivered to up to 5 classes in 2 sites simultaneously, each course comprising 15 sessions of 4 hours each. Interwise is a software application intended to simulate the interactivities and behavior occurring in a traditional classroom. It is mainly a teacher-led text-based learning synchronous environment, allowing the transmission of video, voice and data. A split-screen interface allowed for transmitting PP presentations, whiteboard writings and web browsing, while at the same time viewing the face of the tutor at the bottom of the screen. The audio element allowed students to talk with each other and with their tutors due to "daisy-chained" microphones that picked up all participants comments. Students could ask questions vocally, textually or by means of a yes-no polling system. The application is considered to be user- friendly and intuitive enough for tutors to operate without

training, an important factor in effective SDL (Moore & Kearsley, 2005, Agosti et. al., 2006, Porto, 2006). Agosti et. al. (2006) and Ng (2007) examined different usages of interwise in higher education. Our study suggests yet another model of blended learning using interwise that does not fall under the classical category of blended learning. We chose to combine simultaneously Synchronous on line video conferencing with traditional classroom teaching. The responsibility for teaching was divided between 2 tutors: one delivering the lesson from the home university in the UK, and the other teaching face-to-face a class in Israel. A flexible protocol was implemented according to which every 15 minutes the UK lecturer would pose to post a poll, ask a questions, give an assignment or allow for free discussions, to ensure that students remain engaged at all time. Those sessions were led and supervised by the local tutor in Israel. Local tutors functioned as teamteachers and facilitators, not merely as a teaching assistant as recommended by Frank, Kurtz & Levin (2002). Copies of slides were distributed in advance. Recordings of sessions were not made available for students to ensure full attendance. Unlike most cases reported in the literature, the change was not technology or novelty driven. Nor was it intended to adopt the learning process to the needs to students. The organization was simply driven by the need to comply with the local law in Israel that required 30% of the program to be delivered by tutors from the home university in the UK. Research methodology A retrospective case study, using qualitative research methods, was carried out. Distance online learning is a complex phenomenon that requires a naturalistic approach and in depth analysis. It evokes feelings, emotions and thoughts that cannot be explained merely by quantitative methods of research (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2004). A pilot study, conducted using written questionnaires distributed to students, discovered many overlaps in their perception of the various factors composing SDL, making it necessary to conduct a naturalistic inquiry within the framework

of case study. 10 Semi structured interviews were conducted with tutors in Israel and the UK (some by telephone) and one in depth interview with the finance director. The questions asked were broad and general, and related to their experience, their likes and dislikes and their perception on what worked or didn't work with the medium. The Semi-structured interviews ensured reliability and enabled the tutors to express their feelings freely. The fact that the study is a retrospective research further ensured the validity and reliability of the interviews. Tutors had no reason to overstate or understate the "truth" anymore. Content analysis of recordings such as staff developments' minutes, external examiners' reports and program committees' proceedings were used as well. Cost analysis of incurred expenses was carried out as well. The study included also participants' observations, a tool typical to educational case studies (Ibid, 187). About 20 tutors altogether were involved in the project. Some of them transmitted lectures in English and some in Hebrew. The usage of a foreign language caused some distress among students and tutors and introduced an external factor into the analysis, not related to the nature of SDL. In order to neutralize the language factor only 10 Hebrew speaking tutors were interviewed. Data was coded re-coded and grouped into categories using grounded theory. Inner reliability was ensured by collaborative coding of the researchers. Finding and Results All Teachers participating in this research identified with the organizational need for SDL but lacked enthusiasm. According to tutors little was done to motivate them or to present SDL as a challenge. This may explain the general negative attitude of all tutors to the project. Enthusiasm in conceived in the literature as a key element of effective SDL (Frank, Kurtz & Levin, 2002). Lack of enthusiasm and failure to provide tutors with incentives may impair successful introduction of technological change (Ben Youssef & Ragni, 2008). Local tutors used terms such as "mediator", "facilitator",

"human touch" to describe their function. "I was there to show empathy, to look them into the 'white of their eyes'. The following issues were identified as defining the experience of tutors with the blended elearning model: Pedagogical and design issues: Pedagogical and design issues are identified in all studies reviewed as an essential element in determining the success of online programs (Rovai & Downey, 2010). Pedagogical topics such as nature of interaction, personalization of contact, preparation of materials and quality of teaching bothered most interviewers. Interaction Interaction is considered the most detrimental component for effective SDL. Student-teacher, student-student, student-content interactions were all identified as components of meaningful interaction. According to Ng (2007), as long as one of them exist learning can be effective. DL provides usually high levels of student-content interaction and less studentteacher interaction due to the inherent nature of the technology . Interwise was designed to enhance both forms of student-teacher and student-student interactions. Our findings suggest that forms of interactions varied greatly from tutor to tutor. Some tutors used the system mainly to lecture not interact (Ng, 2007). Some tutors complained that teacher-student interaction was "not easy" despite the presence of local tutor in class; that students felt "disconnected" mainly due to language barriers and technological problems. Those tutors were observed as very passive themselves, rarely asking questions or raising issues. "the other class was so active that we felt no need to intervene" remarked one tutor. Other explanations given were : "We had to wait a long time for our turn to speak" or "I preferred transmitting our questions textually because I felt uneasy to speak in English" or " The class was large and noisy and I couldn't always hear the question." Local tutors who

collaborated on course design were in general much more active. They asked questions themselves and encouraged students to participate. Where interaction existed tutors on both sided reported a more positive teaching experience (Agosti et. al., 2006; Stacey, 2003). Strong commitment to interaction is viewed in the research literature as necessary for the success of SDL (Frank, Kurtz & Levin, 2002). Lack of it may explain the general feeling of dissatisfaction among those interviewed. Socialization and informal exchanges are very important dimension in the learning process suggested Ng (2007). Some tutors in our project made and effort to personalize contact in order to create a better learning environment. "When a student asked a question introduced him by name and profession and it made everyone feel good, laugh". Tutors who knew each other personally, were constantly in touch using e-mails or skype and were in general more positive in attitude. In general tutors complained that students were very passive and "indifferent" , did not assume enough responsibility for their learning, and did not take advantage of the technologies available . This is interesting because most studies relating to students perceptions of SDL, claimed that students would like to be more active participants (Gutterman et. Al., 2010, Geri, 2011). Workloads was another issue of discontent. This complaint concurs with students' reporting in Knipe & Lees' study (2002) that more materials were distributed than in regular classes and more assignments were given. Preparing teaching materials in advance is a key element in SDL (Frank, Kurtz &Levin, 2002). However, the degree of preparations and mainly Joint preparation varied greatly. Where joint preparation existed, it greatly contributed to the learning climate. Overall tutors complained about "stress" that didn't contribute to effective teaching (Moore & Kearsley, 2005). Uk tutors complained about stress caused by "lonliness" and "the feeling of me taking to myself". In-class tutors felt that they had to be very "alert" and "attentive" in constant "need to concentrate in class on management of class on one hand and follow the teacher on the other."

learning and teaching Tutors felt that quality of teaching is lower because "lots of time was dedicated to questions from all centers that sometimes repeated themselves". Attempts to make the presentation more lively and relevant, was viewed as "slowing down progress". Knipe & Lee (2002) who compared students' experience of blended learning in remote and local classes found out as well, that remote sites students did not experience the same quality of teaching and learning as local site students. One of the most interesting phenomenon observed in e-learning in general is the productivity paradox the fact that productivity, as calculated by the standard input/output analysis, is declining in most universities (Ben Youssef & Ragni, 2008). Even those studies that show positive impact of e-learning on students' achievements for example, agree that the impact is significant but small (Ibid). The productivity paradox may suggests that institution of higher education who want to improve productivity, need to reconsider the incentives for teachers to use the technologies more intensively and intelligently for teaching and learning. Content issues Most tutors were not satisfied with the content of lessons. They felt that slides were "loaded" with material, "didn't relate to students' professional experience" "irrelevant", "messy" and 'flat". This agrees with other findings that SDL tends to concentrate on of technical learning (Knipe & Lee, 2002). Sessions dealing with "international or UK aspects" or "comparative subjects" were considered more effective and attracted more students. Tutors who felt positive about the experience emphasized the multui-cultural aspects of the content as one to the main reason. Technological issues Tutors demonstrated mixed feeling toward technology. They used the following terminology to describe it: "Difficult to follow", "fun", " different", "enjoyable", "friendly" " not fair to me and students" . Uk teachers enjoyed mainly being able to work from home or office . The capability of

the technology to provide class simulation was perceived as poor. Quality of sound and picture, and frequent interruptions in transmission were perceived as main obstacles to effective learning in SDL (Rovai & Downey, 2010). Tutors complained that "We could see a face no eyes, no lips movements, no body language, even not hand!" . Technical problems in communication were envisaged by most tutors. Some complained about time lag in response caused by the feature of getting or giving permission to speak. "By the time permission was granted I forgot what I wanted to say." The ability to send textual notes posed a problem as well, as suggested also by Ng (2007) . Tutors claimed that receiving several questions at the same time from all centers was confusing. Some reported "boredom" and "fatigue" of tutors and students alike, due to the medium itself as reported by Knipe & Lee as well (2002). "Students were very bored at times and 'voted with their legs". Efficient use of technology is one of the main concerns of managers of online teaching projects (Jones, 2008). Lack of efficient utilization of expensive technologies typified the usage of interwise in this project as well . Tutors reported little to no use of whitboards, polling, web browsing and chats. Tutors were generally very pleased with the support personnel, another critical feature of effective e-learning (Frank, Kurtz & Levin, 2002). In conclusion the majority of tutors felt that SDL answered an organizational need and were willing thus to invest time and energy in the project. However, the majority didn't consider SDL as a positive experience for them or the students. As for the effectiveness of the project feelings among tutors differed. Passive tutors were less satisfied with the project as compared to active tutors. Cost analysis One of the major advantages of online distance learning using VC is the ability to provide economies of scale and teach large numbers of students (Bramble & Panda, 2008). This explains why many for-profit vendors entered the field and why this field turned so competitive (Rovai &

Downey, 2010). This led many providers to believe that SDL is by nature cost-efficient (CastiloMerino & Sjoberg, 2008). Is it indeed so?

online VC programs have no significant upfront costs for technology. All that is needed is internet connectivity, a sound card for voice reception and transmission, a microphone and loudspeakers. Though Rumble (2001) demonstrated that e-education is more costly than traditional distance education, cost analysis of this project suggests otherwise. Costs were divided to 3 categories: cost of technology, costs of e-learning staff and general costs (Marengo & Marengo, 2005). Technological Costs: Costs due to technology factor included the following item: Digital content costs, maintenance costs for digital content, content hosting costs, distribution costs, Learning Management System costs (LMS), hardware and software costs. The only direct cost incurred in this project is the cost of the Learning Management System (Interwise). The cost of buying LMS is no doubt the greatest cost incurred in any project. The other cost items were provided internally, utilizing real resources, and therefore financially negligible. For example digital content was developed internally, and maintenance of equipment was carried out by existing local personnel. However, utilizing internal personnel may have indirect cost incurred to the organization. Participants' observations revealed that support personnel were used intensively to initiate connection with the UK, re-connect the system when interruptions occurred, adjust sound, check microphones etc. On the other hand SDL saved the university substantial costs that would have been spent on wages, shipping and housing of UK staff conducting face-to-face teaching in Israel.

Cost of E-learning staff: comprise tutoring costs; cost of training; administration and management costs and consultancy costs. General costs: Include usually promotional costs and costs of elearning support mainly of students.


Costs of staff and general costs were not incurred directly to the project due to the fact that all academic and management functions were considered part of the regular workload of tutors and administrators. However, indirect non- financial costs did incur to individual tutors. Developing online programs is far more expensive in terms of time and energy than expected. Tutors reported devoting a lot of time to the preparation of PP presentations, assignments, exercises and case studies. Coordination between tutors and lessons' evaluation conducted regularly via e-mail or skype, were considered a heavy burden by all tutors. Some tutors described lengthy nightly conversations following every session. Chen (2009) concluded that one of the two main barriers that might keep institutions from expanding distance offering is the concern about faculty workload, lack of faculty interest and lack of faculty reward and incentives. Castilo-Merino & Sjoberg (2008) sduggested that cost-efficiency is due to 3 complementary effects: 1) the attainment of scale economies due to high fixed costs and low marginal costs ; 2) the enablement of productive capacity expansion without an increase of fixed costs 3) the trend towards a rise in variable costs consistent with decreasing marginal costs. There is evidence that all three exited as seen above. It may be concluded that the project was cost efficient especially when compared with the alternative of face-to-face teaching . Conclusion The findings to this paper suggest that SDL using blended learning can be cost-efficient. However the cost-effectiveness of the project is questionable. It occurred only when teachers on both side were willing to put a lot of time and effort into preparation and collaboration. Technological change is important to higher education. However as this case study suggests, institutions of higher education find it difficult to adjust themselves to swift technological advances. In order to enhance effective usage of technology, higher education institutions must accompany technological change by parallel innovations in teaching, learning and organizational structure.


Agosti, G., Cavalli, E., Gnudi, A., Lorenzi, A. & Malvisi, L. (2006). The virtual classroom within blended learning: Using synchronous conferencing as a support tool. A paper presented at the Annual European Distance Education Network (EDEN), Vienna. Allen, E. & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States, Survey report Sloan Consortium.

Ben Youssef, A. & Ragni, L. (2008). Uses of information and communication technologies in Europe's higher education institutions: from digital divides to digital trajectories. In D. Castillo-Merino

(Coordinator). The Economics of E-learning (Monograph). Revista de Universidad y Sociedal del Conocimiento (RUSC), 5:1, 72-85. Bramble, J.B. & Panda, S. (Eds.), (2008). Economics of distance and online learning: theory, practice, and research. NY: Routledge. Castillo-Merino, D & Sjoberg, M. (2008). A theoretical Framework for the economics of E-learning. In D. Castillo-Merino (Coordinator). The Economics of E-learning (Monograph). Revista de Universidad y Sociedal del Conocimiento (RUSC), 5:1,2-11. Chen, B. (2009). Barriers to adoption of technology-mediated distance education in higher education institutions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10:4, 333-338. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2004). Research methods in education. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Frank, M., Kurtz, G. and Levin, N. (2002). Implications of presenting pre-university courses using the blended e-learning approach. Educational Technology and Society. 5(4), 137-147. Geri, N. (2011). Students' adoption of online video-based distance learning. Proceedings of the Chais conference on instructional technologies research 2011: Learning in the technological era. Y. Eshet-Alkalai, A. Caspi, S. Eden, N. Geri, Y. Yair (Eds.) Guterman E, Steimberg, Y., Mermelstein, B., Brickner, R., Alberton, Y., Sagi, R., (2010). Students' perspective on teaching and learning with video technology at the Open University in Israel. Presented in the Chase Conference on technology and learning 2010 (In Hebrew). Hyder, K., Kwinn, A., Miazga, R. & Murray, M. (2007). The eLearning guide's handbook on synchronous e-learning. CA: The eLearning Gguide . Jones, J.G. (2008). Issues and concerns of directors of post-secondary distance learning programs regarding on line methods and technologies. American Journal of Distance Education, 22:1, 46-56.


Knipe, D. & Lee, M. (2002). The quality of teaching and learning via videoconferencing. British Journal of Educational Technology. 33:3, 301-313 Kurts, G. & Porto, S.C.S. (2006). Implementing live technologies to online teaching: An institutional perspective. A paper presented at the 4th European Distance and e-Learning Network, EDEN Research workshop, Barcelona: Spain. Mabrito, M. (2006). A study of synchronous versus asynchronous collaboration in an online business writing class. The American Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), 93-107. Marengo, A. and Marengo, V. (2005). Measuring the economic benefits of E-learning : A proposal for a new Index for academic environments. Journal of Information Technology Education, 4, 329345. McBrien, J.L., Jones, P. & Cheng, R. (2009). Virtual spaces: Employing a synchronous online classroom to facilitate student engagement in online learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10:3, 1-17. Moore, M.G. & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance Education: A system view. (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:Wadswoth Ng, K. C. (2007). Replacing face-to-face tutorials by synchronous online technologies: Challenges and pedagogical implications. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 8:1, 1-15. Porto, S. (2006). Synchronous Online Conferencing within UMUC Online Classrooms. DE Oracle@UMUC

Rovai, A.P. & Downey, J.R. (2010). Why some distance education programs fail while others succeed in a global environment. Internet & higher education, 13, 141-147.

Rumble, G. (2001). The cost and costing of networked learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 5(2), 75-96. Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning on-line. London: Kogan Page. Stacey, P. (2003). Online pedagogies for active learning.


36th Annual International Conference

Improving University Teaching

The Collaborative Classroom

Pedagogical Scholarship
Bielefeld, Germany July 19th -22nd

Presentation of Scholarly Works

Zubizarreta, J., Collaborative Critical Response: A Model for Formative Assessment. (Paper Panel July 20, 2011). Fox, P. & Hibbert, D., Collaboration across the Years: and Beyond. (Paper Panel July 20, 2011). Steiger, J., Challenges of Large Group Study Courses in Engineering Education. (Paper Panel July 21, 2011). Butler, E., Kerr, G., Gibson, H., McCluskey, K., Sawyer, K., & Tierney, A., ScotPID A Model of Collaboration. (Paper Panel July 20, 2011). Sackville, A., & Sherratt, C., Levels and Challenges of Collaboration- A Case Study in Technology Supported Clinical Education Programmes. (Paper Panel July 22, 2011). Sherratt, C., Collaboration and Community Presence in an Online Learning Environment. (Paper Panel July 20, 2011). Sackville, A.,The Musicians of Bremen and the Politics of Collaboration. (Paper Panel July 20, 2011). Reinhard, K. & Selke, H. Virtual Learning Spaces for Co-Active Learning. (Paper Panel July 21, 2011).


Improving University Teaching 19-22 Jul. 2011 Sub-Theme Formative Assessment to Promote Collaboration

John Zubizarreta, Ph.D. Columbia College, SC U.S.A.

Students have much to share with us about teaching improvement. One unique model of formative assessment of teaching is the use of Collaborative Critical Response as an honest process that offers a structured forum for faculty and students to follow key steps to promote trust, critical reflection, and detailed feedback. The method involves using a trained facilitator to help teachers and students share affirmations, questions, and opinions in a formative, analytical framework. The method also raises awareness of the importance of civility, respect, collaboration, and community. Members must work together to strengthen their common enterprise of improving teaching and learning.

Collaborative Critical Response is a unique model of shared formative assessment. Employing a trained facilitator, it is an honest process that offers a highly structured, moderated forum for faculty and students to follow key steps designed to promote trust, critical reflection, and detailed feedback.

COLLABORATIVE CRITICAL RESPONSE: A MODEL FOR FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT John Zubizarreta Columbia College, SC U.S.A. Providing us with shrewd insights into the constantly evolving methodologies in our profession, Bill McKeachie (1991) has observed how the emphasis in the academy over recent decades has shifted from instructional materials to faculty and now toward students (p. 6). However, McKeachie adds that the underlying common denominator in all approaches to faculty development and educational improvement has been student learning: As I see it, the dominant theories deal with students (p. 6). His analysis seems so obvious as to be ordinary, but McKeachies keen messageeven today, at the peak of the so-called paradigm shift in higher education to learner-centered perspectives and practicesis often lost in long-held and continuing attitudes among faculty that students are those to whom we teach or on whom we exert our influence as instructors and mentors as opposed to those with whom we teach and learn. Such attitudes are not necessarily flawed or mistaken, but they do perpetuate a benign and well-meaning sense that what faculty can learn from students about teaching improvement is limited by students status as inexperienced learners and nonprofessionals. Perhaps one of the unfortunate results of such thinking is the ubiquitous faculty suspicion of student feedback on rating forms, despite the consistent and overwhelming evidence that suggests the fundamental reliability and efficacy of student perceptions of teaching in comprehensive teaching evaluation systems (Aleamoni, 1976; Braskamp & Ory, 1994; Centra, 1993; Cohen, 1981; Feldman, 1977; Seldin, 1999; Theall & Franklin, 1990). 3

Students, I would argue, have much to share with us about teaching improvement, and some educational and faculty development leaders have recognized the important position of students in strengthening the ways in which we review courses and instructors. As early as Redmond and Clarks report in the early 1980s about the Small Group Instructional Diagnosis, we see efforts to include students in a formal, complex process of providing useful feedback to help teachers boost course effectiveness. Directives for classroom research (Cross 1987), for course portfolios (Zubizarreta, 1995), and for faculty to study the impact of teaching upon students learning through intentional and continual reflective practice (Schn, 1983; Seldin, 1993, 1997; Zubizarreta 1997) have provided impetus for more attention to students role in improving teaching. The popularity of classroom assessment techniques described by Angelo and Cross (1993) also reveals the growing interest in collecting and analyzing student information within a framework of formative analysis to improve teaching and learning. The growing awareness of the unique contributions of students to teaching improvement has led to several versions of efforts to involve students as consultants in various guises within faculty development programs and faculty evaluation systems, taking students participation in assessment of teacher and course effectiveness beyond the traditional capacity of end-of-term ratings. In their retrospective of such efforts, for example, Cox and Sorenson (2000) reveal that today many institutions have sponsored student observer/consultant programs (p. 100), and Sorenson (1994) reported earlier that such programs have proven to be viable and successful. The Students Consulting on Teaching program at Brigham Young University is a good example of the diverse

applications of student consultants in helping faculty to strengthen classroom instruction, and it offers a sophisticated model of the various ways in which students can be employed to provide meaningful feedback to faculty. Detailed information about the program is available at, but a brief summary of the different functions of a student consultant reveals that a student may be enlisted as 1) recorder or observer of classroom activities, 2) faux student who sits and takes notes as an enrolled student in a class, 3) videotaper who may discuss a tape with the instructor afterward, 4) interviewer who engages students in conversation about the class in the teachers absence and later shares feedback with the instructor, 5) primed student who observes class with a predetermined set of issues defined by the instructor, and 6) consultant who provides continual evaluative feedback on teaching from the perspective of a learner. All of these purposes serve to forge a positive partnership between faculty and students to offer teachers the service of seeing their practice from the point of view of the learner. Sorenson (Cox & Sorenson, 2000) reports that the option that is most prevalent at her institution (and probably at other schools where student consultations are used) is the student as interviewer (p. 101). Here, the student is an objective, outside visitor who collects anonymous feedback from students without the teachers presence and then relays the information to the instructor after class. Often, the interview consists of fairly common midterm assessment questions: 1) what have you done in the class that has enhanced your learning? 2) what have you done in the class that has diminished your learning? 3) what changes do you suggest the instructor and students can make to

improve the class and how would you make those changes happen? Of course, the interviewer may ask other, more directed questions about specific course activities, readings, procedures, community, and climate, but the session is conducted in confidence, and the student consultant is obligated to record dispassionately and fairly, reporting to the instructor without prejudice and with improvement as the guiding principle. We may notice that a common element between such a collaborative venture involving students in the assessment of teaching at midterm and the administration of common, end-of-term teaching evaluations through student ratings is the requisite anonymity of students, a condition that offers the safety of private, honest commentary (the students prerogative) and private, individual reflection, analysis, and action (the teachers response). Both the students and the teacher are guaranteed such confidentiality for the sake of reliability and ethical conduct, especially at terms end, when grades are at stake. In student-assisted midterm assessments, arranged presumably for formative purposes, the teachers absence from the room during the student consultants interview of a class ensures, similarly, a safe and practical distance between students and teacher to encourage open, frank conversation among students about their learning experience. But distance is precisely the issue that the Collaborative Critical Response method of student-facilitated assessment addresses squarely. What if students and faculty were present together during a student-assisted review at midterm or even at end-of-term? What if students had the difficult challenge and opportunity of sharing their perceptions of teaching and course effectiveness directly with the instructor? What if the instructor had the equal challenge and opportunity of responding directly to students? Would

anything be won by breaking down the traditional requirement of anonymity in the process of generating student feedback for improvement? Are there any gains that outweigh the considerable risks for both students and faculty in a student-moderated, collaborative session designed to produce both constructive and negative observations, raise questions and concerns, and allow participants to express opinions? The positive answer to such questions lies in the unique modifications the Columbia College Honors Program has made to critical response, a method originally designed by Liz Lerman (1993) for constructive feedback in the fine arts. Collaborative Critical Response employs a facilitator whose charge is to keep the instructor and the responders focused on constructive, honest dialogue. Adapting Lermans ideas to the aim of improving courses and teaching performance has resulted in some challenges but also many gains. Collaborative Critical Response was first used in a few honors classes to test whether students and faculty would find the method helpful in identifying specific ways in which courses could be improved. Honors has frequently been the incubator for various pedagogical experimentations, new courses, and other faculty development ventures at the college because of the programs premium on creative approaches to teaching and learning, risk taking, and academic excellence. Also, honors courses are generally taught by the most talented professors on campus, and students tend to be highly motivated and serious about their learning. The overwhelming consensus was that the process not only led to actual changes that enhanced teaching and learning but also resulted in several other tangible benefits, including strengthening community in the class, improving communication and trust among students and between students and

teacher, and providing faculty with a practical record of ongoing assessment and growth useful in overall teaching evaluation efforts. The method was soon employed in all sections of a required, two-year, liberal-arts, freshman seminar sequence, vastly widening the influence of such a collaborative and open process and contributing to a remarkable, ongoing conversation on campus about profound issues of teaching, learning, academic integrity, respect, assessment, and expectations. Here is how Collaborative Critical Response works. Training First, the process requires knowledgeable, prepared facilitators. The Honors Programs student association took on the charge of regularly training student consultants in order to replenish the number of available facilitators. Training involves a two-hour workshop during which students are introduced to the concept and supplied with written materials such as Lermans brief summary of the process, tips for effective facilitating, short readings designed to stimulate better appreciation for and understanding of teaching and learning, useful forms, and sample reports submitted to professors (who give permission to share their reviews). One student, as part of her honors senior project, actually developed a training video of a mock critical response session, playing out different scenarios that a facilitator might encounter in a session. Once critical response was implemented by all freshman seminar sections, recruiting enough students became a challenge, and we began to rely on faculty facilitators as well. The Facilitators Role During each of the steps, the facilitator remains neutral; s/he serves mainly to move the discussion forward and keep it within the allotted time frame. If one section

seems to be taking too long, s/he should suggest moving on to the next step. S/he also takes detailed notesincluding each question asked, each comment made, and the responses givenso that the professor is able to engage in the discussion without stopping to record notes. A free flow of honest conversation within a structured, purposeful, and moderated environment is essential. Step 1: Affirmation This step begins the critical response. Affirmation, an uplifting phase that values the positive and meaningful teaching and learning accomplishments and relationships in a class, stimulates participants positive reflections about the course. A. Students begin by making positive, detailed statements about any aspect of the class. Topics for affirmation may include areas such as teaching techniques, content issues, syllabus design, course goals and objectives, or evaluation methods. For example, students could say, The video clips that youve shown have helped me learn about the subject matter in greater detail, The syllabus is organized clearly and helps me know exactly what to expect during class time, or Your lectures and accompanying PowerPoint slides are designed well so that I understand my notes when I look back over them. B. After students have made several affirmations, the facilitator indicates that the professor has the opportunity to make positive remarks to the class. Just as teachers benefit from student feedback, students can better understand the instructors philosophy, expectations, and strategies by listening to the instructor. Some sample comments might include, You have all been very involved in the class discussions and have brought up interesting points based

on outside readings youve applied to our texts or Your exemplary involvement in the electronic course forum has been beneficial to the classs learning and sharing of ideas. Step 2: Instructor Asks Questions This step allows the professor to ask probing questions to find out information about the students level of satisfaction or frustration, helping to target what teaching behaviors, pedagogies, or course content/design features have enhanced or diminished student learning. The questions should be diagnostic and specific enough to allow for detailed responses: How has the textbook been helpful/not helpful for you? Do you think the class discussions have been well organized or too unstructured? Do you feel that you know pretty well where you stand in this course? What advantages or disadvantages have you experienced with group projects and how can I help you better with them? Step 3: Students Ask Questions This step, in turn, gives students the opportunity to ask questions about the course which are framed not as opinions or biases but as neutral, searching queries. Rather than asking, for example, Why did we have to write six papers? the student can ask a similar question: What was your reasoning behind assigning six papers? Since there will be time for students to give opinions later in the process, students biases and personal agendas should not be hidden within their questions. The facilitator is especially valuable at this stage, listening carefully and helping students to discover how to express neutral observations and questions and how to form appropriate questions out of opinions. Such a skill is obviously a feature of mature, life-long learning, an exercise that enriches and


refines the capacity for reasoned discourse, tolerance, respect, and interpersonal communication in the students, the facilitator, and the teacher. Step 4: Opinion Time Opinion time allows both students and teacher to make comments that may or may not have been addressed previously and that convey a marked opinion about any prior or new issues. Such statements may be positive or negative, but one important rule applies in this step of the process: the person tendering the opinion must begin his or her statement by asking, I have an opinion about ____; do you want to hear it? The request allows the person hearing the opinion to decide whether or not to receive it. Most of the time, the receiver will accept the remark; usually, the only time an opinion is denied is if the topic seems irrelevant. For example, if a student asks, I have an opinion about the classroom where we meet; do you want to hear it? and the instructor has no control over the classroom environment, the teacher may choose not to hear the comment. During this stage of the process, the facilitator ensures that each opinion is prefaced with the request for permission to share an observation or judgment. This is the phase of critical response which requires the most sensitivity, cultivation of respect, restraint weighed against honesty, and training on the part of the facilitator. When handled properly, conscientiously, and in good faith, opinion time can be a compelling opportunity for faculty and students to build trust in each other and a genuine commitment to improving teaching and learning in the course. (The caveat, of course, is that the professor will take the feedback seriously and make meaningful changes in the course which are observable by students and which improve learning.) The unique fact that the facilitator is a student consultant also invisibly adds to the overall institutional


climate of academic excellence, integrity, and civil discourse as the facilitator engages in a serious conversation about teaching and learning outside of his or her own personal classroom experience. A. Some students may not feel comfortable expressing negative or challenging opinions publicly. To make sure that all opinions are expressed, in the first half of the wrap-up to opinion time, students may write additional comments on the sheet handed to them at the beginning of the process and then submit their confidential feedback to the facilitator. The student consultant will include these remarks with the typed notes that she provides for the teacher. B. In the second half of the wrap-up to this step, the professor can choose to make additional positive or negative observations either orally or in writing. All feedback is ultimately recorded and shared by the facilitator. Step 5: Tabling Concerns If any part of the conversation during critical response has been tabled, the issue may be raised at this time for additional discussion if time allows and if the class feels that more interaction would be beneficial. Limitations here do not permit me to share the generous reactions of both students and faculty to the student-facilitated Collaborative Critical Response method of formative assessment. The results have been encouraging and even transformational. The process has had the side effect of making both learners and teachers more reflective about their respective roles in the classroom. Students have come to expect a chance to voice their pleasures and concerns in a class, convinced that their feedback can make a positive difference in a course. Faculty have come to expect an opportunity to be more


intentional in their efforts to assess student learning, to be more sensitive to the pulse of the class, and to record the accomplishments and disappointments of student work and perceptions in a more systematic, regular process of improvement. More and more, for instance, I see faculty taking stock of the results of critical response assessments in teaching or course portfolios where they analyze and document improvement strategies catalyzed by the moderated feedback generated in critical response sessions. The method has also raised awareness of the importance of civility, respect, collaboration, and community balanced against educational imperatives of risk, challenge, free inquiry, and the individual right to learn. As a class moves collaboratively through the steps of critical response, students and teacher must navigate between such alternatives, learning in the process to work together to strengthen their common enterprise in a course. The improvements made to some of our honors and other courses have been noteworthy. Interestingly, a number of students with concerns about former courses that saw improvements after critical response later volunteered eagerly to serve as facilitators in other courses. I believe the turnabout is a revealing sign of the effective influence of Collaborative Critical Response in engaging students and faculty in our collective aim to improve teaching and learning. References Aleamoni, L. M. (1976). Typical faculty concerns about student evaluation of instruction. National Association of Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture Journal, 20, 16-21. Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass.


Braskamp, L. A., & Ory, J. C. (1994). Assessing faculty work: Enhancing individual and institutional performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Centra, J. A. (1993). Reflective faculty evaluation: Enhancing teaching and determining faculty effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cox, M. D., and Sorenson, D. L. (2000). Student collaboration in faculty development: Connecting directly to the learning revolution. To Improve the Academy, 18, 97121. Cohen, P. A. (1981). Student ratings of instruction and student achievement: A metaanalysis of multisection validity studies. Review of Educational Research, 51, 281-309. Cross, K. P. (1987). The need for classroom research. To Improve the Academy, 6, 3-17. Feldman, K. A. (1977). Consistency and variability among college students in rating their teachers and courses: A review and analysis. Research in Higher Education, 6, 233-274. Lerman, Liz. (1993). Toward a process of critical response. Alternate Roots, Summer. McKeachie, W. J. (1991). What theories underlie the practice of faculty development? To Improve the Academy, 10, 3-8. Schn, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books. Seldin, P., & Associates. (1993). Successful use of teaching portfolios. Bolton, MA: Anker. Seldin, P. (1997). The teaching portfolio: A practical guide to improved performance and promotion/tenure decisions (2nd ed.). Bolton, MA: Anker.


Seldin, P., & Associates. (1999). Changing practices in evaluating teaching: A practical guide to improved faculty performance and promotion/tenure decisions. Bolton, MA: Anker. Sorenson, D. L. (1994). Valuing the student voice: Student observer/consultant programs. To Improve the Academy, 13, 97-108. Theall, M., & Franklin, J., eds. (1990). Student ratings of instruction: Issues for improving practice, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 43. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Zubizarreta, J. (1995). Using teaching portfolios strategies to improve course instruction. In P. Seldin & Associates, Improving college teaching (pp. 167-79). Bolton, MA: Anker. Zubizarreta, J. (1997). Improving teaching through teaching portfolio revisions: A context and case for reflective practice. In J. K. Roth, Inspiring teaching: Carnegie professors of the year speak. (pp. 123-33). Bolton, MA: Anker. Zubizarreta, J. (2003). Improving honors teaching and learning with collaborative Critical Response: A method of formative midterm assessment. National Honors Report 24(2), 20-23.


Collaboration Across the Years: and Beyond P Fox* & D Hibbert 36th Annual International Improving University Teaching Conference Bielefeld, Germany, July 19-22, 2011 Theme: Collaboration and Active Learning
The School of Engineering, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BH UK *Main author:

Two Sentence Summary

This paper considers the use of CDIO techniques in a Capstone Project based around the Formula Student Competition. The advantages and disadvantages for staff and students are explored as are the difficulties in assessment and management.

The engineer is by necessity a herd animal functioning by collaboration, working in teams. In contrast the education of engineers is largely solitary with each person judged on their own merit. This paper looks at creating a mixed engineering education which assesses ability within a conventional individual context and also within a true-to-life group context. The study observes a Formula Student (FS) Racing Team of 3rd year mentees, 4th year mentors, supported by members of previous teams and industrial/academic guides. The presentation considers the difficulty of assessing collaboration and creativity, and how this can overturn traditional ideas of intelligence and ability.

1 Of 12

It is one of the great ironies of life that 'Engineer', an occupation based on precise terminology, is so poorly defined within common usage. The 'Man on the Clapham Omnibus' uses the same term for the person who changes the brake pads on their car and the person who designed the production line that built the car. Somewhat bizarrely it is no better within the profession, and even in education there is limited consensus as to what is an engineer, what they need to know, what skills are core to the subject and whether Engineering is a vocation or a way of thinking and viewing the world [1]. So are we training the next generation of erudite thinkers, those who keep the world moving and rescue it from its problems, or creating a general population that can understand the technology they are given; to be technology trekkers, equipped for every mountain pass, not technology package holiday makers who never go beyond the hotel pool. So they are able to speak the language, know why the tools work and are not frightened of unfamiliar concepts and ideas. What has become more apparent is the disparity between Engineering as a discipline, groups with various skills working together to create novel technological solutions to pressing problems; and how it is taught, with individuals set closed ended problems that will never lead to anything being made. From disquiet about how the education of engineers was structured has come the concept of CDIO (Conceive, Design, Implement Operate) [2]. This view point considers that a knowledge of facts without the experience of using them to create and operate is only half an education. The philosophy behind CDIO is flexible and comes in many hues, with no one mix being correct. It is important that basic theory and methods are known, but it is also important that they can be applied and communicated [3], and is therefore distinct from Problem Based Learning, the delivery being more of a Mixed Mode approach [4]. One of the useful ideas from CDIO is that of the Capstone Project, which uses the skills, knowledge and methodologies acquired during the degree course to solve one fairly

2 Of 12

substantial problem. There are many possible projects, but one which is both inspiring but at the same time fraught with tensions is that of Formula Student. Formula Student[5] is based on Formula SAE and is a student driven design competition where the students form a design team contracted by a fictional small manufacturing company to produce a prototype racing car. This car must not only meet the substantial specifications [6] laid down by the organisers but the observance of these specifications must be demonstrated using engineering protocols. Thus it is not just about building a car, but in designing it and justifying that design to a number of judges, who are from industry, and often previous FS teams. The design is judged by formal reports and documents, by formal presentations and by inspections; and the car by a range of tests and trials. However, tensions occur because the requirements and time-scales of Formula Student and the University degree course are different, and because this type of education is not low cost and requires external sponsorship. However, the experience and challenge makes better Engineers.

2009-10 Car

2010-11 Car?

The School of Engineering at The University of Liverpool was formed a number of years ago by the merger of Aerospace, Civil, Mechanical and Materials Engineering Departments and therefore has a wide range of skilled staff with many backgrounds available,

3 Of 12

including those in design and management. It has both a teaching structure and a research structure that cross the conventional boundaries that existed within the old Departmental system. Therefore the Formula Student team is managed, for the School, by people with a wide range of knowledge and backgrounds, a team in the Engineering sense. It also has access to a number of technical staff who have specialist knowledge in manufacturing, machining, electronics and computer integration to name a few, to whom the students also have direct access. The Capstone Project is a group project which is taken only by MEng students and runs in both the third and fourth years of the course. Students who are

undertaking BEng studies can be part of Formula Student but this is as part of an individual project (normally on more 'blue sky' ideas), but they still form part of the team. There is also a minimum overall course mark that must be obtained to stay on the MEng and so a few students are lost from the team at the end of the third year when these students exit with a BEng.

Thoughts On the Making of Engineers

Why knowing is not enough In the past some Social Scientists and Philosophers have attempted to separate science, and by implication engineering, from the people who carry it out, to consider it only as a system or bureaucracy[7]. This is as far from the truth as it is possible to go as engineering and by implication science are part of the very soul of humans. Throughout human history, peoples are defined by what they make and the effect this has on their culture. As such the passion and personalities of those involved is critical both for good and for bad. It is these passions and leaps of imagination that have driven forward knowledge, these leaps occurring because of an understanding of the interconnectivity of knowledge not its

compartmentalisation. But then how is such a thing to be taught?

4 Of 12

Formula Student as an Aid to Learning The capstone projects, and the Formula Student Capstone in particular, are peculiar in that they are not driven by the specific subjects that must be taught nor the techniques that must be learnt. The project(s) are both a group and an individual journey, sometimes all together sometimes spread widely apart, as each person learns to apply the techniques and knowledge needed to complete their tasks and the tasks of the group. It is likely that new skills and techniques will be needed during this journey and that these will have to be learnt when required, but these will differ from person to person, so in the end each person has their own learning curriculum. The project in many ways joins the dots that are the discrete knowledge collected over time, and forces reflection on the links between this knowledge [8] creating what is tacit knowledge[9;10] , as in the student knows that they have learnt new skills and techniques but the change in student's ability is greater than the sum of the individual skills learnt and the greatest change is in how they approach the world[11]. The process used to guide this journey is not based on ideas from education but from those used in industry to guide the Industrial Design and Production process [12-15], and as such have been tested in the white heat of company survival. They are a rational methodology followed to create a product rather than a method of learning. Furthermore, they give order to the process and allow the student not only to act like an Engineer but also start to think like one. Staffing Unfortunately, although this process appears to produce more employable students and better engineers, it is well outside the comfort zone of most academics, brought up on 'chalk and talk'. It also requires a range of staff both to provide the necessary guidance and to create the correct balance of personalities, although the time input required will vary. This is because of the need to build a suitable learning community, but also the need to spell out hard truths that must be faced, when work is behind schedule, and often these roles cannot be taken
5 Of 12

by the same person. It is also to be expected that the different personalities within the student group will require different approaches, and the tactics that work with one personality will not work with another[16]. Roles and Attitudes There is also a need to create a Community of Practice [17] with each person taking on different roles at different times, while trying to avoid the pitfalls of conventional master/pupil relationships. If the pupil is too subservient to the master, the master can get away with poorly thought out ideas and the pupil will find it hard to surpass the master. This is true both between the staff and the students and between students in different years and is significantly affected by the culture of the country in which the students were educated, and between different education establishments within the same country. There is a need for discipline within any team, but there is a difference between discipline and subservience. It is, therefore, necessary to generate a culture of questioning and challenge so that all involved learn and complacency is avoided. It is important in the fields of science and engineering, as in any subject, that nothing is accepted as truth without constant testing and examination, and this must include the behaviour/beliefs of those who shepherd the process. Thus it is

important that technical discussions between staff are not hidden away, as the observation of these is also part of the learning process. It is, therefore, more a walk on part in the war than a lead role in a cage, it being the very model of an industrial process. Within the student group there are also different roles that must be filled. These range from the Team Leader, Senior Management Team, Sub System Leaders and Team Members. All of these posts except Team Member are taken by the fourth year students, although some fourth year's choose not to enter this management structure, and may become technical specialists instead. The Team Leader and the Senior Management Team have formal

meetings in the evening once a week with staff members where policy is decided and
6 Of 12

decisions are made. Sub System Leaders are the people who manage the subsystems such as engine, wheels, steering etc. Each Sub System Leader is a mentor to a group of third year students and the third year students are subjected to a rather accelerated apprenticeship, starting with the design of peripheral components and moving to more complex and more critical components in the second semester. The sub system teams are responsible for

producing the parts for the new car (designed and created each year) and on test days the safe functioning of those sub systems. In the role of mentor the Sub System Leader assigns work to his mentees, under the supervision of the academic staff, and helps them achieve the quality of design, thus acting as a manager, but also as an engineer as they have technical input into both their mentees work and their own. The module is timetabled for two hours a week during the semesters, but also involves meetings before and after the normal working day and outside normal teaching periods, so requires dedication from the students.

The 2009-10 Community of Practice

The Role of Former Students There is a third layer of student participation and this is taken by ex-students. These

7 Of 12

return to the University both to help with the design process, to encourage and cajole the present students and to listen, criticise and improve design work and presentations that will be given at the event. They provide a link to the past (as students) and future (as engineers). There are both advantages and disadvantages in this system, but it was set up to overcome a problem always seen in undergraduate teaching, 'that no one gets any wiser'. This is of course not true of the individual but is true of the students of that level, a sort of inverse Peter Pan effect, where the staff get older but the students remain the same age and have the same lack of knowledge and ability. Thus the use of past students allows information and skills to more easily spread down the years increasing the student skill base. They also tend to help avoid the present students developing a particularly problematic mind set, that tends to stop innovation; the assumption especially by younger students that those who went before were wise and that they would have not made mistakes and poor choices. This is in fact not always true and stories of why certain designs are the result of 'quick fixes' rather than careful design help dispel this belief and stop the designs being incorporated into this years model. However, the previous students do tend to remember their own work differently than the staff present at the time, and this can produce some difficulties. This process is somewhat helped by the storage of each year's work on Content Management Systems so all previous design work is available as are large numbers of photographs and videos. Assessment Although the organisation of the Formula Student Capstone Project is complex it is highly rewarding, but the most problematic and probably least rewarding part is assessment. This is because the need to educate requires students to be allowed to follow their poor choices and to learn by failure before correcting the problem, while winning the competition would be best achieved by simply stopping the students making mistakes. This is a source of tension with students who are more focussed on winning Formula Student that learning.
8 Of 12

Students say We would do better if you just told us what to do and it is likely this is true but this undermines both the formal assessment process and the need for the students to learn to be engineers, 'to walk the walk as well as talk the talk'. Assessment is needed as the project is part of the degree programme, but the degree and the competition have different needs and furthermore run on different time scales. For example, there is an intense period of time, for the fourth year students, after the May/June exams and before the Formula Student event at Silverstone in July, where any work done does not count to their degree, and neither does the event itself. It is, however, possible to assess the work done at this stage for the third year students as it will be incorporated into their fourth year portfolio. The assessment has developed over time to fit the needs of the different outcomes, to the point where there are at the moment three measures of worth. The first is the formal academic assessment, the second is where on the final league table the team comes at the Silverstone event, and the third is an internal league table between the different students. The first has an effect on the final degree of the student, the second possibly may affect employability but is mainly a point of honour, but the third although very important to the students has no actual value. The league table between students was set up initially as a light-hearted competition between the different students and sub teams. It allowed students to see their 'worth' to the team as points were awarded for different activities, for example attendance at social events (the Formula Student Capstone being the only module in the School with its own social events, attended by staff and students), providing refreshments at test days, obtaining sponsorship either in money or in kind, or sourcing materials or outside expertise. It therefore measures worth that cannot be measured by the formal University system although it has no physical reward. This lack of physical reward apparently is unimportant as students value
9 Of 12

greatly being higher up the league table than their friends. The event at Silverstone has only one true outcome and that is the place in the competition although this is determined by many different pieces of work carried out over the many months running up to the event. The assessment for the degree tries to balance the individual and the team and therefore there is a peer moderated team mark with the average mark set by the staff members, individual portfolios of work, one for each semester, showing the manufacturing packs that have been produced. Manufacturing packs contain all the detailed information needed to determine if a design is sound and contain information on how and from what the parts are to be made. The third type of assessment is achieved by the use of presentations to the rest of the Formula Student Team, members of teams from previous years and members of staff, including staff not involved in the running of the Formula Student Capstone Project, thus introducing an additional element of academic rigour. These presentations are followed by detailed discussions of what has been presented and as such are a severe test of the students abilities. The assessments are designed to not only measure the ability of the students to create designs which are technically correct, but also to measure the ability of the students to communicate to others both their design intent and the criteria used to make that choice, thus aligning the assessment with the basic tasks of being an Engineer. In many conventional modules it is observed that examinations test the ability to carry out calculations or assessments in isolation and within a tightly controlled framework with all the relevant data provided, something that would never happen in real life. The assessments here measure not only if the calculation is correct, but whether it is the correct calculation to use and whether the results can be correctly explained to others both within the team and without. Criticism There are a number of criticisms that can be made of this process, many associated with the cost in time and staff effort and also upon the difficulty of accurate assessment of student
10 Of 12

achievement. The financial cost of Formula Student is significant and is mainly covered by external sponsorship but is underwritten by the School. For this funding the School is rewarded with a recruitment tool that allows it to recruit better undergraduates, an exemplar of good practice it can show off to the University as a whole, advertising within the local community and increased contact with its graduates. The cost in staff time is accepted by the staff involved and the School as a necessary evil for this process to work, but there is a reward in that better graduate engineers are produced and these often provide links back into industry for research funding and additional avenues of collaboration. The assessment of such a process is by its very nature more difficult and with greater subjectivity than that in marking an examination. This to some makes it an inappropriate way to teach and assess. However, this assumes that what is measured in the examination is a valid measure of ability as an engineer. There is a significant difference in what is being measured in each case and often students who are very able in examinations are poor in Capstone Projects. This mainly appears to be because of how they can see patterns in the exam questions set each year and that they can learn to apply standard answers. Therefore, the knowledge is shallow and isolated, leaving it unconnected to other subjects and committed to memory rather than understood. When asked to use this same knowledge in a 'joined up manner' they cannot see the connections or use the knowledge in the same way as a student with a deeper understanding is able to do. This inability tends to become less obvious throughout the Formula Student Capstone, but often they still get lower marks when asked to act like an Engineer than to answer straight forward examination questions.

The use of a capstone project based around participation in Formula Student appears to those involved to have produced tangible benefits to both the Students and the School. The School gains on student satisfaction, on increased awareness of teaching quality, and on an overall

11 Of 12

increase in the quality of the degree course. The students appear to gain due to improved abilities and excellent employment prospects on graduation. However, further evaluation will be required to convince some that the cost in time and effort represents value for money.

[1] Goodhew P, Teaching Engineering: All You Need to Know About Engineering Education But Were Afraid to Ask, UK Centre for Materials Education, ISBN 9781907207228, (2010). [2] CDIO: Home page [Internet], (2011). [3] CDIO: The syllabus for CDIO [Internet], (2011). [4] Mills J & Treagust D, Engineering Education Is Problem-Based or Project-Based Learning the Answer?, Australian Journal of Engineering Education, pp. 1-16, (2003) . [5] Formula Student: Home Page [Internet], (2011). [6] Formula Student Rule Book [Internet], (2010). [7] Thorpe C, Science Against Modernism: The Relevance of the Social Theory of Michael Polanyi, British Journal of Sociology, 52, pp. 19-35, (2001) . [8] Kolb D, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Prentice-Hall, ISBN 0132952610, (1984). [9] Polanyi M, Tacit Knowing - Its Bearing on Some Problems of Philosophy, Reviews Of Modern Physics , 34(4), pp. 601-616, (1962) . [10] Polanyi M, Logic of Tacit Inference, Philosophy, 41, pp. 1-18, (1966) . [11] Meyer J & Land R, Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge (2): Epistemological Considerations and a Conceptual Framework for Teaching and Learning, Higher Education, 49(3), pp. 373-388, (2005) . [12] British Standard Institute BS7373-1:2001, (2001) . [13] British Standards Institute: BS 7373-2:2001, (2001) . [14] Pugh S, Total Design : Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering, Prentice Hall, ISBN 0201416395, (1990). [15] Pugh S, Creating Innovative Products Using Total Design, Prentice Hall, ISBN 0201634856, (1996). [16] Honey P & Mumford A, The Manual of Learning Styles, Peter Honey Publications; 3Rev Ed edition, ISBN 0950844470, (1992). [17] Wenger C & Snyder W, Communities of Practice: The Organisational Frontier, Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 139-145, (2000) .

12 Of 12


Improving University Teaching - July 19-22, 2011 36th International Conference - The Collaborative Classroom

Authors * Janine Stieger M. A. IMA/ZLW & IfU RWTH Aachen University Dennewartstrae 27 52068 Aachen Germany Anne-Carina Thelen M. A. IMA/ZLW & IfU RWTH Aachen University Dennewartstrae 27 52068 Aachen Germany Ursula Bach M. A. IMA/ZLW & IfU RWTH Aachen University Dennewartstrae 27 52068 Aachen Germany Dr. Anja Richert IMA/ZLW & IfU RWTH Aachen University Dennewartstrae 27 52068 Aachen Germany Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Sabina Jeschke IMA/ZLW & IfU RWTH Aachen University Dennewartstrae 27 52068 Aachen Germany

ABSTRACT Teaching in front of large audiences (>700 students) is a challenge to every lecturer. Because of the rising shortage of skilled workers particularly in engineering education new ways to provide high-quality education while at the same time allowing for large audiences need to be designed. An essential way to improve engineering education is seen in the shift from teaching to learning, i. e. from teacher-centered to student-centered education. A possible strategy of student-centered learning is project-based learning which facilitates action-oriented and sustainable learning. Although it is a big challenge, project-based learning can also be successfully used in large group study courses. Besides a description of central challenges when dealing with large audiences the article points out the importance of didactically innovative and student-centered forms of teaching and learning for engineering education. Furthermore, the article sketches project-based learning as a form of student-centered learning and gives a case study of the course Communication and Organizational Development at RWTH Aachen University.


1 INTRODUCTION With continuously increasing numbers of students and at the same time shrinking funds, lecturers are confronted with large audiences (>700 students) more than ever before. How can the subject matter of mass events be conveyed to the individual student and be understandable for everyone? What forms of interaction are appropriate? How does the subject matter catch on with the individual students? These are some of the questions that teachers of a huge audience have to find answers to. Since more than one decade the notion shift from teaching to learning (cf. Barr/Tagg 1995) has been used for expressing the change from a teacher-centered to a student-centered view of learning. This paper presents the shift from teaching to learning and its central characteristics. Constitutive challenges of teaching large group study courses as well as the particular situation in engineering education are described, especially shadowed against the background of student-centered learning. In lectures with high numbers of students the application of active and student-centered learning is demanding and goes along with new responsibilities for lecturers. Especially in engineering education, the situation of large audiences is made worse by the shortage of skilled workers caused by demographic factors. Therefore it is a decisive factor to reduce the quota of university drop-outs in engineering science and to improve the quality of teaching. Furthermore, this paper presents project-based learning as one possible strategy of studentcentered learning. Project-based learning starts out from a problem that students have to solve on their own through team work. This course of action fosters both professional and supra-professional skills. Finally, the course Communication and Organizational Development at RWTH University is presented as one example of employing project-based learning in engineering education with large audiences. In a lecture-complementary practice session some 1200 students pass through a process of organizational development where they team up to found a fictional automotive enterprise and build the prototype of an innovative automobile.

2 SHIFT FROM TEACHING TO LEARNING In the course of the Bologna Process that was started in 1999 by 30 European states a paradigm change in teaching and studying has been initiated for the European university landscape. One central idea of the paradigm change is to entirely rethink university teaching from the perspective of student learning (cf. Barr/Tagg 1995). Affected by the 1995 article of Robert B. Barr and John Tagg Shift from Teaching to Learning A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education, the expression from teaching to learning has become the leading motif of a new quality of studying and learning that stands for a new view on teaching (cf. Wildt/Eberhardt 2010: 15f.). From the viewpoint of university didactics the shift from teaching to learning is about replacing the traditional, rather presentational and instructional paradigm of university teaching by a notion of teaching that understands itself as fostering of student learning. 3

Besides the basic change of perspective that tries to design teaching from the student viewpoint this approach encompasses the requirement that students carry a central responsibility within the learning process (cf. Wildt 2003: 16). The shift from teaching to learning looks at the learning results and at the strategies used to reach them (cf. Wildt 2005: 6). One major prerequisite for the success of student-centered learning is that the teachers attend the learning process as a coach (cf. Barr/Tagg1995: 707f.). Learning processes can be described as a triangle relationship between teachers, students and the topic. In didactic theoretical tradition this is depicted by the didactic triangle according to Heger (2005) (cf. Fig.1). Thereby, the triangle relationship can be designed in a variety of ways. Hitherto existing university teaching is often still affected by a classic role constellation expressed e. g. in lecturing (cf. Wildt/Eberhardt 2010: 17): the teachers are tasked with processing content, they fabricate knowledge and transport it to the learners, as pointed out by the two broken lines starting from content via the teacher to the learner (cf. Fig.1). In the student-centered notion of university teaching, however, the learner stands in direct interaction with the content while the teacher helps to organize this process. Fig. 1 depicts this with the continuous lines.

Figure 1: Didactic triangle (cf. Schrder 2010: 65f, according to Heger 2005: 158) Barr and Tagg (1995) expressed the change from a teacher-centered to a student-centered view as a move from the Instruction Paradigm in which teachers deliver instructions to transfer knowledge from faculty to student to a Learning Paradigm in which universities produce learning (cf. Froyd/Simpson 2008: 1). According to that the shift from teaching to learning contains a change of roles of the teachers from their tasks of presentation and instruction via the construction of learning environments to accompaniment of learning where they aid and counsel students (cf. Fig. 2).

Figure 2: Change in the Role of Teachers according to Wildt (2005) According to Wildt (2003) the change of view from teaching to learning can finally be described by the following characteristics: student-centered approach, change of the role of teacher away from the orientation towards instruction, orientation of learning towards goals and results, fostering of self-organized and active learning, consideration of motivational and social aspects of learning, linking of knowledge acquisition and acquisition of learning strategies.

With the shift from teaching to learning teaching is elaborated from the viewpoint of the student and the central role of the teacher is to enable a learning environment where students can actively develop their knowledge instead of having it conveyed only passively.

3 TEACHING LARGE GROUP STUDY COURSES 3.1 CENTRAL CHALLENGES With the rising number of high school graduates university courses with large group study courses are not unusual. With constantly shrinking funds, a lot of lecturers have to face larger classes in order to make up for the lack of faculty members with regard to the growing number of students (cf. Particularly in mass fields of study courses can have 700 to over 1000 participants (cf. Mayrberger/Schulmeister 2009). The leader among the applied forms of university courses to address large numbers of students is the head-on tuition, i. e. the classical lecture. But the effort of teaching large classes by lecturing has not to be underestimated. Both lecturers as well as students face a number of physical and psychological problems that have to be solved. Thus, it is not enough for a professor to just talk louder, write bigger and make larger gestures. While lecturing, teachers stand in front of an undifferentiated mass and often cannot even recognize faces in the back of the room. Students on the other side feel faceless and suffer from anonymity. Traditional lectures are hardly adequate to allow for an active learning of the students. In such forms of teaching there is less contact between the lecturer and the students, which gives fewer chances for feedback (cf. Schumacher 2003: 3). In the context of a mere listener, the student has a passive role and receives the information transmitted from the lecturer.

Nevertheless, against the clear disadvantages of large group lectures, because of the rising number of students, they will be inevitable in the future. For improving the study situation, it is rather about generating an expansion of the didactic action repertoire where the teachers create new learning environments that can be used to supplement lectures (cf. Wildt 2005: 2).

3.2 THE SITUATION IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION 93% of the lecturers in mechanical and electrical engineering bachelor degree programs state that they use the classical lecture format (cf. Fischer/Minsk 2008: 81). A dependable instrument to investigate how students cope with a given study situation and large classes is the dropout rate. A study from the Higher Education Information System (HIS) gives information about the dropout rates of different subject groups and the motives students stated when breaking off their studies (cf. Heublein et al. 2010). It shows that of all the students who enrolled in engineering sciences between 1999 and 2001, 25% left university without a degree. With 25% the most crucial reason for students breaking off studying in 2008 is their problem to perform services, followed by the lack of motivation to study with 20% (cf. Fig. 3).

Figure 3: Crucial Dropout Reasons: Subject Group Engineering at Universities (Heublein et al. 2010: 20) As the study shows, also failing in examinations (14%), problematic study conditions (14%) as well as professional reorientation (13%) are mentioned as central reasons for breaking off. As deficient study situation criteria the HIS study (cf. ibid.: 18) refers to confusing courses of study, overcrowded courses, lack of relevance and practice, insufficient study organization, lack of professional standards for the courses, lack of mentoring by lecturers, 6

anonymity at the university, scarce university equipment.

Concerning the professional reorientation students declare the wish for a more practical education as the main reason for breaking off (cf. ibid.: 39). Their expectations of studying engineering science were not fulfilled as they probably were not informed enough when choosing the field of study. Given the global lack of competent professional engineers, the number of engineering students leaving university without a degree is alarming. According to the outlook of the Cologne Institute for Economic Research (IW) in cooperation with The Association of German Engineers (VDI) there are not enough young graduates to replace the engineers who retire. By the year 2014 the German economy will eventually lack around 220.000 engineers, scientists and technicians whereas only an average of 37.000 engineers graduate each year (cf. Kloepfer/Sonnet 2010). Therefore, the high dropout quote in engineering studies must be cut and as many students as possible must be qualitatively educated at the same time. The research of approaches that enhance teaching and learning under the condition of large audiences is a substantial task of the competence center for engineering education TeachING-LearnING.EU. As a cooperative project of RWTH Aachen University, the Ruhr University Bochum and the Technical University Dortmund, TeachING-LearnING.EU pursues the goal of sustainably improving the quality of engineering degree programs in the context of the Bologna Process. Project research has displayed that one successful teaching method for student-centered learning is project-based learning.

4 PROJECT-BASED LEARNING Till today, many different approaches have been developed to teaching that fit the criteria for student-centered learning. One effective form of student-centered learning is project-based learning. In project-based learning students are confronted with a complex project that has to be collaboratively accomplished based on the learnt theoretical knowledge. While instructors or tutors take on the role as coaches and facilitators of learning, the learners are selfresponsible for the most part of their activity and encouraged to take responsibility for their group and mission. In project-based learning the learning activities are organized around achieving a shared goal by project work. The instructor of project-based learning mediates specifications to reach the goal of the project and with the role as a facilitator controls the compliance with the correct proceeding (cf. Savery 2006: 16). As Savery (2006) merges, learners are likely to encounter several problems by working on their project. At this, feedback and reflection on the learning process and group dynamics are essential components: periodical group-feedbacks in connection with working-units help learners to reflect their functioning and appreciate the outcome. The different teaching methods are adapted to respective learning targets, learner knowledge and context of the project as well as practical application, so that learners are able to memorize experiences that will serve them in future situations (cf. ibid.). Project-based learning is a distinguished example for student-centered and active learning and advances effectively the acquirement of professional skills and abilities. Moylan (2008) identifies the skills that students learn with project-based learning as 7

critical thinking and problem solving, creativity and innovation, collaboration, teamwork, and leadership, cross-cultural understanding, communications and information fluency, computing and information & communication technology fluency, career and learning self-reliance. (cf. Moylan 2008: 1)

For this reason, since the 1970s project-based learning continues to grow in popularity worldwide and is getting more and more common in engineering education, too. Although lecture-supplementary study courses and project-based learning are not a new occurrence in university teaching, they are still a central challenge especially for courses with large audiences. Despite of the didactical and organizational challenges the course Communication and Organizational Development at the RWTH Aachen University illustrates the implementation of project-based learning in a large group study course.

5 PROJECT-BASED LEARNING IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION One example of dealing with large audiences by project-based learning is the course Communication and Organizational Development at RWTH University Aachen. The Department of Information Management in Mechanical Engineering and the Center for Learning and Knowledge Management (IMA/ZLW) at the RWTH University of Aachen successfully implements the concept of project-based learning in the Communication and Organizational Development Lab despite the high number of participants. The Communication and Organizational Development Lab is scheduled for the first semester in the bachelor-degree course of mechanical engineering and takes place in the form of two mass events with up to 1400 students overall. The lab features practical application and testing of the previously gathered theoretical knowledge. During the 2-day lab the students undergo an organizational development process: in groups of 25 they start a fictional company with various departments in the automobile industry, set goals, develop corporate strategies and build a prototype of an innovative soapbox. Led by the simulation, the students actions reflect on their team and they need to build requirements for a successful teamwork. Good logistics (25 areas with identical equipment) and strictly following the schedule are essential for the successful completion of the project. The students are responsible for their group achievements, tutors interfere as little as possible. After a short theoretical introduction into communicational and organizational theory, students have to solve the problems with their own knowledge. The tasks are defined in a way that challenges the students to solve them within the predefined period of time. Thus, the students have to work with the little information that is given and understand that their theoretical knowledge helps them complete their tasks. With the help of different exercises and activities the participants prepare presentations, which they later present in the plenum. In this way key competence like presentation, creative techniques and problem solving behavior in the work process are conveyed. Each group is supervised by two tutors from the Department of Information Management in Mechanical Engineering and the Center for Learning and Knowledge Management (IMA/ZLW). 8

Self-reflection sessions are carried through after each work step and at the end of the course. Participating in the Communication and Organizational Development Lab students actively develop valuable professional skills by coping with realistic problems and solutions and are encouraged to take responsibility for their own learning.

6 CONCLUSION Despite the disadvantages of lectures with high numbers of students, large group study courses will be unavoidable in tertiary education. Still, the fundamental change in university didactics toward a student-centered perspective does not mean that traditional functions of frontal teaching and receptive learning will not retain an important significance at universities. In fact, to improve the study situation it is rather about generating an expansion of the didactic action repertoire where teachers create new learning environments beyond classical lectures. These learning environments then can be successfully used to supplement lectures and to allow for active learning of the students. Given the rising shortage of skilled workers especially in engineering, the quality of teaching has to be improved in order to reduce the high drop-out rates. As presented in this paper, project-based learning is one effective form of student-centered learning that provides a variety of professional skills and abilities needed in the 21st century workplace. It empowers learners to integrate theory and practice, to apply theoretical knowledge and thus provides them with professional skills. However, it is still a big challenge to implement project-based learning also in large group study courses. The case study of the course Communication and Organizational Development for engineering students illustrates, though, that even with large group study courses the application of project-based learning is possible. As a central future task for higher education research further innovative concepts have to be developed that shape the change from a teacher- to a student-centered perspective. Concepts of student-centered learning such as project-based learning have to be adjusted to fit large group study courses. Appropriate concepts for study courses in engineering science have to be enhanced/ improved and tested in practice. This task is significant if nothing else to assure the connectivity of scientific education to entrepreneurial and social practice.

REFERENCES Barr, R. B., Tagg, J. (1995): From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education, reprinted from Change, Vol. 27, No. 6, Hildref Publications, Washington, 697710. Fischer, L., Minks, K.-H. (2008): Acht Jahre nach Bologna Professoren ziehen Bilanz. Ergebnisse einer Befragung von Hochschullehrern des Maschinenbaus und der Elektrotechnik, HIS: Forum Hochschule, 3 | 2008. Retrieved from Froyd, J., Simpson, N. (2008): Student-centered learning: Addressing faculty question about student-centered learning. Presented at the Course, Curriculum, Labor, and Improvement Conference, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from Heger, M. (2005): Studieren lehren. In: Welbers, U., Gaus, O.: The Shift from Teaching to Learning. Konstruktionsbedingungen eines Ideals. Fr Johannes Wildt zum 60. Geburtstag. AHD, Bertelsmann, Bielefeld, 158-164. Heublein, U., Hutzsch, C., Schreiber, J., Sommer, D., Besuch, G. (2010): Ursachen des Studienabbruchs in Bachelor- und in herkmmlichen Studiengngen Ergebnisse einer bundesweiten Befragung von Exmatrikulierten des Studienjahres 2007/08, HIS Hochschul-Informations-System, Hannover. Jungmann, T., Mller, K., Schuster, K. (2010): Shift from TeachING to LearnING. Anforderungen an die Ingenieurausbildung in Deutschland. In: Wildt, J.: Journal Hochschuldidaktik, 21. Jg., Heft 2, Dortmund, 6-8. Kloepfer, I., Sonnet, C. (2010): Fachkrftemangel. Wo sind all die Ingenieure hin? Retrieved from Mayrberger, K., Schulmeister, R. (2009): E-Learning in Massenveranstaltungen. In: Zeitschrift fr E-Learning Lernkultur und Bildungstechnologie. Retrieved from Moylan, W. A. (2008): Learning by Project: Developing Essential 21st Century Skills Using Student Team Projects, The International Journal of Learning, Volume 15, No. 9, 287292. Savery, J. R. (2006): Overview of Problem-based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions. In: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, Volume 1, no. 1, 9-20. Schumacher, E. M. (2003): Die Vorlesung. Lehridee - Ideen und Konzepte fr das Lehren und Lernen an Hochschulen, Retrieved from Schrder, S. (2010): Eine Untersuchung zum Lernverhalten der heutigen Studierenden: Die Net Generation Fallstudien zum Einsatz einer Wissenslandkarte als E-Learning-Tool im Ingenieurstudium, Wissenschaftsverlag Mainz: Aachen, ARMT Bd. 62.


Schuster, K., Hees, F., Jeschke, S. (2010): Dipl-Ing Rest in Peace? The Implementation of the Bologna Process in Germanys Engineering Education. In: Gardner, A., Jolly, L. (Ed.): Conference Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference for the Australasian Association for Engineering Education, The Faculty of Engineering & Information Technology, University of Technology, Sydney, 38-45. Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft Kln, Verein Deutscher Ingenieure e.V. (2009): Ingenieurarbeitsmarkt 2009/10. Berufs- und Branchenflexibilitt, demografischer Ersatzbedarf und Fachkrftelcke. Retrieved from Wildt, J. (2003): The Shift from Teaching to Learning - Thesen zum Wandel der Lernkultur in modularisierten Studienstrukturen. In: Fraktion Bndnis 90/ Die Grnen im Landtag NRW (Hrsg.): Unterwegs zu einem europischen Bildungssystem. Reform von Studium und Lehre an den nordrhein-westflischen Hochschulen im internationalen Kontext, Dsseldorf, 14-18. Retrieved from Wildt, J. (2005): Vom Lehren zum Lernen hochschuldidaktische Konsequenzen aus dem Bologna-Prozess fr Lehre, Studium und Prfung, Kurzfassung eines Vortrags zur Expertentagung des EWTF From Teaching to Learning, Berlin. Wildt, J., Eberhardt, U. (2010): Einleitung: Neue Impulse? Hochschuldidaktik nach der Strukturreform, In: Eberhardt, U.: Neue Impulse in der Hochschuldidaktik, VS Verlag, Wiesbaden, 11-23.


ScotPID A model of collaboration 36th International Conference, Improving University Teaching, July 19-22, 2011, Bielefeld, Germany Eamonn Butler, School of Social & Political Sciences, University of Glasgow Kerr Gardiner, Learning Technology Unit, University of Glasgow Heather Gibson, QAA Scotland Karen McCluskey, Careers Service, University of Glasgow Karen Sawyer, School of Social & Political Sciences, University of Glasgow Anne Tierney, School of Life Sciences, University of Glasgow Sub theme: Enhancing collaboration through instructional technology Abstract ScotPID is a national personal development initiative in Scotland, with thirteen higher education institutions taking part in the development of case studies which enhance personal development planning for students. As a model of collaboration, ScotPID involves all stakeholders: each core project group is composed of an academic, IT support manager, careers service adviser and undergraduate student, with support from QAA Scotland. The case study is developed by the contribution of all of the members of the team. The strength of the ScotPID collaboration is the varied background of the team members. However, collaboration between the ScotPID teams should also be encouraged, to strengthen the inter-institutional approach further. Summary This paper describes the development of an educational case study, and how contribution of stakeholders from a range of backgrounds within the Scottish Higher Education results in a more rounded publication.

Introduction To go fast, go alone. To go farther, go together (African proverb, cited in (Uchiyama & Radin, 2009)) Collaboration is a productive means by which to develop and create new ideas, harness a wide range of expertise and maximise resources. In the context of higher education, there are many examples; between higher and further education to promote e-learning (Connolly, C. Jones, & N. Jones, 2007), in order to improve practice (Uchiyama & Radin, 2009) and in policy and quality assurance matters (Kehm, 2010). Despite encouraging departments and institutions to collaborate, 50% of these collaborations are destined to failure (Kezar, 2005). Kezar outlines a three stage process which encourages success of collaborations: Stage 1 is characterised by identifying the need for collaboration, and the initiation of network building. Stage 2 emphasises commitment of senior management to support collaborations and networks, and Stage 3 builds upon the two previous stages by building on established networks to provide sustainability. Many collaborations in higher education are within departments, which are supported from within the institution or between institutions. At a national level, for example, in the UK, there is the National Teaching Fellows Scheme (National Teaching Fellowship Scheme (NTFS) - Higher Education Academy, n.d.) which recognises individuals who have made a substantial contribution to teaching and learning in higher education, and in addition, allows NTF partnerships to bid for substantial funding to support cross-institutional collaborations (NTFS Projects Funded in 2010, n.d.). QAA Scotland also supports higher education in Scotland with its Enhancement Themes programme (Enhancement Themes, n.d.) and other development work. The Enhancement Themes are led by academics from all Scottish higher education institutions, and aim to support and enhance learning and teaching strategy and practice across the sector.

The support of collaborations within higher education is important in the process of community-building. At the heart of education is the notion of the community of practice, as proposed by Wenger (1998, p73). Wenger outlines participation in a community as necessary for growth and learning. He proposes three dimensions of community: joint enterprise, mutual engagement and a shared repertoire. As with Kezars proposal, Wenger also articulates the importance of identifying the need for collaboration, and the involvement of stakeholders in achieving a common goal as necessary for the success of the formation of a community of practice. ScotPID collaboration ScotPID (Academy Scotland - Professional Development Planning (PDP), n.d.) is a national initiative supported by the Higher Education Academy, QAA Scotland, and the Centre for Recording Achievement. Thirteen institutions are involved in the development of case studies promoting and enhancing personal development planning for students. Following successful bids, the thirteen project teams met in Edinburgh for an introductory meeting to discuss each of the partner projects, and PDP in general. This meeting was a chance for groups to offer suggestions to one another where difficulties or problems have arisen. The group from the University of Glasgow have proposed a unique approach to personal development planning (PDP). In contrast to the development of e-portfolios, which is successful in vocational courses, such as medicine, nursing and teaching, the University of Glasgow ScotPID group have taken the approach of using reflective writing (Moon, 2003) for summative assessment in a way which encourages self-reflection, which leads to critical thinking and, ultimately, developmental planning (Butler, Tatner, & Tierney, 2010). Students use the online PDP tool Mahara (Open source e-portfolio and social networking software Mahara ePortfolio System, n.d.) to write online reflective diaries as part of their summative coursework. Students are encouraged to share their diaries with other members of the class to

facilitate peer support and collaborative learning. In addition, students are given tutor support, and for bioscience students reflective writing is tackled within a session in which they explore Blooms Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956) (which will be developed in greater detail in a workshop during this conference (Tierney, 2011)). The diaries move PDP from a task-oriented approach to an intellectual approach, in which students integrate ideas and synthesis new knowledge, and draw upon one anothers expertise. Based on an ongoing study, the ScotPID case study examines how students in Bioscience and Central & East European Studies benefit from the summative assessment task, the development of reflection and critical thinking, and the use of technology to support it. Using reflective writing as part of a course gives PDP the focus that is often missing from non-vocational PDP projects. In the development of the case study, the composition of the project team is important, and has been duplicated for every ScotPID project: each member of the team, academic, IT support manager, Careers Service Adviser, student and QAA Scotland support co-ordinator ensures that the case study is considered from the point of view of all stakeholders, and the end result is a well-rounded, transferable piece of best practice. Not only is technology part of the case study; the group co-ordinates the project through Sharepoint (Productivity & collaboration - Microsoft UK Medium Business Centre, n.d.), allowing individual members to share and collaborate on case study documentation, literature reviews, and data collected. Method The members of the reflective diary case study project group were asked to reflect on a number of questions (Appendix 1). Responses were returned from all members of the team. The themes that arose from the responses to those questions are presented in this paper. Although the sample size is small (n=5) there was agreement in the responses from each of the project team members which allowed three themes to be identified. The responses of the student member of the team have been dealt with separately. The reasoning behind this is that,

in compiling the responses of the group, it emerged that there were assumptions on the part of both staff and students as to their respective roles, which the authors believe have a wider significance as to how staff and students perceive one anothers roles. Findings From the reflections of the team members, three positive themes emerged: the expertise that each of the group members brought to the team; the importance of collaboration and dissemination. Evidence of these three themes will be dealt with in turn. In addition, a fourth theme, that of reservations, will also be examined. Finally, as stated above, the student members comments, under each of the themes, have been addressed. Team Members Expertise Expertise and previous experience of the members of the team were identified by all respondents, in differing contexts. Respondents identified previous experience of working with team members, building on previous work done by members of the team, background in the theoretical underpinning and rationale for the project, evidence gathered to support the case study, and individuals working to their strengths. I knew all of the people involved and had previously worked directly with all of them. It made sense to build on existing internal research and widen the potential transferability of this project to other non-vocational courses. not only had practical experience but a great understanding of the theoretical knowledge in this area. I bring a perspective thats wider than the institution and knowledge about how other institutions work and thats what I love to do see how institutions work.

Importance of Collaboration All staff respondents recognised, and commented on the significance of collaboration. This manifested itself at various levels: at a macro level, with the collaboration between national organisations and institutions, as a model of engagement within an institutional setting, collaboration between disciplines and at an individual level between staff from different backgrounds, and between staff and students. Emphasis was placed on allowing the team members to work to their strengths. Respondents also commented on the importance of communication, how conversation with others within the team was important in terms of creativity, as a means to pool resources, and avoid duplication of effort. Less explicit was recognition of collaboration between ScotPID teams, although it was acknowledged by one of the team members. [Collaborations like this are] extremely useful as they encourage staff from across an institution and the sector to engage in demonstration and communication of useful project outputs. Furthermore the day sessions allow for sector sharing during projects rather than at the end. I think collaborations are more creative and fruitful, than someone trying to work on their own. In particular, with educational collaborations, it is particularly creative when members of the group come from different disciplinary backgroundsEveryone in the group contributes something unique to the end product. The ScotPID model was devised to move away from a model of engagement that involved participants having to leave their institutions to engage in generic discussions, toward one that would support practice in context, through institutional projects. Sector activities I have been involved in have provided a number of opportunities for collaboration and discussion that have been of great value, both to the institution and also my own continuing personal development.

Dissemination The third theme to emerge from the teams reflections was that of the importance of dissemination. This was articulated as the promotion of innovative examples of teaching coming from the institution, sector-wide dissemination of good practice, widening the transferability of the project, and promotion of discussion of innovative practice across a range of networks. Its important to publicise exemplars of innovative teachingteachers need to start publicising their good practice in the way that research is publicised. what will be most useful is how this will be used to prompt dissemination with new networks e.g. Technology Enhanced Learning and Teaching (TELT). Effective dissemination is crucial to maximising the usefulness of the project outputs, and therefore the success of the ScotPID project aims. Those who read the case studies can then relate that learning to their own experiences and perhaps change their practice. Reservations Each of the female staff respondents expressed reservations. However, these were not towards the ScotPID project, the case study or the team. Reservations expressed were more personal, in that the respondents commented on having to prioritise work to fit the case study into their working day and questioning their skills and abilities. I was a little nervous about how useful I would be to project teams were my facilitation skills up to it? It can be pretty difficult sometimes fitting something like this around full time teaching. Well get started again and finish the case study pretty soon. I had never been involved in a project quite like this before, so was not sure what to expect.

Student perspective The student member of the team was also aware of previous work, having been interviewed on their use of reflective diaries in the context of their course in Central & East European Studies. Having a student collaborate on an educational project is of great benefit to the project as they can contribute how it actually feels to take part in the practice. The students views are outlined below: Team Members Expertise I was keen to be part of [the] project as I was eager to share my experiences with others and was intrigued by the concept of collaboration itself and thought I could provide valuable contributions as a student but also learn a lot from the experience. The students past experience in the initial phase of the diary investigation gave her a taste for more participation. This is significant, as one of the aims of QAA Scotland, with its Enhancement Themes series, is to offer students a realistic and authentic research experience during their undergraduate years. By involving students in the development of their own learning, universities can achieve this aim. Importance of collaboration I was already aware of the benefits of such collaborations However, initially it did surprise me that these kind of development programmes happened at a university level and were aimed at benefitting the student learning experience as a student you tend to presume that teaching staff just write the lectures and present them without giving much thought to our learning experience, I hadnt realised until I became involved in the project just how much effort and thought is put in by staff, throughout the numerous universities in Scotland, to improve the teaching and learning experience and the different ways these ideas are manifested.

This passage from the reflections of the student highlights some of the assumptions that are being made as staff, we assume that students know and appreciate about the effort made to improve their learning opportunities. However, from this students perception of the undergraduate experience, this is not being passed on to students. Dissemination pulling together of experiences and knowledge is essential in developing learningfor the contemporary world and projects such as this highlight the commitment that universities make to ensuring their teaching methods respond to the changing needs of students, which is something that the vast majority of students do not realise is occurring. Although in this passage, the student does not explicitly mention dissemination, the message may be implied: that there is a necessity to disseminate good practice to students, as well as staff, and to involve students in the development of their own learning, that students and staff should be encouraged to work in partnership to better understand one anothers aims. ScotPID the bigger picture The institutional staff members of the team were focused on the delivery and benefits of the reflective diary case study. None mentioned the other partner teams in the project. The QAA Scotland contact, because of her remit, mentioned the benefits of the project as a whole, but again, did not talk about collaboration between ScotPID groups themselves. I think that collaborations between national agencies and institutions are very valuable. Both can learn from each other; the chance for all to view different perspectives on the same issue is invaluable. The ScotPID model is complex, as can be seen from the views of the members. The collaboration exists between the members of the team, but also potentially exists at other levels: building networks between institutional project groups, strengthening the learning

partnerships between staff and students, and working at a national level to disseminate good practice. Discussion Having looked at the reflections of the members of the Glasgow ScotPID team, elements of Phase 1 of Kezars (2005) process of successful collaboration are being fulfilled. It is also clear that the project team is pulling together as a community of practice through shared goals and a common enterprise. In drawing together a group with diverse interests and expertise, which each of the individuals acknowledges, a network is being built. This network is significant in a number of ways. Each of the project team members comes from a specific background and has expertise which enhances the project. The members of the group have worked with one another at different times, and it is a natural progression to bring them together on a project. The QAA Scotland contact has an overview of the Scottish higher education sector as a whole, and can act as a conduit to disseminate innovative practice at a national level. The Learning Technology manager has expertise in the benefits of online technology and its implementation, and can also champion the dissemination of the project within the institution, and encourage other projects The PDP officer has national contacts within the PDP sector of higher education in Scotland, can offer support and advice in developing the case study, and can work with the Learning Technology manager in dissemination at an institutional level. The academic has experience of learning and teaching developments, of developing innovative uses for technology and has knowledge of the literature that supports the development of learning for students. The students contribution comes from active participation in the project itself and the articulation of the benefits of online collaboration diary writing from her own perspective. The reflections of the project team on the project itself are very much concentrated on the team and the reflective diary case study. Although ScotPID is mentioned in dissemination of the case study, only the QAA

Scotland contact specifically mentioned the interaction between national agencies and institutions, and how the groups could potentially support one another and share their expertise. The QAA Scotland contact also reflected on the benefits of the project in terms of institutions and national agencies working together and sharing best practice. This is not a surprising finding, as the viewpoint of the QAA Scotland contact is to look at the sector as a whole; the other members of the team view the institution as the unit of currency. Recommendations The response of the team members to the ScotPID project was positive. It appears a strength of the programme that staff and students have some knowledge of one anothers work prior to the project, and can build on one anothers strengths as the project progresses. Each of the team members can identify with the ScotPID project, as they have a stake in its completion. However, in order for this model to be sustainable, it requires support from senior management within institutions and the establishment of a robust network, fulfilling Stages 2 & 3 of Kezars (2005) collaboration model. The support may be sought once the thirteen case studies have been completed, providing evidence of the success of the collaborative approach. One area that has not been exploited fully is collaboration between project teams. ScotPID as a whole is building a resource of PDP case studies. Each of these takes a novel approach but there are commonalities to all of the projects: the make-up of the group, barriers and enablers to implementation, support at departmental and institutional level. As this is an examination of one of the thirteen ScotPID partnerships, it would be valuable to complete a further study of the other twelve teams involved in the project in order to find the common themes that run through ScotPID and contribute to its success. ScotPID as a model offers many opportunities to improve the student experience, and its strength lies in the growing network of individuals with wide and varied experience, who can contribute their expertise to the project.

References Academy Scotland - Professional Development Planning (PDP). (n.d.). . Webpage, . Retrieved April 26, 2011, from Bloom, B. S. (1956). Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals. New York: McKay. Butler, E., Tatner, M., & Tierney, A. (2010). Online reflective diaries - Using technology to strengthen the learning experience. 35th Annual International Improving University Teaching. Presented at the International Conference, Washington DC.: IUT. Connolly, M., Jones, C., & Jones, N. (2007). Managing collaboration across further and higher education: a case in practice. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(2), 159-169. Enhancement Themes. (n.d.). . Retrieved April 26, 2011, from Kehm, B. M. (2010). Quality in European Higher Education: The Influence of the Bologna Process. Change, 42(3), 40-46. Kezar, A. (2005). Redesigning for Collaboration within Higher Education Institutions: An Exploration into the Developmental Process. Research in Higher Education, 46(7), 831-860. doi:10.1007/s11162-004-6227-5 Moon, J. (2003). Learning Journals & Logs, Reflective Diaries. Good Practice in Teaching & Learning. Centre for Teaching & Learning, University College Dublin. National Teaching Fellowship Scheme (NTFS) - Higher Education Academy. (n.d.). . Webpage, . Retrieved April 26, 2011, from

NTFS Projects Funded in 2010. (n.d.). . resources, . Retrieved April 26, 2011, from Open source e-portfolio and social networking software - Mahara ePortfolio System. (n.d.). . Retrieved April 26, 2011, from Productivity & collaboration - Microsoft UK Medium Business Centre. (n.d.). . Retrieved April 26, 2011, from Tierney, A. (2011). The Curious Case of the Worlds Greatest Victorian Detective and the Student Bloggers. Conference Proceedings. Presented at the 36th Annual International Improving University Teaching Conference, Bielefeld, Germany: IUT. Uchiyama, K. P., & Radin, J. L. (2009). Curriculum Mapping in Higher Education: A Vehicle for Collaboration. Innovative Higher Education, 33(4), 271-280. doi:10.1007/s10755008-9078-8 Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learnin, Meaning and Identity. Learning in doing: social, cognitive and computational perspectives. Cambridge University Press.

Appendix 1 Reflective questions 1. Your first contact with ScotPID how did you hear about it? 2. What did you think about joining the project team? 3. What strengths do you bring to the ScotPID team? 4. What do you see as they most useful outcomes of the case study? 5. What value do you see in collaborations of this kind?

IMPROVING UNIVERSITY TEACHING CONFERENCE, JULY 2011. Conference Theme The Collaborative Classroom LEVELS AND CHALLENGES OF COLLABORATION A CASE STUDY IN TECHNOLOGY SUPPORTED CLINICAL EDUCATION PROGRAMMES. Andrew Sackville & Cathy Sherratt. Faculty of Education Edge Hill University. United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT. This paper focuses on collaborative courses in Clinical Education; initially explaining why are we interested in collaboration on these programmes; followed by a brief description of case study examples of our collaborative programmes. Different models of inter-agency collaboration are explored; and the paper then examines the mechanics of collaboration. Finally, we explore what the evaluative research which we have carried out on the programmes is telling us about collaboration; and the paper concludes with a summary of key lessons for designers and tutors, regarding collaboration in an academic programme, both at institutional level and for students.

TWO-SENTENCE SUMMARY. This paper focuses on the development of collaborative courses in Clinical Education, exploring why collaboration is desirable and describing case study examples of our collaborative programmes. Different models of inter-agency collaboration are explored, along with the mechanics of collaboration and lessons for practice.


Andrew Sackville & Cathy Sherratt Edge Hill University; UK.

INTRODUCTION AND PLAN OF THE PAPER. This paper focuses on the development and delivery of a number of programmes in clinical education run within the North-West of England by Edge Hill University. After identifying the key characteristics of the programmes, the paper discusses the reasons why collaboration is central to their planning and delivery. It suggests a number of different models of collaboration which might be used to facilitate work between a university and another professional body, before going on to offer a case study of the ways in which collaboration has developed and operated between Edge Hill University and its partners. This case study includes a discussion of what we describe as the 'mechanics' of collaboration, before suggesting a number of lessons for designers and tutors on such programmes.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROGRAMMES IN THE CASE STUDY. Edge Hill University became involved in developing a series of postgraduate, professional development programmes for health service clinicians in 1999. These developed out of a series of one or two day workshops which the University had run in cooperation with local hospitals in

previous years. At that time, there was a growing interest in the United Kingdom in 'training the trainers' supporting and developing those more senior health practitioners who had a responsibility for training students and junior staff in clinical settings. As a result of this interest, Edge Hill University developed a Postgraduate Certificate in Teaching and Learning in Clinical Practice (PGCTLCP) which was first delivered in 2000. This was then developed into a modular MA in Clinical Education, first offered in 2003. A new Postgraduate Certificate in Workplace-Based Postgraduate Medical Education (PGCWBPME) joined the portfolio of programmes in 2009. And finally, a single module on Educational Supervision in the Clinical Context was developed in 2010. This module is available for stand-alone study, and has also been incorporated (as an elective module) into two of our award-bearing programmes. All of these courses are aimed at practising health professionals who have an interest in and/or a responsibility for the education of trainees/ students/ junior staff in their professional clinical practice. A common feature shared by these courses is that they are all delivered by technology enhanced ('blended') learning methods. The courses each have limited face-to-face contact, but are primarily facilitated on-line, with students studying in Learning Sets of between 10 and 15 students. There has been stability in the tutor team over time, with two of the tutors responsible for much of the original course design (the authors of this paper) continuing to be involved in the ongoing development and delivery of the programme. The tutor team has expanded over time, with some of the newer members having themselves been students on the programme in earlier years - but most importantly, all the tutors share a common teaching philosophy and

pedagogical approach, making the clinical education team quite a cohesive unit. The courses and their broad development have been described in detail elsewhere. (eg: Sackville & Sherratt, 2007; Sherratt & Sackville, 2010).

COLLABORATION AS A CENTRAL FEATURE OF THESE COURSES. In developing the clinical education courses, the tutor team has collaborated with two Postgraduate Medical Deaneries in the North-West of England. Deaneries are at present responsible for organising and overseeing the postgraduate training of newly qualified doctors, and the continued professional development of more senior doctors within the health services. They have been concerned with raising the standards of teaching and training within postgraduate medical education, and have recognised the need to explore the process of teaching and training with their more senior doctors. These local initiatives have been subsequently reinforced by guidance from central government. (eg: DoH, 2010; GMC, 2011). So why were we so interested in collaboration between employers and academic providers? We can identify a number of cogent reasons: Concern about the relevance of the programme for professional development it has to be related to the work situation. Concern about expertise residing in a single locus recognising the need to draw on the different realms of expertise from both the academic/ university and the practitioner/ trainer in the field. This is particularly important with the ever-increasing emphasis on work-based learning.

The need to establish a firm link to the settings within which clinical work and clinical education is practised ie: multi professional and multi-layered teams.

A common concern about divisions between practice and theory (Moon, 2004).

Concerns about the pressures of finding time to expand knowledge in a busy work setting. As well as collaborating with the medical Deaneries and with another

University, the principle of collaboration has also been at the forefront of our course design and our teaching philosophy. Right from the start, we wanted our students to collaborate and share their ideas and experiences of training/ teaching, as an integral part of the course. There are two major reasons why we have been so keen to develop collaboration firstly, it supports the social constructivist pedagogy espoused by the course team; and secondly, our students are clinicians, who work in multi-professional teams so learning together and from each other will help to reinforce good practice and shared understanding.

MODELS OF COLLABORATION. We suggest that there are three broad models of potential collaboration between employers and academic institutions, with differing levels of input and responsibility from each partners. The relative levels of input and control are illustrated in Figure 1 (below). 1. The university develops and provides the programme, and the employer sends staff on that programme. The employer pays for

the development of the programme either up-front or by fees or by a combination of both. [In this traditional model, curricular control and programme delivery rest with the university, and the employer has minimal input into either design or delivery].

2. The employer develops and provides the programme and turns to the University for validation and accreditation of that programme often paying a small fee for the use of the accreditation name or validation of programme quality. [In this model, curricular control and programme delivery rest largely with the employer, and the university has limited input].

3. There is an attempt to work together to jointly develop and provide the programme. A partnership/ a collaboration. This is the most complex model and deserves closer analysis. We can see different strands of this model within the 3 programmes we have developed. [This is a more equal partnership, with input from both the university and the employer].

Figure 1: Models of Collaboration

COLLABORATION IN PRACTICE. Example 1. Our first collaborative course was the Postgraduate Certificate in Teaching and Learning in Clinical Practice (PGCTLCP). In this course, we have collaborated with Mersey Deanery, and we have also collaborated with another University in designing and delivering the course. The Deanery was keen to be one of the first in the UK to set up a PGC course in the field of clinical education, and so a three-party consortium was established, comprising of two Universities (Edge Hill and Chester) and Mersey Deanery with Edge Hill providing an Academic Lead and Design/Technology Support; Chester providing the services of two part-time tutors; and the Deanery supplying the input of their Education Advisor and also some start-up money to get the course going. This can therefore be seen to be a fully collaborative approach (ie: the third of the models identified above). By mutual agreement, the planning and development of the programme rested largely with the Course Leader and the Learning Technologist from Edge Hill University complemented by one the Tutors from Chester University and the Education Advisor from the Mersey Deanery. Whilst other senior members of staff from the Deanery and both universities gave support to the venture, the small group of four identified above formed a close-knit team, who planned, developed, and wrote the online material for the course over a period of nine months, during 1999, so that the course could commence the following January. This version of curriculum design is described by Ron Harden (1986) as the 'United Nations approach', where each partner nominates one or two representatives.

In establishing the programme, the three collaborative partners negotiated and signed a Memorandum of Cooperation which set out the main responsibilities of the partners. This contract is ongoing, and has been renewed at three-yearly intervals. Of course, there have been some tensions within the partnership over the last twelve years, particularly in early days, between the two universities - relating to their different academic management systems and their individual quality assurance mechanisms. All issues have been resolved amicably, due to the ingenuity and commitment of all partners. At the level of the core team, there have been significantly fewer problems. However, the partnership was tested after some five years, when personnel started to change in the three institutions; and the whole concept of collaboration has had to be revisited on a number of occasions. For example, the Education Advisor from the Mersey Deanery left his post, and therefore a new day-to-day working relationship had to be established with the Deanery, where an Associate Postgraduate Dean took over the responsibility for liaison with the course; and a new form of cooperative working had to be established following restructuring at both universities, resulting in the introduction of new tutor colleagues and revised administrative and quality management procedures. Example 2. More recently, the Mersey Deanery has been reviewing its approach to 'training the trainers', and in conjunction with Edge Hill University it has supported the development of a new single module which focuses on training educational supervisors in postgraduate medical training. Significantly, most of the negotiation and planning for this initiative has been carried out between

two people, representing the two partner institutions the Programme Leader for Clinical Education at Edge Hill University and the Associate Postgraduate Dean responsible for such training at the Mersey Deanery. Clearly, then, this module can also be classified as essentially conforming to Harden's 'United Nations approach' to curriculum design (Harden, 1986). Delivery and recruitment are also carried out jointly. The original Postgraduate Certificate (Example 1) still continues as a multi-professional course, run and actively supported by the three partner institutions, and has recently been further developed to accommodate progression from this new Edge Hill Educational Supervision module. Example 3. In contrast to the first course, the second Postgraduate Certificate (in Workplace-Based Postgraduate Medical Education) derived from a

competitive bidding process, where the North Western Medical Deanery invited expressions of interest and then firm proposals from academic institutions to work with them in developing a new Postgraduate Certificate. The North Western Deanery had some quite clear ideas about what sort of Certificate they wanted. They were aiming their course at doctors in the later stages of their training to become Hospital Consultants. They wanted all their trainees to complete at least a single module which would recognise them as Clinical Supervisors, with the possibility of completing a second module to be recognised as Educational Supervisors, and a third module (completing the PGC) to be recognised as Educational Leaders in their specialty. This would involve some 300 higher specialty trainees undertaking the course each year.

Edge Hill Universitys bid to become the approved collaborator with the North Western Deanery was successful, and a Steering Group between the University and the Deanery was established. This comprised senior practitioners and colleagues from the Deanery and academics and learning technologists from the University. Since the start of the collaboration, in March 2009, the Steering Group has met on a monthly basis, establishing collaborative working practices and developing the online material and the supporting face-to-face workshops. This Deanery has been very actively involved in both planning the overall shape of the Certificate and in developing and approving the learning materials used in the course - although the overall approach to curriculum design can be described as more of a 'People's Congress approach', where all of the staff involved in the programme have had some input (Harden, 1986). The development of this new course and the collaborative partnership have been described in detail elsewhere (Sherratt & Sackville, 2010; Duffy & Sherratt, 2010; McNeill et al, 2010). From day one, it has been a much larger undertaking; and with the numbers involved, it has proved a far more complex process to administer than the first Mersey-based course, but all three modules have now run successfully, and the programme is becoming well-established and well-regarded. An innovation introduced in this course is the deployment of practicebased tutors (current clinicians) to work alongside academic tutors in supporting each of the Learning Sets. This is adding another collaborative dimension to the course, and also results in an enhanced learning experience for the students.

THE MECHANICS OF COLLABORATION. Establishing collaboration. One of the first stages in establishing effective collaboration not only between institutions, but between students as well, is the clarification and agreement on what is meant by 'collaboration', and what form that collaboration should take. At this stage, the expectations of all parties need to be clearly articulated and agreed. In many cases, as in the third of our examples above, a Steering Group (with clearly defined remit) may prove essential for effective collaboration. This may perform such roles as identifying necessary stages in establishing working relationships, monitoring progress, approving completed work, reviewing the progress of the course etc. But as our first and second examples indicate a steering group may not always be essential if a clear working agreement can be agreed informally between partners. Designing the course. The second stage is designing a customised course. A key way of supporting collaboration in this stage is to adopt a Communicative paradigm or Consensus approach to curriculum design (Visscher-Voerman et al, 1999). This includes firstly, agreeing with partners the overall design, and then planning any face-to-face sessions and selecting, writing and designing the online support material - such material will include reflective activities, online discussion topics and the forms of assessment which will be utilised on the course. One particularly successful way in which we have engaged in such design is to use a 'storyboard' technique where the overall pattern of the constituent parts of a course can be easily seen, and relevant tasks can be assigned to separate planners and authors. The storyboard ensures that the

learning outcomes, the delivery, and the assessment of the course are constructively aligned. (Biggs, 1999; Biggs & Tang, 2007). It also helps to ensure a cohesive end result, even when multiple authors contribute to the course content. Delivering the Course. The third area where collaboration comes into play is during the delivery of the course. In this case, we find that arranging the face-to-face days so that both academics and practitioners work side-by-side is very effective, in a similar way to the linking of an academic tutor and a tutorpractitioner in supporting online learning sets. We feel that this adds both credibility and validity to the learning experience of our students, who see leading members of their own profession emphasising the need for effective training in the postgraduate area, and contributing valuable insights from their own professional experience. As indicated above, the students also gain experience of collaboration. Not only is this modelled for them by the academic and practitioner tutors, but they also engage in group-work with their Learning Sets, both within the faceto-face days and in the online discussions. Elements of the assessment of the programmes, (such as Peer Observation of teaching) further reinforce the importance and value of collaboration to the students. At its strongest, these forms of collaboration can lead to the development of both online and face-to-face communities of learners, which might be seen as either a Community of Practice (Wenger, 1998), or a Community of Inquiry (Garrison & Anderson, 2003). Such communities may include the academic tutors, the practitioner tutors, and the students who

discuss issues online and face-to-face. A significant number of our students go on the study for the full MA in Clinical Education after completing either of the Postgraduate Certificates, thus perpetuating and reinforcing a strong community of learners within the two deaneries which cover the North West region of England. This community is further reinforced by the recruitment of former students to join the tutor team, which also contributes to the overall sense of continuity and cohesion. Evaluating the Course. The final area where collaboration is used is in the evaluation of the courses. Evaluation is necessary for the further development and refinement of the courses, as well as for the justification of the resources invested in the programme (including the extension of formal contracts). Meanwhile, input from our employer colleagues also ensures that our programmes retain a high level of professional relevance. In carrying out programme evaluations, we have therefore continued and strengthened our collaborative partnerships so, for example, staff from all three partner institutions contributed to an externally-funded project exploring interaction and design in the original PGC programme (Sackville et al, 2006). Likewise, evaluating the impact of the latest PGC programme also involves staff from both partner institutions, and is an additional function of the joint Steering Group.

COLLABORATION BETWEEN STUDENTS. Finally let us explore what our evaluative research has told us about collaboration between students on our programmes. It is, perhaps, somewhat

unexpected for us to seek collaboration from students taking part in what is, essentially, an individually-focused and individually-assessed academic professional development programme. And thus, we see mixed results in practice, with some Learning Sets embracing higher levels of communication and collaborative learning than others. For example, the range of frequency of discussion messages posted to the online Discussion Board in a sample cohort is shown in Table 1 (below):Learning Set Group A Group B Group C Group D Group E Group F Group G Group H Number of online postings 76 214 90 167 82 186 121 171

Table 1: Number of Discussion Board postings in one module of PGCWBPME There is also some discrepancy between the most and least active members of most groups. But again, we can also see that even the most strategic students still make some contribution to each discussion an example is shown in Table 2:Student no: No of postings i 23 ii 17 iii 16 iv 16 v 15 vi 14 vii 12 viii 12 ix 11 x 11 xi 9 xii 8 xiii xiv 7 6 xv 4

Table 2: Range of discussion postings from students in a single Learning Set

Even though some are more active than others, the majority of Learning Sets do come to collaborate quite well, and where high levels of collaboration are achieved, students report that this enhances their overall learning experience - for example, its also collaborative isnt it, because you can learn a lot from your colleagues, and certainly from my peers, Ive picked up quite a few things that I now use on a regular basis and you know, sharing across specialties and professions has been very valuable! [Student, PGCTLCP] It is, however, clear that collaboration between students needs to be facilitated and built into the course design it will not arise spontaneously, and it is not sufficient simply to allocate students into Learning Sets. Indeed, we would suggest that this micro-level collaboration between individuals needs every bit as much work to foster its development as the macro-level collaboration between institutions.

CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNT. In conclusion, we offer a series of lessons for designers and tutors to consider when introducing collaboration into an academic programme, both at institutional level and for the participants: Develop trust and mutual respect; Get to know who you are working with; Develop shared understanding and shared goals; Establish mutual advantage. For institutional collaboration, we would also recommend:-

Recognise that each institution will have its own working practices, culture and procedures, all of which will need to be taken into consideration [which may also require a willingness to compromise, on occasion!];

Above all, ensure open communication within the partnership.

Our experience demonstrates that when collaboration is implemented successfully, both between individual students and at institutional level, it brings added dimensions and overall richness to the learning experience. Therefore, we would propose that it is well worth the additional effort required to set up collaborative working in an academic programme.

REFERENCES. Biggs, J. (1999) Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press. Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2007) Teaching for Quality Learning at Open

University: What the Student Does. Third Edition. Maidenhead: University Press.

Department of Health (2010) A Reference Guide for Postgraduate Specialty Training in the UK. The Gold Guide. Fourth Edition. London: DoH. Duffy, K. & Sherratt, C. (2010) 'Forging ahead: experiences of collaborative working to develop an innovative educator development programme'. Association for Medical Education in Europe (AMEE)

Conference, Glasgow, UK. September 2010.

Garrison, D.R. & Anderson, T. (2003) E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice. Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer. General Medical Council (2011) The Trainee Doctor. Foundation and specialty, including GP training. London: GMC. Harden, R.M. (1986) 'Approaches to curriculum planning'. Medical Education, vol.20; pp. 458-466. McNeill, H., Jones, A. & Cochrane, J. (2010) 'The whole is greater than the sum of its parts: Collaborative delivery of a course designed to surpass regulatory standards'. Association for Medical Education in Europe (AMEE) Conference, Glasgow, UK. September 2010. Moon, J. (2004) 'Using Reflective Learning to Improve the Impact of Short Courses and Workshops'. The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions. Vol 24, pp. 4-11. Sackville, A., Sherratt, C., Davey, J., Rush, R., Brigden, D. & Thornes, V. (2006) 'Designing for Interaction in an Online CPD Programme'. Final Report For Escalate, October 2006. Sackville, A. & Sherratt, C. (2007) 'Learning from Professional Experience. Centre Stage or Spear-Carrier?' Proceedings of the 32nd

International Improving University Teaching (IUT) Conference, July 2007, University of Jan, Spain. Sherratt, C. & Sackville, A. (2010) 'One step at a time: tutor intervention to support online engagement'. University, Ormskirk, UK. June 2010. Visscher-Voerman, I., Gustafson, K. & Plomp, T. (1999) 'Educational Design and Development: An Overview of Paradigms'. In: Van den Akker, J. 5th SOLSTICE Conference, Edge Hill

et al (eds) Design Approaches and Tools in Education and Training. Holland: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp.15-28. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

36th International Conference on Improving University Teaching, July 2011. Title: COLLABORATION AND COMMUNITY PRESENCE IN AN ONLINE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT.

Theme: Enhancing collaboration through instructional technology

Author: Cathy Sherratt SOLSTICE Fellow & Programme Leader, Clinical Education Faculty of Education Edge Hill University St. Helens Road Ormskirk Lancashire L39 4QP United Kingdom E-mail:

Two sentence summary: This paper explores the development of learning communities in the online context, and how the existence of a community might affect student collaboration. The impact of technology and of tutor intervention are also discussed, with reference to a postgraduate programme in Clinical Education.


ABSTRACT This paper explores how learning communities might develop in the online context, and how the existence of a community might impact on student collaboration. To what extent does technology foster or inhibit the development of a community, and of this collaborative learning experience? How can tutors spot when conditions are right for this to occur? And what actions, if any, can tutors take to encourage a collaborative community to develop? Implications for practice are discussed, with reference to an ongoing research project exploring the experience of students and tutors on a postgraduate programme in Clinical Education.


INTRODUCTION In this paper, I consider online learning communities and collaborative learning. In particular, exploring some possible indicators of community, and the extent to which our use of technology may foster or inhibit the development of such a community, and of this collaborative learning experience. Implications for practice, in encouraging the development of such a collaborative community are also considered, with reference to an ongoing research project. The context of this research is a part-time postgraduate programme for clinical educators, delivered by what we choose to describe as Supported Online Learning (otherwise known as blended learning). Although there is some face-to-face contact within the blend, the emphasis is on the online aspect of the programme, since it is delivered at a distance, to practising clinicians who find it difficult to be away from clinical duties to attend a regular class. The pedagogic approach of the Programme Team might best be described as social constructivist, since we expect our learners to construct their own understanding, based upon their own individual experience; but with this experience activated by inviting them to articulate it to their peers, and to further reflect upon it; and then modified by exposure to contrasting experiences of others. We feel that this approach is particularly suited to this programme, since the students are mature professionals, who have attained significant levels

of seniority within their clinical profession, and who therefore also have significant amounts of experience to draw on and to share with their peers. This, then, is an example of true collaboration in learning the students do not simply do the same thing at the same time, whilst focused solely on themselves and their own learning; but rather, they actively share ideas, support each other, and co-construct knowledge and understanding. Therefore, we encourage interaction within the programme, and use discussion as a significant part of our teaching strategy (Brookfield & Preskill, 1999 & 2005). So why is collaboration so important anyway? Firstly, it helps us to realise our social constructivist ideals, with students actively helping each other to learn. But we must also remember that our students are training to be educators within the clinical context - and as such, they must be able to function as part of a multi-professional team, in order to maximise efficiency and patient care. Learning together as well as working together will help to ensure that theory is assimilated into practice, and that different professions develop the requisite shared knowledge and understanding. Since this programme is primarily run online, we make substantial use of the facility to support asynchronous online discussion within our Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). This is established technology, and indeed, some might even argue that it is now a trifle oldfashioned (superseded, perhaps, by Web 2.0 technologies), but we find that the VLE Discussion Forum does support the development of dialogue - in distinct contrast to authors such as Henri (1991) or Hung and Chen (2001), who found contributions to be both disappointing and disconnected. But when it works well, we find that a real learning community develops, which could possibly also be regarded as a Community of Practice (Wenger, 1998).

THE STUDY SAMPLE This paper draws on data from an ongoing study, the aim of which is to explore experiences and expectations of interaction in online learning, on the part of both students and tutors. The study sample considered here is a single cohort from the year-long programme, identified above. The programme consists of three modules, of equal length, studied sequentially during the year. Participants are divided to work online in small groups, or Learning Sets, of around 8-10 members. Students do not choose their group, but are allocated to their Learning Set, so that wherever possible, each Learning Set is balanced to contain an equal ratio of males and females, and a similar spread of different professions (eg doctors, dentists, nurses). This paper presents a detailed analysis of just one of the Learning Sets. Since this is a part of a wider study, students in this Set are identified as Participant 9 Participant 17. The basis of this ongoing study has been described in detail elsewhere (Sherratt, 2008).

ONLINE INTERACTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF LEARNING COMMUNITIES Palloff and Pratt (2007) propose that collaboration and the formation of a learning community is what makes online distance learning distinct from other classroom settings. So what can the online tutor do to promote the development of a learning community? Woo and Reeves (2007:15) remind us that One of the key components of good pedagogy, regardless of whether technology is involved, is Interaction. Furthermore, Rovai (2002) has also proposed that interaction is a major factor in creating an online learning community; and it is clear that active engagement within an online discussion forum can contribute significantly to the learning both of individual participants and the group as a whole. Therefore, this appears to be a good place to start for encouraging the formation of a learning community.

Influencing Interaction It has been argued that tutors influence student interaction simply by how frequently they contribute to online discussions (Mazzolini & Maddison, 2007). The extent to which faculty should intervene in online discussion has also been widely debated, considering a range of roles from sage on the stage, through guide on the side to ghost in the wings, (Mazzolini & Maddison, 2003). An alternative model, which sees the tutor taking a more active role, and contributing to the co-construction of knowledge, has been described as a meddler in the middle, (McWilliam, 2008). However, although this latter proposition might initially seem attractive, it does not seem to deal with the issue of the authority of faculty members, which creates an unbalanced hierarchy even in a postgraduate programme for established professionals. Therefore, for this programme, we instead encourage an approach which we call peer facilitation - whereby students are invited to interact and share together, which can be seen to be a more truly collaborative experience.

INDICATORS OF COMMUNITY - PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Online Discussion Forum messages have been analysed for evidence to indicate the existence of a 'community', and this analysis is presented alongside explicit evidence for collaboration, and triangulated with illustrative quotes from both Discussion Forum messages and from semi-structured interviews.

Interactivity Analysis Firstly, to identify levels of interaction, I have applied the simple typology developed in earlier work (Sackville & Sherratt, 2006). This typology categorises responses in four major ways, as shown in Table 1. A fifth category, Other, is also used to categorise

postings which do not contain any academic content, but which are purely for social interaction or practical support.

Statement Limited response Questioning response Dialogue

A view expressed. A closed statement. Not inviting response or comparison. A position statement Refers back to an earlier posting, but only in a limited way. May be encouragement, eg: Yes I agree. Opens up the topic. Expands on ideas. Makes comparisons. Building on ideas, taking them further, introducing new interpretations, joint problem-solving, disagreements and disputes.
Table 1: Sackville-Sherratt Typology of Online Responses

Interaction between students within the online Discussion Forum has been analysed using the message as the unit of analysis, since it mainly seeks to identify the flow of interaction, and the existence (or absence) of dialogue. Results can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Analysis of Discussion Forum, using Sackville-Sherratt (2006) Typology

From this analysis, it is clear that this Learning Set exhibited a high level of both academic-related Dialogue and also non-academic social and technical support for each other, throughout the entire programme. It can also be seen that whilst the group was forming into a

community, during Module 1, greater levels of questioning and non-academic interaction were needed; whereas once the learning community had fully formed, academic dialogue dominated, although still with social interaction remaining apparent. Woo and Reeves (2007:18) remind us that social constructivists do not maintain that all conversation and discussion occurring anywhere anytime are meaningful for learning. However, Thompson and MacDonald (2005: 244) point out that conversation is pivotal to interaction; and Dixson and colleagues (2006) propose that it is important for students to feel comfortable posting social messages, a point which seems to be supported by experience in this programme. Thus, we can, perhaps, attribute some value to all online interactions, in terms of their contribution to the sense of community, even if some of them lack academic content. Furthermore, Daniel and colleagues (2003) propose Social Capital as an essential element of a learning community although I would question whether the social engagement of the group actually reflects the existence of a sense of community rather than being itself a causal factor. However, regardless of cause or effect, it appears that we can see good indicators of community in the interactions of this group.

Social Network Analysis A second way of determining the existence of community relies on Social Network Analysis (Dawson, 2008). This analysis examines the way that members of a group

communicate with each other, via Discussion Forum messages and responses. A sociogram of these interactions is shown in Figure 2, where each participant is identified by a separate red node, joined by arrows to indicate interactions between individual participants:

Figure 2: Social Network Analysis of Interactivity in Module 3

Thus, from this analysis, we can see that not only does this group achieve regular dialogue, but also that their interactions with each other indicate a strong community presence, with seemingly all students maintaining contact with and responding to messages posted by all others.

Community of Inquiry Analysis However, Garrison and Cleveland-Innes (2005) have proposed that communicating and achieving dialogue online is not sufficient to support learning. They feel that critical thinking is also required, which can be evidenced by the 'cognitive presence' element of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison et al, 2000, 2001; Anderson et al, 2001; Rourke et al, 1999). The Community of Inquiry framework has become widely established over more than ten years, as a reasonably comprehensive tool for analysing an online discussion forum. The model is based on the proposition that for optimum learning to take place in an online

context, three different types of presence are required, each of which may have a number of indicators, shown in Table 2:

Teaching presence

Design & Organization Facilitating Discourse Direct Instruction Affective Open Communication Group Cohesion Triggering Exploration Integration Resolution

Social presence

Cognitive presence

Table 2: The Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework

Garrison and Anderson (2003) argue that if these three aspects of presence are not found in a discussion forum, then the optimum online learning experience will not be achieved. However, it seems that opinion is divided regarding the unit of analysis which yields the best insights (Rourke et al, 2001). For the purposes of this research, in order to identify the maximum level of detail, the CoI analysis has been carried out at thematic level ie, acknowledging that a single message might contain several different elements, all of which have been identified and recorded. This analysis is presented in Table 3. From this analysis, it can be seen that all elements of 'presence' have been achieved throughout the programme, with the exception of the final cognitive element (Resolution), in Module 2 although Archer (2010) has recently acknowledged that not all aspects of learning, especially for the cognitive element of the CoI framework, can be evidenced in an online discussion forum. He suggests instead that we should consider the course as a whole, possibly seeking evidence of Integration and Resolution (Cognitive Presence) in students assignments.

CoI ELEMENT Teaching Presence: Design & Organization Teaching Presence: Facilitating Discourse Teaching Presence: Direct Instruction Social Presence: Affective Social Presence: Open Communication Social Presence: Group Cohesion Cognitive Presence: Triggering Event Cognitive Presence: Exploration Cognitive Presence: Integration Cognitive Presence: Resolution

MODULE 1 13 27 29 176 286 292 8 135 25 4

MODULE 2 20 30 30 139 285 284 15 136 16 0

MODULE 3 16 62 23 152 249 306 10 120 13 1

Table 3: Community of Inquiry Analysis of Online Discussion Forum

One might also argue that since the major topics to be addressed in the Discussion Forum were structured in advance, in the programme syllabus, there is also an aspect of Design and Organization (Teaching Presence), which is not captured fully in the online messages, further supporting Archer's (2010) view that simple analysis of a discussion forum cannot reflect all aspects of the learning experience. However, since all elements of 'presence' have been identified, it is clear that the conditions have been satisfied for a critical Community of Inquiry to have developed here.

EVIDENCE OF COLLABORATION So we appear to have identified that a learning community has formed but what of collaboration? Firstly, it is clear that the students themselves felt that they were working collaboratively, eg:

there was a lot of shared learning going on [P17, Interview] its also collaborative isnt it, because you can learn a lot from your colleagues and certainly from my peers, Ive picked up quite a few things that I now use on a regular basis and you know, sharing across specialties and professions has been very valuable! [P10, Interview] We can also see collaboration in the sharing of resources as well as ideas and experience. The group voluntarily shared their completed essays (after submission). They critiqued each others' lesson plans and gave each other feedback, as well as taking part in required peer observations of teaching, eg: I found a site where a long term project on the effectiveness of PBL is being investigated, some of you may find it interesting [P11, Discussion] I think some kind words from somebody else about what I was doing was very helpful. [P16, Interview] as to what I could use from your techniques, I particularly like X's code. simple yet ingenious! [P15, Discussion] THE IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY So what can we see of the impact of technology on the formation of a learning community, and on whether or not students were encouraged and/or enabled to work collaboratively? Clearly, the members of this group made good use of the text-based asynchronous discussion forum, to support each other and to create a collaborative learning experience, and they also made good use of its flexibility, in both time and space, eg: Yes, we built up quite a relationship over the year, I think. But the online discussion board helps though - youre just not isolated. Youre not doing it on your own. You get to know people. [P16, Interview] I log in a lot onto the site. It probably averages about 2 or 3 times a day. [P10, Interview] Hi, Excuse my timing but you can guess that I am on nights and its been pretty quiet for the past 15 minutes! [P12, Discussion message, 3.15am]

Moreover, their use of technology within the VLE Discussion Forum appears very similar to that identified in Social Networking sites, such as Facebook or Ning: frequent posting of asynchronous messages and replies, with messages visible to the whole group, and primarily text-based, but with the facility to attach photographs and to recommend web-links where appropriate. Interestingly, this experience seems to concur with Andresen (2009), who comments that the instructors discussion design is more important that any specific technology used for the asynchronous discussion forum.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE In this paper, I have presented some thoughts about the development of online communities and collaboration, and have demonstrated that relatively simple technology can support collaborative learning. But what are the implications for practice? As tutors, we may need to bear in mind the advice of Henderson and colleagues (2007), that Communities of Practice cannot be designed, but must be allowed to emerge. However, they do admit that we can assist the emergence of community by 'careful architecture', a point which definitely seems to be borne out by our own experience in this programme. This reinforces the view that simply providing tools for communication is not sufficient so, for example, even the most determined handyman does not sit in his kitchen every morning, wondering to what use he can put a screwdriver, but rather, he picks it up when the task at hand actually involves screws; and in this same way, students must also have some need or active encouragement to actually use the tools we provide for their learning. Salmon (2000) asserts that interaction is caused (at least in part) by e-moderators' interventions, and this could be significant for tutors who wish to support community development. However, Garrison (2006:30) suggests that students need to assume some control or ownership of the discussion, in order to encourage online collaboration, a point

which agrees with Mazzolini and Maddision (2007) who argue that tutors must take care not dominate in online discussion. Charalambos and colleagues (2004:138) have reminded us that There is no step-bystep approach that guarantees successful community building. However, I would suggest that by careful structuring of discussion tasks, by offering suitable encouragement and by monitoring the support and intervention needs of each group, tutors can nevertheless assist in facilitating the development both of dialogue and of a collaborative community. Further work is planned to test this proposition.

REFERENCES Anderson T., Rourke L., Garrison D.R. & Archer W. (2001) Assessing Teaching Presence in a Computer Conferencing Context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 5: 2, pp.117. Andresen, M.A. (2009) 'Asynchronous discussion forums: success factors, outcomes, assessments, and limitations'. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12: 1, pp. 249257. Archer, W. (2010) 'Beyond online discussions: Extending the community of inquiry framework to entire courses'. The Internet and Higher Education.. 13, p.69. Brookfield, S.D. & Preskill, S. (1999) Discussion as a Way of Teaching: Tools and

Techniques for University Teachers. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Brookfield, S.D. & Preskill, S. (2005) Discussion as a Way of Teaching: Tools and

Techniques for Democratic Classrooms. 2nd edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Charalambos, V., Michalinos, Z. & Chamberlain, R. (2004) 'The Design of Online Learning Communities: Critical Issues'. Educational Media International. 41:2.

Daniel, B., Schwier, R.A. & McCalla, G. (2003) 'Social Capital in Virtual Learning Communities and Distributed Communities of Practice' Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. 29: 3. Dawson, S. (2008). 'A study of the relationship between student social networks and sense of community'. Educational Technology & Society. 11:3, pp.224238. Dixson, M., Kuhlhorst, M. & Reiff, A. (2006) 'Creating Effective Online Discussions: Optimal Instructor and Student Roles'. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 10: 4, pp.15-28. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2000) 'Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education'. The Internet and Higher Education. 2: 23, pp.87105. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2001) 'Critical thinking and computer conferencing: A model and tool to assess cognitive presence'. American Journal of Distance Education. 15: 1, pp.723. Garrison, D.R. & Anderson, T. (2003) E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice. Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer. Garrison, D.R. & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005) 'Facilitating Cognitive Presence in Online Learning: Interaction Is Not Enough'. The American Journal of Distance Education. 19: 3, pp.133148. Garrison, D.R. (2006) 'Online Collaboration Principles'. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 10: 1, pp.25-34. Henderson, M. (2007) 'Sustaining online teacher professional development through community design'. Campus-Wide Information Systems. 24: 3, pp.162-173.

Henri, F. (1991) 'Distance learning and computer-mediated communication: Interactive, quasi-interactive or monologue?' In C. O'Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning. pp.145-161. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Hung, D. & Chen, D-T. (2001) 'Situated Cognition, Vygotskian Thought and Learning from the Communities of Practice Perspective: Implications for the Design of Web-Based ELearning'. Education Media International. 38: 1, pp.3-12. Mazzolini, M. & Maddison, S. (2003) 'Sage, guide or ghost? The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in online discussion forums'. Computers and Education, 40, pp.237-253. Mazzolini, M. & Maddison, S. (2007) 'When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online discussion forums'. Computers and Education, 49: 2, pp.193-213. McWilliam, E. (2008) 'Unlearning how to teach'. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 45: 3, pp.263269. Palloff, R.M. & Pratt, K. (2007) Building Online Learning Communities. Effective Strategies for the Virtual Classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R. & Archer, W. (1999) 'Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing'. Journal of Distance Education. 14: 2, pp.5071. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison D.R. & Archer, W. (2001) 'Methodological Issues in the Content Analysis of Computer Conference Transcripts'. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. 12, pp.8-22. Rovai, A. (2002) 'Building a sense of community at a distance'. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 3:1.

Sackville, A. & Sherratt, C. (2006) 'Styles of Discussion: Online Facilitation Factors'. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference Networked Learning. Lancaster University, UK, May 2006. Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page. Sherratt, C. (2008) 'Working Together: Perceptions of the Role of the Tutor in a Postgraduate Online Learning Programme'. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Networked Learning. Halkidiki, Greece, May 2008. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Woo, Y. & Reeves, T.C. (2007). 'Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation'. The Internet and Higher Education. 10:1, pp.15-25.

Virtual Learning Spaces for Co-Active Learning International Conference on Improving University Teaching, July 19-22, 2011 Collaboration and Active Learning Reinhard Keil, Harald Selke Heinz Nixdorf Institute, University of Paderborn Abstract: Collaborative learning can by and large be characterized as distributed interrupted collaborative processes, because interaction with other learners or educators takes place at different times in different locations. To integrate the temporally and spatially distributed learning activities, a virtual learning space has to be provided which can act as an arena of collaborative interaction on the one side and, at the same time, provide an external shared memory through persistent learning objects. The concept of co-active learning comprises a multitude of technical concepts and functions that support collaborative learning in a variety of learning arrangements. Summary: Virtual learning spaces help to integrate teaching and learning processes taking place at different times in different locations. They provide the means for flexibly orchestrating different learning scenarios, and embody a stage for performing learning and teaching processes without prescribing the actual didactic concepts and methods used. Introduction Technology is driving eLearning and it is changing fast. As a consequence, educators are often forced to adapt their teaching methods if they want to include new technological opportunities. It is, however, very rare that they get involved in the design of new technologies to satisfy their pedagogical needs. As an example, specific techniques such as wikis and blogs, although not primarily designed for learning purposes, are incorporated more and more into didactical settings. Thus, the technologies used were often not especially developed to support eLearning and they do not embody a long-term strategy for integrating new developments. Furthermore, most learning platforms degenerate into download machines, because they provide flexible means to create, store, publish and access learning materials without being able to modify or structure them collaboratively. Although such systems provide some extra value as compared to printed teaching material, they do not live up to todays opportunities and tomorrows challenges.

Currently, two general strands can be observed in the literature. On the one side, there is the quest for lifelong learning and thus for identifying all kinds of enabling technologies for eLearning (cf. Zhang, Nunamaker 2003). On the other side, the concept of integrated eLearning, for instance, is a typical example where an educational system is seen as an integration of technology, pedagogy, and organization (cf. Jochems et al. 2004, chapter 1). However, in both cases technology is integrated into an educational system, but not specifically designed for it. As a consequence, students as well as educators have to invent a lot of workarounds just to make technology fit to their daily needs. Even worse, they limit their learning scenarios to those functions, features and workflows that are offered by the technology at hand. In what follows we will briefly sketch a conceptual architecture and a technical framework that allow us to create different kinds of learning scenarios in a coherent and flexible way. From learning objects to virtual spaces In the middle of the 1990s, the essential advantage of eLearning was characterized as being independent of time and space. Learning could take place any time at any place. However, a closer look reveals that this advantage already holds for any kind of written documentation. The more important issue, then, is to connect and (re-) integrate the different learning events and learning places. A conceptual architecture thus needs to integrate the different forms of eLearning ranging from individual interactive use of technology up to complex forms of discourse management. The first step to accomplish this is to shift focus from the learning object to the learning space (cf. Hampel, Keil-Slawik 2001). This shift is highlighted in Figure 1. If we regard learning objects as isolated entities, we tend to design a learning flow along the traditional publish-subscribe paradigm by creating a memoryless channel between the sender (publisher) and the receiver (subscriber). Both have their individual repositories to create, store, structure, and work on different items or documents. The basic difference to the approach taken here is to set the workspace, respectively learning space, as starting point for the design of a learning scenario. As has been argued in Erren, Keil (2007) complex mental activities require a workplace where persistent objects can be manipulated. As long as these

workspaces represent separate individual learning spaces they cannot be used to form a common external memory for a group of learners or for coaching processes between a learner and their mentor, because each person can only see and manipulate his or her personal objects and knowledge structures at a given time.

Fig. 1: Virtual learning spaces as basic means for orchestrating eLearning scenarios A virtual learning space contains different kinds of media objects, tools, and awareness information that can be presented and manipulated in different ways according to specified access rules and learning events. The concept of virtual learning spaces represents a more fundamental concept than traditional learning management systems, because one can model the traditional download machine by

setting the access rights to a virtual learning space in such a way that students have only read access. However, different configurations of access rights, events and visual structuring allow us to implement a great variety of eLearning scenarios. In order to avoid confusion of terms and interpretations we summarize the different forms and combinations of communication, cooperation, collaboration, coordination, etc. under the term co-active use. From a technical point of view, a virtual learning space can be described as an object-oriented spatial structure of persistent objects with role and rights management facilities that can be accessed in distribution over the internet. Virtual learning spaces act as an external memory for its users, whether they are individuals or groups. This is expressed by the openness to changes of any created structure while the objects themselves are stored persistently, making it possible to conduct knowledge work over a longer time frame. A further requirement is that cooperation and editing functions need to be combined. The inbound flexibility to create working environments within virtual learning spaces also demonstrates the co-active potential of this approach. For example, it is possible to define different views on the same learning space and its objects depending on the client (HTML, FTP, etc.) that is used to access it. These views may not only differ in design or the way the content is presented but also in the kind of functions provided. Thus, a virtual learning space can be regarded as a mediArena, i. e. a space in which the manual operation of objects can be interactively and co-actively combined with responsive functions of the system. In other words, a mediArena embodies a kind of a stage or arena to perform different teaching and learning methods by providing a shared cognition and action space among the various groups and people involved. It does not prescribe didactic activities but provides the means by which people, tools or learning objects can enter the stage and can be presented, structured, arranged and manipulated in various forms. MediArena: Setting the stage for learning arrangements Eleven years ago we presented at the IUT conference in Frankfurt our work on technology enhanced classrooms (Keil-Slawik, 2000). Since then, we have

developed a variety of different learning arrangements such as semantic positioning (Erren, Keil 2007), virtual laboratories (Sommerkamp et al. 2009), collaborative writing (Hampel et al. 2003), or discourse structuring (Hampel, Heckmann, 2005). In what follows, we describe some key examples of mediArena settings that highlight specific new concepts of combining cognition and action space. The scenarios presented help to illustrate how virtual learning spaces can be orchestrated to implement very different learning scenarios. Scenario 1: Co-operative presentation of work results Collaborative learning activities in a university setting typically span over a certain period of time and take place at different locations. People involved in this process may have different roles and access rights and their activities may vary between individual and group work, public presentations and the delivery of the final result. Traditional tools for supporting these activities are functionally separated and do not provide a combined view of the different activities and objects. A portal-like approach that would allow for the integration of separate activity spaces into one common cognition space could be of great help here. In a system based on virtual knowledge spaces, we can easily use the underlying architecture to provide such a portal view on virtually any given resource. The basic idea is to partition the knowledge space into different areas, each of which offers the tools and access rights needed in the given collaborative context, and then providing an integrated view onto those resources and tools. Figure 2 shows such a portal that was used by a group of students working together on a student project in computer science.

Fig. 2: Portal of a student project In this case, the left column contains in the lower part a collection of links to the individual working areas of the participating students as well as the shared document space of the group. There are also links to external resources. Above that, a voting has been conducted on a question that had to be decided by the group. The middle column is used by the group to keep record in a blog-like fashion of who is currently working on which task. In the right column at the top, upcoming project events such as meetings etc. are documented for the group. Below that the latest contributions to the internal discussion forum are displayed. The portal concept used here is very flexible and easily adaptable to the group's needs. The group can decide which components are used in their collaborative context; a simple configuration interface allows to quickly adapt the portal at any time to add, remove or reposition components whenever it seems adequate. The components themselves are also very flexible: The same component that is used as a blog in the example can also be used for a nice-looking presentation of the project's results.

Note that portals are an orchestration of a virtual knowledge space. Thus, the portals as well as the individual components take advantage of all characteristics of knowledge spaces such as managing access rights, object attributes, or events. In a specific orchestration, for instance, write access may be granted for each student only to a single component for which he or she is then responsible for. Or read access may be given to the public for some components, thus providing different views on the portal for the collaborators and outsiders. Scenario 2: Personal mentoring At certain stages individual mentoring for students may be required. This is particularly true when supervising a thesis or when individual assignments are given to students. Such mentoring processes may last from a couple of weeks up to several months, demanding communication between lecturer and student. It is also necessary to inspect the student`s work in order to give appropriate feedback and guidance. Sending an e-mail with drafts or preliminary versions of the work in progress attached is the only technical means available to accomplish this. Mostly lecturers and students have to meet each other on a regular basis. This way of communicating via e-mail corresponds to the situation depicted in the upper part of Figure 1: The problem is, that each person manages his or her own document space while they work on the same documents from different perspectives. In addition, when the supervising process is done through the internet, the supervisor, for instance, cannot see both spaces in order to select a document from his or her repository and move it directly to the students space where it might provide the help needed. By providing a virtual learning space we can improve this mentoring process. In this particular scenario, a student needs to be able to give his supervisor access to a virtual desk that is part of his knowledge space. Within this, documents may be exchanged and feedback can be given as illustrated in Figure 3.

Fig. 3: Supervisor's view of a student's virtual desk in a school context. The students virtual desk is located in the center above the communication area; the educators resources can be viewed on the right. The student's virtual desk enables him or her to directly write texts using a rich-text editor in this case that allows for the use of embedded images, videos, etc. as well as mathematical formulas and function plots. In most learning settings papers could thus be produced without the need for any external writing tools. The students may create any number of documents here and can hence divide longer papers into several sections or chapters. When these means are not sufficient, they may also upload documents in any format from their local computer or transfer documents from their private sections of their knowledge spaces to the virtual desk. They can also assign a status to every document (setting the object attribute from work in progress to submitted, e.g.) which is also visible to the supervisor. The student may as well have different areas for his work on different papers or for other projects. The supervisor has a similar view onto his own virtual desk. For the mentoring process, however, he needs to have access to the students desk. After being invited by the student, the supervisor gets access to the students virtual desk to easily judge the progress the student has made. He can view his or her own virtual

desk and that of the student side by side in order to drag & drop additional documents that he wants to provide the student with such as, for example, a paper with results relevant to the topic or a link to a certain resource in a digital library. To give feedback or get into a discussion, text messages can be exchanged within that desk and an audio and video chat are integrated into the knowledge space, allowing for direct communication in the mentoring context. All this is done in a web browser without the need of external applications. The supervisor maintains a list of all students he is mentoring, having all information needed for assisting the individual students. Note that it is not the goal here to substitute real-life meetings. Rather the goal is to enhance the process of supervision between meetings and creating an awareness of the student's progress on the side of the supervisor. Scenario 3: Structured discourse In university teaching, complex discourses and processes of deliberation and discussion are common, especially in seminars in the humanities. Usually, there is little technological support here apart from presentation software which is not suited for being used in a seminar situation in which potentially all students participate actively. A variety of methods for structuring discussions have been developed before computer technology was introduced into the classroom. However, they do not provide appropriate means to support the discourse over a period of learning events, especially when the learning space is required by other groups in between. Pyramid discussions are a typical example of a structured discourse that aim at deliberation of knowledge diversity. In a first step, all participants state their own position in a document. It is only after then that they are granted access rights to view the other participants statements. This shall help preventing that their own initial contribution is already influenced by the opinions of others. In consecutive rounds, groups are formed to integrate their positions into a common document until if the group is successful there is one document that contains all views for the whole group. In order to support reflective thinking, all documents are arranged in a pyramid so that one can investigate the way specific statements where included in a common document or where they got lost if the group failed. The primary

didactic goal is to delay judgement about right or wrong until all alternative positions have been generated and compared. This is to help to develop competences for social interaction as well as to make better decisions. The result is not necessarily a consensus, as the participants are also able to make additional and individual notes. All intermediate positions remain visible during the whole process and afterwards, allowing the participants to review them and also to analyze the process afterwards if this is desired. This example illustrates the interplay of technical functions (event driven access rights), pedagogical affordances (successively integrating different positions) and spatial representations (arranging the respective documents in a pyramid-like way to illustrate how the positions relate to each other). This method of structured discourse is not restricted to text documents but can also be used in a design process, for example, where different proposals for designing an object or the user interface of a software system are discussed. Conclusion We regard the development of new forms of cooperative structuring and presentation of knowledge structures in a shared virtual space to be of great importance. The concepts for collaborative knowledge work in virtual learning spaces presented here provide a good foundation for supporting new forms of lifelong learning as well as for integrated learning through expandable learning processes and co-active knowledge structuring. As stated in the conference theme, the integration of different venues where learning takes place at different times is of paramount importance. However, there is not one single kind of integration but rather a variety of different collaborative teaching and learning scenarios. In these pedagogic arrangements, components and structures change quickly due to technical innovations and pedagogical improvements. To make best use of these developments it seems to be necessary to develop technical means and didactical arrangements in a tight collaboration between computer scientists and educators because both development processes are deeply intertwined as the scenarios presented show.

The proposed framework of virtual knowledge spaces provided a good starting point for such interdisciplinary work. Different teaching and learning scenarios could be developed relatively easily and implemented making use of pedagogic advancements and technical innovations. The scenarios presented show examples of successfully using virtual learning spaces and the mediArena concept as a key framework for educational technologies. This approach may provide a common ground to build on for developing new teaching and learning scenarios. And there is still the need for improvements. Currently, the different scenarios can be added as a module to the eLearning platform koaLA that is employed at the University of Paderborn. The development of such a scenario still requires technical competencies. In the near future, however, we hope to be able to develop a smart configuration tool for specific types of learning arrangements that allow pedagogues to define their own learning arrangements. References Erren, P., Keil, R.: Enabling new Learning Scenarios in the Age of the Web 2.0 via Semantic Positioning. Proceedings of the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare and Higher Education 2007 (E-Learn 2007), 54-61 Hampel, T., Keil-Slawik, R.: sTeam: Structuring Information in a Team Distributed Knowledge Management in Cooperative Learning Environments. In: ACM Journal of Educational Resources in Computing 1(2) 2001, 1-27 Hampel, T., Keil-Slawik, R., Emann, B.: Jour Fixe We Are Structuring Knowledge Collaborative Structuring of Semantic Spaces as a Didactic Concept and New Form of Cooperative Knowledge Organization. Proceedings of E-Learn 2003, Phoenix, Arizona USA, AACE, 225-232 Hampel, T., Heckmann, P.: Deliberative Handling of Knowledge Diversity The Pyramid Discussion and Position-Comentary-Response Methods as Specific Views of Collaborative Virtual Knowledge Spaces. In: Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education16th International Conference Annual, SITE 2005, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, March 1-5, 2005, 19421947. Jochems, W., van Merrinboer, J. J. G., Koper, R.: Integrated E-learning: Implications for Pedagogy, Technology and Organization. Routledge Falmer: London, 2004 Keil-Slawik, R.: Learning Supportive Infrastructures The Next Generation. Invited contribution to Proc. of the 25th Int. Conf. The University of the Future and the

Future of Universities: Learner-Centered Universities for the New Millennium. Frankfurt, July 17-20, 2000, S. 133-147 Sommerkamp, H., Schulte, J., Keil, R., Rybka, J., Ferber, F.: Ltm-sola a serviceoriented application to integrate high-tech laboratories and virtual knowledge spaces. 5th International Conference on Collaborative Computing: Networking, Applications and Worksharing, Washington, D. C., USA, 2009 Zhang, D., Nunamaker, J. F.: Powering E-Learning In the New Millennium: An Overview of E-Learning and Enabling Technology. Information Systems Frontiers 5 (2) 2003, 207-218

Improving University Teaching Conference. 2011. Conference Theme The Collaborative Classroom.

The Musicians of Bremen and the Politics of Collaboration. Andrew Sackville Professor Emeritus. Faculty of Education, Edge Hill University United Kingdom.

Abstract. This paper focuses on the major theme of the conference collaboration. Through an analysis of commentaries about collaboration and practical examples of such collaboration, it examines aspects of collaboration between universities, between faculty and between students. It explores both the potential and challenges of engaging in collaborative ventures at each of three levels. It concludes that achieving meaningful collaboration is difficult within an education system which is basically individualistic and competitive in nature. Nevertheless the paper concludes with a series of lessons as to how cooperation may be fostered successfully between and within universities.

Summary. The paper analyses the potential and challenges of achieving collaboration at macro, meso and micro levels within higher education. It concludes that careful and overt planning is essential if the negative aspects of the politics of collaboration are to be overcome.

The Musicians of Bremen and the Politics of Collaboration. Andrew Sackville Edge Hill University; UK. Introduction a moral tale! The Musicians of Bremen is the story of four elderly animals (a donkey, a dog, a cat and a cockerel) each downtrodden in their own way, who join together with the aim of travelling to Bremen to become town musicians. On their way they are looking for shelter, when they come across a house where there is plenty to eat and plenty of shelter but the house is inhabited by a band of robbers. The four animals collaborate to obtain possession of the house by making their music outside the house (a horrible din braying, barking, mewing and crowing ) before bursting through the window and scaring the robbers away. Furthermore they repeat their collaboration when the robbers attempt to return to the house scratching, biting, kicking and shouting at the robbers. The four are so successful that they stay in the house, and they never move on the Bremen to become musicians. (Wikipedia 2011). This story collected by the Brothers Grimm has become a classic moral tale supporting the benefits of collaborating to gain something that each individual could not have achieved on their own. The folk tale is not unique to Germany there are similar stories found in other cultures. (Heiner 2005). Whilst the major characters and the details of the story differ between cultures the basic message of collaborating for the mutual benefit of the characters remains the same; although significantly there are always individuals and groups who loose out as a result of the collaboration!

But the use of the term collaboration has not always had such positive connotations. Historically the term has been frequently used to describe the actions of traitors to a particular course of action. We can examine the history of a range of eras and events - from Greek and Roman society; Norman England; Colonial regimes; Independence movements; the Quisling and Vichy regimes in World War 2, up to the post-war actions in Vietnam, Northern Ireland, and Afghanistan; and here we find the terms collaboration and collaborator have been employed in a pejorative sense to condemn certain individuals or groups whose views and actions are not in agreement with the section of society who are condemning them as collaborators. This may lead to strife and bloodshed, repression and revenge. Collaboration in this context is often a destabilising force in that society. Nevertheless the positive spin of collaboration tends to be the dominant message portrayed within higher education worldwide at the present time. However even here it is important to recognise the mixed messages which an apparently simple idea like collaboration may contain hence the focus of this paper on what I term the politics of collaboration. In this paper I intend to reflect on and question the distinctiveness of collaboration before exploring the spectrum of collaboration in higher education. I am going to focus on three levels of collaboration from the macro level collaboration between academic institutions; via the meso level collaboration between faculties and subjects; to the micro level collaboration between individual students. I will argue that at each level there are problems between broad intentions and the practical applications of policies of collaboration.

Collaboration a single entity or a multi-factored concept? Collaboration is often used in conjunction with other terminology such as cooperation, and indeed there has been a continuing debate for several decades about whether these are two distinct ideas or whether they form part of the same concept. Certainly a number of commentators use the terms interchangeably; whilst others argue that they are two distinct concepts. Panitz has argued that collaboration is a philosophy of interaction and personal lifestyles whereas cooperation is a structure of interaction designed to facilitate the accomplishment of an end product or goal (Panitz 1996). He suggests that the underlying premise of collaborative learning is based on building a consensus around such principles as a respect for individual group members abilities and contributions, where authority is shared and responsibility is accepted by group members for the actions of the group. By contrast cooperative learning is more directive and controlled by the teacher. Here groups are supported in their interaction to achieve a specific goal. The cooperative approach is teacher centred, whilst the collaborative approach is more student centred. (Panitz 1996). Alongside collaboration and cooperation we also find the phrase working in partnership being heavily used within UK Higher Education (QAA 2011). This phrase can cover collaborative working between universities within the UK, between UK universities and overseas partners, and between UK universities and private partners. It can also include cross-sectoral collaboration between Universities and providers of further education or professional education. More recently the term networking has often been used in association with the term collaboration. Does the use of different

terms imply different concepts, or are all of these terms basically relating to the same type of activity? Dave Pollard has produced a helpful chart which attempts to distinguish between coordination, cooperation and collaboration.



Collaboration Shared objectives; Sense of urgency and commitment; Dynamic process; Sense of belonging; Open communication; Mutual trust and respect; Complementary, diverse skills and knowledge; Intellectual agility

Preconditions for Success ("MustHaves")

Shared Shared objectives; objectives; Need Need for more than for more than one person to be one person to be involved; Mutual involved; trust and respect; Understanding Acknowledgment of of who needs to mutual benefit of do what by working together when

Enablers (Additional "Nice to Haves")

Frequent consultation and Right mix of people; Appropriate knowledge-sharing Collaboration skills and practice tools (see between collaborating; Good below); Problem participants; Clear facilitator(s); Collaborative 'Four resolution role definitions; Practices' mindset and other mechanism Appropriate tools appropriate tools (see below) (see below) Avoid gaps & overlap in individuals' assigned work Obtain mutual benefit by sharing or partitioning work Achieve collective results that the participants would be incapable of accomplishing working alone Same as for Cooperation, plus innovative, extraordinary, breakthrough results, and collective 'we did that!' accomplishment

Purpose of Using This Approach

Desired Outcome

EfficientlySame as for achieved results Coordination, plus meeting savings in time and objectives cost

Optimal Application

Harmonizing tasks, roles and Solving problems in Enabling the emergence of schedules in complicated understanding and realization of simple environments and shared visions in complex environments systems environments and systems and systems Project to implement offthe-shelf IT application; Traffic flow regulation Marriage; Operating a local community-owned utility or grain elevator; Coping with an epidemic or catastrophe Brainstorming to discover a dramatically better way to do something; Jazz or theatrical improvisation; Co-creation


Appropriate Tools

Project management tools with Systems thinking; schedules, roles, Analytical tools critical path (root cause (CPM), PERT and analysis etc.) GANTT charts; "who will do what by when"

Appreciative inquiry; Open Space meeting protocols; Four Practices; Conversations; Stories

action lists Degree of interdependence in designing the effort's workproducts (and need for physical co-location of participants) Degree of individual latitude in carrying out the agreed-upon design







(Taken from Pollard 2005). Pollard and Panitz both suggest that there are subtle differences between collaboration and cooperation, but in reviewing the literature whilst preparing this analysis it became very apparent that in everyday usage most academics use the terms interchangeably, and are often unaware of the shades of meaning which attach to the terms. The majority of commentators are usually concentrating on the aspects of interaction between institutions, faculty, and students which provide the possibility of developing new and innovative methods of working and studying together for the mutual benefit of all concerned. They are simply taking the Musicians of Bremen at face-value. For the present paper I will suggest that there may be a spectrum of interactivity ranging from coordination at one end to full-blown collaboration at the other end. I will return to this debate later but I now want to examine three different levels of the collaboration spectrum Macro-level Collaboration Let us commence by looking at the macro level where collaboration is often actively encouraged by national government. Using the United Kingdom as an example - the last Labour-led government encouraged collaboration between universities. Both in their rhetoric, and in the provision

of seed-money the government supported universities in their attempts to collaborate with each other to work in partnership. At the same time they encouraged collaboration between higher education and further education; between universities and industry/commerce; between universities and professional representative bodies and between UK universities and overseas education providers particularly in the growing Asian economies. Seed money was provided by Central Government, by Regional Economic Development Councils and by quasi-autonomous bodies such as the British Council. Yet at the same time many of their policies for resource allocation to the university sector were premised on competitive rules. For example universities were encouraged to bid for additional student numbers (HEFCE 1997); to produce individual research papers to gain extra research resources (RAE 2008) ; and to improve teaching and research so that they climbed the tables which compared the performance of universities on a number of variables. The income derived from additional student numbers, from successful research bidding, and from student choice partly based on league tables far outweighed the income which could be derived from collaborative seed money. The seed money was often time-limited, and had to be shared with other institutions and there were no guarantees that successful collaborative projects would continue to be funded after the end of the project phase. In addition to the financial incentives, the Quality Assurance Agency sought to regulate collaborative work between universities in the teaching of courses. These additional rules and regulations militated against collaboration between universities.

The tension between collaborative and competitive policy drivers in the United Kingdom was identified in a report of a seminar which focussed on collaborative approaches to preparing and developing effective teachers. (Whitehead 2007). One of the speakers Neil Simco contrasted the competition engendered by reductions in the Central Government allocation of trainee numbers, variable fees, and the National Student Survey with the collaborative message promulgated by the policy paper Every Child Matters with its support for inter-professional dialogue and approaches.

(H.M.Government 2004). There are examples of macro-level collaboration within the university sector in the United Kingdom but these do seem to be driven by financial and quality considerations, rather than a genuine belief and commitment to the principles of collaboration identified earlier by Panitz. As those resources wane so often does the collaboration. Meso-level Collaboration At the meso level there may be similar mixed messages. Inter- and intra-faculty collaboration may be officially encouraged. For example here is a statement from the Provosts web-pages at Harvard University: When approaching a specific problem or pressing need, solutions increasingly require the combination and application of knowledge derived from myriad sources traditionally dispersed across departments at

universities. The promise of interdisciplinary programs is to reintegrate knowledge for the purposes of discovery. Interdisciplinary approaches significantly impact ways of teaching, learning, and research. The desire for expanding research beyond traditional school or departmental boundaries is

often in place but new organizational support may be needed to harness these synergies. (Harvard 2011). Having been involved in establishing a number of inter- and intrafaculty programmes over my career, I have found that the commitment of the founding faculty is often enough to launch a new programme but when those initial staff move on, when initial financial incentives have been spent, and when a new home in a specific subject or discipline has to be found so that the new programme conforms to university regulations, the initial impetus is often dissipated and it is difficult to sustain wholehearted collaboration. Departmental priorities may change, competition between departments for scare resources may marginalise multi-disciplinary programmes which are often not seen as the core business of the department, and once-innovative multi-disciplinary programmes may evolve into single department modules or programmes. Kenny has summarised some of the difficulties in enabling a community of collaboration within universities. She suggests that most universities struggle to implement collaborative initiatives due to inherent barriers in organisational structure, and long-held values in the prestige of rewarding and promoting faculty autonomy (Kenny 2010) Staff are judged on their abilities to carry out individual research, to publish single-authored papers, and to successfully teach as individual tutors. Rarely are their collaborative efforts recognised or rewarded. Although Kezar has argued that over 50% of internal collaborations fail within the university sector, she does advance a three-stage model for moving from a culture which supports individual work to one which facilitates

collaborative work. (Kezar 2005). The first stage, building commitment, contains four contextual elements values, external pressure, learning and networks. Here the institution uses ideas/information from a variety of sources to convince members of the campus of the need to conduct collaborative work. In the second stage, commitment, senior executives demonstrate support and re-examine the mission of the campus and leadership emerges within the network. The third phase is called sustaining and include the development of structures, networks and rewards to support the

collaborations (Kezar 2005, p831).

Micro-level Collaboration. Collaborative learning for students has become a widely accepted concept in the past three decades. It has been encouraged by educationalists who have adopted a social constructivist view of learning, influenced by the writings of Vygotsky and similar psychologists. There have been many texts and papers on the topic, and again there appears to be overlap with supporters of cooperative learning although the purist supporters of each approach do distinguish between the two. A recent definition of collaborative learning gives a flavour of the main features of this approach to supporting learning: Collaborative Learning is a relationship among learners that requires positive interdependence (a sense of sink or swim together), individual accountability (each of us has to contribute and learn), interpersonal skills (communication, trust, leadership, decision making, and conflict resolution), face-to-face

promotive interaction, and processing (reflecting on how well the team is functioning and how to function even better). (GDRC 2011). The emphasis on working with students in smaller groups has led to a focus on such teaching techniques as Thing-Pair-Share, three-step interviews, and simple jigsaw work. The importance of group teaching techniques comes to the fore. Many of the techniques used can and have been replicated online, and Stahl and his colleagues have charted the development of computer-supported collaborative learning. (Stahl et al 2006). The technology provides a more flexible and (for many) a more accessible context for collaboration; and the advent of Web 2.0 has further strengthened this movement, particularly with its emphasis on social networking. (but see my 2009 IUT paper for some reservations about these developments Sackville 2009) As with collaboration at macro- and meso- levels, there are challenges to the philosophy and practice of collaboration. These may display themselves in two major areas of micro-collaboration. The first area is in the process of learning and learning facilitation, where problems may arise around the equitable distribution of effort in accessing learning materials and sharing these within the group. Some students may be viewed as free-loading by other more diligent students within the group, whilst other students may naturally be more dominant and want a speedy solution to any challenge they encounter they want to travel faster than the average speed of the group members. The second area where collaboration is difficult is in the area of assessment. Once again proponents of collaboration encounter the basic

competitive nature of our education system where individual achievement is recognised rather than any mutual collaborative work. There have been moves to widen assessment to recognise collaborative work, but in most cases this is only at the level of formative rather than summative assessment.

Conclusion and lessons from this analysis. This analysis has emphasised both the interest in developing collaboration at the different levels in higher education, and the challenges that such collaborative ventures face. The difficulties of collaboration sitting within a basically individualistic, competitive system should not be underestimated. But the fact that varieties of collaboration do occur at all three levels of university education is encouraging to those who believe in encouraging collaborative learning between students, collaborative research and teaching between faculty, and collaboration between universities and between universities and other institutions within our society. Of course there will be challenges such as failure to anticipate the true costs and administrative demands of collaboration, poor communications, insufficient resources, and in some instances there may be strategic, procedural and cultural incompatibilities and conflicts between those involved in collaborative ventures. These are only to be expected when the principle of collaboration interacts with other factors such as competition, institutional, departmental or individual identity, and the traditional paradigms in many universities which emphasise individuality.

A number of the papers reviewed in this account do suggest ways in which collaboration can be further fostered and supported. Among the suggestions I would emphasis the following: The need to be clear about the aims and expected outcomes from any collaborative venture. This is what Piper calls a sound and strategic conceptualisation. (Piper 2004). Judgement as to the amenability of the aims and outcomes to collaborative work Agreement on the form that the collaboration will take. The need to clarify upfront the ways in which collaboration will be managed, supported and financed. Anticipation of potential challenges, such as those outlined above. The importance of feel-good factors motivation, enjoyment, mutual encouragement and intellectual rewards. (Piper 2004) A willingness to experiment and to cut through barriers to think the unthinkable. Support is needed from those who have power within the higher education institution. Strong leadership becomes important as any collaborative venture picks up pace. It is perhaps significant that many of the above suggestions emphasise the planning and preparation stage of any collaborative venture. Whilst excellent preparation may lay the basis for successful collaboration, lets not forget that sometimes we do get unexpected and very positive spin-offs from collaborative work. After all, the donkey, the dog, the cat and the cockerel

never achieved their original aim of becoming the town musicians of Bremen but they did have an enhanced quality of life in their old age in a rather desirable country cottage!!

References. GDRC (2011) Collaborative learning (accessed April 2011) Harvard University. (2011) The Office of the Provost Interfaculty Collaboration. (accessed April 2011) Heiner,H.A. (2005) SurLaLune Fairy Tales (accessed April 2011) H.M.Government (2004) Every Child Matters: Change for Children. London. HMSO. pdf (accessed April 2011). HEFCE (1997) Additional Student Numbers. Invitations to Bid. (accessed April 2011) Kenny,N. (2010) Collaboration in Higher Education. Natasha Kennys Blog. (accessed April 2011) Kezar,A. (2005) Redesigning for Collaboration within Higher Education Institutions. Research in Higher Education 46;7 pp831-860 Panitz,T. (1996) A Definition of Collaborative vs Cooperative Learning. Deliberations 2005. (accessed April 2011) Piper,A. (2004) Collaboration Programme for Modern Languages 2001-2004. Final Evaluation of Programme. (accessed April 2011) Pollard,D. (2005) Will that be coordination, cooperation or collaboration? (accessed April 2011)

QAA (2011) Working in Partnership. (accessed April 2011) RAE (2008) Research Assessment Exercise. (accessed April 2011) Sackville,A. (2009) The Emperors New Clothes Fashions in Teaching and Learning. Paper presented at IUT Conference 2009. Stahl,G., Koschmann,T. & Suthers,D. (2006) Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. (accessed April 2011) Whitehead,J. (2007) Collaborative Approaches to Preparing and Developing Effective Teachers: An account of the Joint UCET/HMI/STEC Symposium held in Glasgow, March 2007. ches%20to%20Preparing%20and%20Developing%20Effective%20Teachers. pdf. (accessed April 2011). Wikipedia (2011) Town Musicians of Bremen. (accessed April 2011)

36th Annual International Conference

Improving University Teaching

The Collaborative Classroom

Presentation Abstracts
Bielefeld, Germany July 19th -22nd

Presentations of Scholarly Work

Can Multiple Intelligences Enhance Learning for Higher Education Online Instruction? Clifford Tyler (National University, USA) This paper will examine applications of Howard Gardners Multiple Intelligences (MI) theory to differential instructional strategies for adults higher education. More online classes are offered providing new challenges and opportunities for instruction to meet student needs for success. MI holds promise in differentiating instruction by applying these intelligences to on-line instruction. Also included is the assessment of students, how students identify their MI strengths, and how online course activities fit MI theory. Finally, the role for instructors in MI Theory will be discussed, along with the challenges instructors face in practicing MI to meet individual student needs.

Assessment and Feedback: A Conceptual Framework for Learner-Centered Courses Andreas Mller (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitt Mnchen, Germany) Feedback is considered as one of the most powerful instruments to foster learning processes of students. The conference contribution introduces an extended feedback cycle for learner-centered courses. In the conceptual framework a qualitative feedback of a lecturer is supplemented by a quantitative peer-evaluation and an instrument for self-evaluation. Analysis regarding the effort for implementation, the quality of the utilized instruments and the appraisal of the instrument by the students are presented and finally discussed.

Developing Our Strengths: Appreciating Our Differences Nick Holton (Kirtland Community College, USA) How often do professionals go to a conference with no clear direction of which sessions to attend and little, if any, focus to their decisions? This workshop addresses this issue through the Appreciative Inquiry (AI) process. Participants will use AI to self assess personal teaching strengths and to create motivating focus statements (provocative propositions) to guide them for the rest of the conference. Workshop participants will: reflect on their best and most memorable faculty experiences; identify their greatest teaching strengths; summarize personal strengths into individual provocative propositions that clearly states when each person is at their professional best; and list all the things that must happened to completely realize the provocative proposition. The AI process has five clearly defined steps that all participants will complete. They will reflect on memorable experiences through paired interviews that will be shared with the group. Individuals will then list the strengths and values that

contribute to their success. These reflections, strengths, and values will lead to the creation of personal provocative propositions that articulates the professional dream of each. After listing everything that must be done to accomplish the dream, participants will then use this plan to: focus their decisions for the rest of the conference (sessions to attend, people to meet, events to attend, etc.); use as an action plan for the following academic year for professional and personal development; and convince others of the efficacy of this process and to encourage others to create their own. Project Peer Learning at Bielefeld University: Creating Communities of Inquiry by Peer Facilitated Learning and Peer Feedback Melanie Frhlich & Christiane Henkel (Bielefeld University, Germany) How can students from the very beginning learn and practice the craft of their discipline? We will introduce Peer Facilitated Learning & PeerFeedback as developed and tested by Ib Ravn at Danish Universities. In peer groups students practice the activities of their discipline. For faculty, focusing on disciplinary activities means to better interlink teaching and research & to engage with students (including the peer facilitators) in joint communities of inquiry (cf.Badley, 2002). Students, trained as peer facilitators, learn to be responsible for group processes. We are just pioneering with peer Facilitated Learning as an approach which concentrates on the process of inquiry and encourages and enables students to learn collaboratively. Peer feedback as a two- way-process in which feedback is given by one student to another; it means giving and taking feedback and learning on both sides. Thus, it supports independent learning during which the author maintains responsibility of his text. By discussing the texts on equal terms this special kind of feedback facilitates positive outcomes, e.g., the students anxiety is lowered and learning motivation is elevated. The instructors benefit, too, since they get better written assignments. We will discuss our strategies of implementing new approaches to learning at the University and welcome critique and sharing of experiences. Berklee Teachers on Teaching: Learning Together Janet Chwalibog, Roy Hu, Steve Kirby, Mike Carrera, Patricia Peknik, & Matthew Truss (Berklee College of Music, USA) Berklee Teachers on Teaching (BTOT) is a vibrant gathering of teachers learning together through collaboration. We express and share who we are as educators, artists, and human beings. We explore and challenge the boundaries of what we already know, and seek to inspire the student and artist within each one of us. BTOT nourishes us in our commitment to engage students in the finest contemporary music education. Every year for two days for 21 years now, 500 faculty gather to attend an in-house conference

organized, presented, and evaluated by Berklee faculty. With over 42 concurrent sessions offered, tracks include teaching with technology, wellness, universal access, and musicianship. Our keynotes have included Jonathan Kozol, Howard Gardner, Ray Kurzweil, Ornette Coleman, Ravi Shankar, Paquito DRivera, and other educational and musical luminaries. Participants in this session will learn the fundamentals of starting and growing an in-house teaching conference including 1.identifying stakeholders and champions 2. securing funds 3. recruiting faculty, 4. and organizing organizing organizing. Youll be surprised at what is possible!

Using Scholarly Online Communities to Engage Students Dorothe Bach (University of Virginia, USA) This workshop seeks to inspire humanities and social science faculty to explore ways of utilizing scholarly online communities as tools for getting students excited about the process of academic inquiry and collaborative knowledge creation. After learning about the presenters experience with using a scholarly online listserv in her literature course, participants will review successful assignments, student postings, and grading rubrics and work in groups to develop materials that reflect their particular course goals. This highly interactive, hands-on workshop will particularly appeal to faculty as well as faculty developers interested in supporting teachers with incorporating online learning tools into their courses.

Teaching French Using Multi Tools Online Manuel Becerra Polanco (University of Quintana Roo Campus Cozumel, Mexico) Formerly, education was limited, just the classroom and few teaching resources were available to motivate and engage students; nowadays, noughties and digital natives are interacting most of the time with technology, gadgets and seem to be permanently plugged to internet. Trying to combine technology and classroom teachers from the University of Cozumel I decided to use multi tools online such as, facebook, podcasting, audacity and internet links; these resources are totally free and students of modern languages have been enhancing their language skills through the practice and feedback. The results and conclusions are described in this academic experience.

Authentic, Collaborative, Active: A Case Study from a Business Strategy Unit Greg Parry (Edith Cowan University, Australia) The discussion explores how learning design featuring authentic e-learning (authentic learning mediated by information and communication technologies)

addresses a key problem in higher education: the failure of instructors to address the cognitive domain striving to perform (Snow, Como & Jackson, 1996). I will describe how the e aspect of learning in this unit requires students to collaborate in the sourcing, sharing and critical use of resources to develop their objective writing a business strategy. The context of the discussion is the teaching-learning-assessment design implemented in a senior undergraduate class in corporate and business strategy (Bachelor of Business, Economics major).

Makes Fun and is Actually Useful! Improving Soft Skills by Leading a Tutorial in Natural Sciences Jutta Rach (Westfalian Wilhems-University Muenster, Germany) Traditionally, in biological study courses natural sciences are taught by lecture. Additionally, social competences have never been in the focus of teaching. We took advantage of the European Bologna Process to change the traditional structures and established modules based on the model learning by teaching. Therefore we have the experience in accompanying tutorials in physics, chemistry and biology. Bachelor- students (3rd semester;) guide these groups. These students learn principles of self- management, teamwork and decision making. Our results demonstrate: the tutorial students reach their learning outcomes while the tutors improve their social competences. The students conclusion: makes fun and is useful, actually. Inter-Institutional Collaboration on Software Development- The Topsy Effect Christine Shirley (Lingnan University, Hong Kong) This presentation will discuss a project that began two years ago in the English language centre of a university in Hong Kong. The objective was to develop an online assessment that would generate a report giving diagrammatic and qualitative feedback on students' level of language proficiency. Collaboration with other tertiary institutions developed gradually and organically over time as language centres in other Hong Kong universities asked to join the project. This presentation will demonstrate the benefits of this collaboration to each of the centres, how it enabled us to draw on a wealth of expertise and how it has resulted in an assessment that is considerably more robust than any of us could have developed on our own.

Creating Teaching Portfolios through Collaboration Angelika Thielsch (Technical University of Munich, Germany) In this round table discussion we will look at the uses of teaching portfolios in higher education and discuss how faculty can benefit best from creating one in close collaboration with one another. In order to reach these aims a workshop concept will presented that regularly is offered to faculty at the Technical University of Munich. Positioned at the core of this concept is a writing lab in which faculty are asked to collaborate first in pairs, later groups of four in order to explore and write down, reflect and rewrite their own teaching philosophy. Actualizing Our Own Visions Matthew Truss & Janet Chwalibog (Berklee College of Music, USA) Too often when we have exciting ideas for change our resources, time, and energy, run out before we can accomplish our goals. When working collaboratively there are a number of pitfalls that can cause our work to be misunderstood, watered-down, or simply wasted. In this session, we will demonstrate and invite you to practice five methods for creating collaborative and productive peer work that can be used to actualize your own ideas and vision for change both in and out of the classroom. Whether you are in a leadership position or demonstrate leadership in your practice, these methods help to clarify agendas, identify decision-making processes, build agreement, and reach action points. At Berklee College of Music, these methods have helped to transform the approach and content of communication between faculty and administration, building a more collaborative and productive learning institution. Students Improve Their Learning Environment Wolfgang Lukas (Hochschule Bremerhaven, Germany) GUUGLE is an acronym in German language and stands for GUt Und Gerne Lehren und lErnen translated Enjoying excellent learning and teaching. It is a university wide program, where lecturers and students reflect their usual teaching respectively learning behavior and the rules and structures of the teaching respectively learning context. The workshop reflects to starting conditions at a German University of Applied Sciences. It shows examples of students projects to improve teaching quality and the learning environment. Discussion will focus at enlargement of those initiatives and the integration with other students activities.

Conflict Management Workshop Harmut Matzat (University of Kassel, Germany) Personnel development should be geared to personality development as a holistic entity. For quite a while it has been geared, however, predominantly to subject matter excellency. Objectives of the affective domain have been neglected. Sometimes, special courses on personality development are offered, but in general it is at the managers discretion, if he includes objectives of the affective domain in his activities or not. One of the many criteria for an educated personality person is the ability to handle conflicts, i.e., to realize, to describe, and to solve them by intellectual consensus rather than by emotion or democratic vote. This workshop is intended to help colleagues to understand how to handle conflicts with employees, colleagues and others and include it in their management activities. One can however try to manage a conflict by consensus rather than by democratic vote. We have to distinguish between a non- manageable conflict which has already been solved in the above mentioned manner or by conflict management or goal oriented cooperation or goal oriented individual action. Conflict management requires various capabilities: to be able and to be willing to manage a conflict, to take relevant action. Collaborative Research: Making the Seminar Work James Wilkinson (Harvard University, USA) & Wolf-Dietrich Webler (Bielefeld University, Germany) The seminar - first pioneered in Germany - is 260 years old this year. Its original, revolutionary inspiration was that students and faculty could conduct research together in small groups. And now? What place is there for the seminar in an era of mass higher education and emphasis on saleable skills? We will argue that collaborative research remains an essential pedagogical tool, and present practical suggestions for adapting it to fit a contemporary context. Collaborating across Institutions: Formative Assessment of a Community Health and Design Studio Class Hans-Peter (Hepi) Wachter, (University of Oklahoma, USA) The case studied is an interdisciplinary design collaboration between architecture students and interior design students at the College of Architecture at the University of Oklahoma, the Urban Design Studio in Tulsa, the Architecture for Health Design Studio at Texas A&M University, the clinical program development at the OU Wayman Tisdale Specialty Center, School of Community Medicine and the Tulsa Economic Development Corporation. The studio worked with community partners, collaborators in the field of

the build environment and partnering healthcare provider and professionals in the medical field with a focus on community healthcare facilities and public health in the community.

How Students Learn: Strategies for Teaching from Cognitive, Social, and Physiological Psychology Todd Zakrajsek (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA) Abundant research demonstrates that learning takes place when the student's mind actively engages in the material. The major problem is determining how to increase that activity. Within the discipline of human memory, learning, and cognition exists a vast body of literature dealing specifically with this issue. Participants will leave this workshop with an understanding of the basic concepts in human learning, how to present information so that students most effectively encode it into long-term memory, and how to help students know when they know. Getting the Best out of Your Emails: The Golden Rules Matt Cochrane (Edge Hill University, United Kingdom) Participants in this workshop will develop their own three golden rules of emailing by studying the symptoms and causes of problematic communication. It is well known that electronic mail loses a layer of information we normally take from face-to-face encounters, and lacks the personal touch of traditional mail. We will see how messages are scrambled, requests are misunderstood and why responses are incomplete and late. From an improved understanding of how our own emails can lead to difficulty, we will then start our campaign for more efficient electronic communication. Developing Students to be Self-regulated Learners: Strategies that Work Anna Kwan (The Open University of Hong Kong SAR, China) This action research investigates the effectiveness of the strategies used to develop students in self-regulated learning and their impact on students academic achievement. Students in an educational psychology course have been challenged to get at least A- for their problem-based learning project. Metaconigitive strategies were introduced in the course. Emotional support in the process is provided by fellow students within the team. Intellectual scaffolding is offered in outside-class consultations by the teacher. Data collected from students include pre- and post- course concept maps to track students

conceptual changes. Post-course interviews will be conducted with individual students to understand the process from their perspective. Collaborative Learning in a Time of Uncertainty Ray Land (Strathclyde, Scotland) In a knowledge-based economy characterised by uncertainty, complexity, risk and speed, academic life is encountering a certain strangeness. We find ourselves for the first time preparing students for a future we cant really envisage. As a way of minimising risk we are also witnessing an increasing corporatisation of academic life that is in tension with traditional collegial values and practices. As a way forward in such an academic climate this session suggests certain inquiry-based collaborative approaches that seek to move beyond the somewhat tired binary oppositions between ivory towers and real world environments in favour of a research-minded and problem-oriented approach which seems equally valued in business and industry. Illustrations will be discussed. Pre-Service Teacher Practicum Experiences in Cameroon and Ethiopia David Walker (Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, USA) Participants will explore the month-long pre-service teacher practicum study abroad experiences while viewing photos and video clips and hearing reflections from Cameroon and Ethiopia. Learn of these students African adventures from rural Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, and see the international collaboration of worldwide education through the eyes of future teachers. Beyond Service Learning: Can We Advance a Pedagogy of Social Change for Times of Crisis? Leslie Richardson & David Park (Florida International University, USA) Inviting inquiry into teaching through crisis situations, we will describe an example from a New Orleans (US) university where Communications courses were transformed into community-led partnerships, responding to the needs of marginalized people in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Directed by the community, students conducted national media campaigns to bring volunteers and supplies to the lower Ninth Ward. Student-run media campaigns produced $1,250,000 in critical building supplies and labor, as well as transformative learning. We will discuss implications of the projects successes, seeking other ways in which we can harness student learning to quick, effective responses to humanitarian crisis.

Promoting Academic Collaboration: Avoiding the Pitfalls and Developing Strategies Carol Harvey & M. June Allard (Assumption College, USA) Teaching and college service leave little time for scholarship. Yet, these requirements for tenure and promotion are escalating. One way to be a productive scholar is to form a successful collaboration with another faculty member. However, such partnerships often fail. This discussion will focus on how to minimize the problems and maximize the quality and productivity of academic collaborations. Cooperative Blended Learning Approach with the Case-Based Learning Platform ICON Daniel Tolks (Witten/Herdecke University, Germany) In this project the interactive online learning platform ICON was used as a vehicle to explore the research question in which way a cooperative use of virtual cases within an interactive learning platform affects the learning process and dynamic in mixed student groups from the US and Germany. The ICON platform allows students to interact with each other, faculty and virtual patients in neurological cases. Students of Harvard University and the University of Witten worked in the winter semester 2009 in two mixed groups. The students from the different universities communicated via the ICON platform and created diagnostic hypotheses, and treatment proposals. As a result the international student group collaboration showed a positive effect regarding the efficiency and accuracy of students achievement of case learning objectives. Portfolios in the Composition Classroom Monique Kluczykowski (Gainesville State College, USA) When I began my teaching career, I instituted portfolios in my composition classes. Students loved the opportunity to revise essays, and I saw improvement in everyone's work. Unfortunately, I was teaching five classes of 25 students each. I had to assign a research paper, and an in-class final exam. All assignments came due at the end of the semester; I faced over 100 research papers, portfolios, and final exams each to be graded. I gave it my best effort for two years but concluded that I could not manage the workload, and I gave up the portfolios. With time, our department changed, the syllabus became more flexible, and the final exam was made optional. I re-instituted the portfolio for my classes, albeit with some significant changes. While I am still fine- tuning the instrument itself, I have found a balance between what's beneficial for the students and what is manageable for me. I would like to share what I have learned with others: much has been written about portfolios in scholarly publications, but many colleagues I've spoken to are still not sure how (or even if) they would work. My tried and practical approach could be adapted to any classroom.

Realizing the Research-Teaching Nexus: A Practical Experience from the Sciences Janina Lenger & Petra Wei (Bielefeld University, Germany) Bielefeld University has a high profile of interdisciplinary research: Physics, chemistry, biochemistry, biology, bioinformatics and biotechnology departments share the common technology platform CeBiTec. The novel Master module Interdisciplinary Research Competencies was created to make use of this strength for teaching so that Master students could already be part of our research community before they start their PhD thesis. In the key seminar, the students write a research publication from their Bachelor thesis and publish it using the online journal BiNaturE hosted by Elsevier. Communicating research outcomes is an important research competency and was previously not explicitly included in science teaching. Shifting Perspective from Student to Teacher in a Content Mathematics Course for Teachers Petra Menz (Simon Fraser University, Canada) When teaching a content mathematics course leading to the elementary teacher program the instructor is faced with the challenge of shifting the perspective from the student to the emerging teacher. The student body is equally distributed over a two-axis system, where one axis ranges from appreciation to fear of mathematics and the other from those who are in the program by choice to those present by default. Several formative assessments have been implemented to overcome the resistance of students to such a perspective shift, and the presenter is looking for input from participants with other or similar viewpoints. Factors Contributing to Successes of University Students from Educationally Disadvantaged Backgrounds Kethamonie Naidoo (University Limpopo, South Africa) Dropout and throughput rates are relatively high among students from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. Research findings attribute a broad range of factors that influence motivation and success. This paper reports on a study conducted among a sample of successful students from a homogenous population of students from educationally disadvantaged background. Based on in-depth interviews with graduate students with proven academic and leadership skills, this study explores the factors influencing early success during childhood, school and university. It also focuses on the social experiences that have contributed to success. In essence, it asks the question: Are there common factors that positively contribute to the success of University students from educationally disadvantaged background?

Becoming and Belonging: Locations and Identities for Early Career Teachers Francis Beaton (University of Kent, United Kingdom) This workshop considers the various institutional interactions which early career teachers (ECTs) experience, ranging from those with authority figures, informal networks within departments or cross-institutional provision through teacher education programmes. ECTs consequently experience different norms and expectations which may engender conflicting demands on an individuals attempts to develop their sense of purpose and identity. The session draws on small-scale research undertaken with ECTs, their mentors and teacher educators. It considers the following questions. Where does ECTs learning take place? What is the affective impact of different interventions and experiences? What are the implications for those working with early career teachers? Capacitating Staff, Students, and Community for the Co-production of Knowledge John Boughey (University of Zululand, South Africa) In South Africa, the rural-based universities have been given significant funding by the Department of Science & Technology, to research and develop Community- University Partnership Programmes (CUPPs) aimed at facilitating change in Higher Education Institutions and their surrounding communities through collective and innovative efforts, arising out of equal, fair, democratic, reciprocal, interactive and sustainable partnerships between stakeholders (including staff, students and community members), which promote the identification of shared goals. Using an integrated model of Participatory Action Research and Project Management, and heuristics for analyzing stakeholder relationships this workshop will assist participants in constructing a framework for democratic multi-stakeholder engagement. The Curious Case of the Worlds Greatest Victorian Detective and the Student Bloggers Anne Tierney (University of Glasgow, United Kingdom) Students participating in Business & Bioscience at the University of Glasgow are given an introductory session using Bloom's Taxonomy. The reasons for this are two- fold: to introduce the students to the notion of open-ended writing, which has no "right" or "wrong" answer, and to get them accustomed to sharing their experiences and articulating their observations. Using material from a modern remake of Sherlock Holmes, and their own opinions of the Victorian detective, students answer questions at differing levels of Bloom's Taxonomy. This approach helps students become more open about their writing.

Call Me Ishmael: Confronting Irreligiosity in the College Classroom through Collaborative Exercises Mick Charney (Kansas State University, USA) Religion in the classroom has long precipitated debate, yet instruction on world faiths is fundamental to a liberal education. Students exhibit religious illiteracy that is woefully parochial if not also hostileirreligiosity. This workshop will articulate why students know so little about religion and why it ignites classroom confrontations. Collaborative exercises and classroom readiness techniques can manage these difficult moments. So prominent is religion in politics and international relations that it makes little sense today to set religious literacy afloat aimlessly on the rolling seas of ambivalence and enmity as the academys last orphanlike Melvilles lone survivor, Ishmael. Assessing Professional Development STEM-Field Programs across Institutional Borders Kevin Johnston (Michigan State University, USA) For the last five years, researchers from four U.S. research-intensive institutions have analyzed initial data from a cross-institutional research project comparing their future faculty development programs. Each campus is evaluating a local programs structure and content and analyzing graduate student participants learning gains and professional growth. To conduct this study, each institution compared, and combined elements of existing local program evaluations to build a common survey instrument (pre- and post-program). Using the collaboratively designed survey, which focused primarily on participant demographics, self-reported satisfaction rates, and program effects on practice and preparation, initial cross-institutional analysis indicates that integrating teaching, research, and professional skillssuch as learning through diversity, building leadership capacity, and enhancing awareness of academic citizenshipin programs for graduate students enriches their graduate experience and enhances preparation for future faculty roles. Early analysis also reveals problems inherent in comparing programs cross-institutionally using longitudinal measures. Workshop participants will see some of the data pulled from our evaluation experience, discuss the potential (and pitfalls) of cross-institutional evaluation, and generate ideas for how to create effective institutional collaborations.

Encouraging Learning in On-Line Group Projects Claudia Caruana (University of Maryland, USA) Group projects are not welcomed in most on-line courses, especially when students are located across several time zones. There are the usual complaints: he or she doesn't do her fair share of work Here are suggestions to make on-line group projects work for your students. Enhancing Classroom Learning through Student Collaboration: Observations in a Learnlab Technology Environment Hans-Peter (Hepi) Wachter (University of Oklahoma, USA) How can learning happen in collaborative smart classrooms that embrace interactive technology to connect students, professors and their ideas in an effort to create more sustainable learning environments? Learning can be enhanced for students in collaborative and interactive learning environments. It will increase understanding and ownership of course material. The precipitating factors are installing technology rich labs in a temporary space to research their use by professors and students before final installation in a new college building. The Learn Labs original concept developed by Steelcase Inc. is designed with no front of the classroom. Multiple Purposes Conducted in the Traditional Tertiary Classroom with the Chinese Context Shaobin Ji (Wenzhou Vocational and Technical College, China) With the daily revolution in the modern information technology, the traditional classroom has been systematically replaced by the virtual and multiple functional classroom where students and their instructors have more opportunity to exchange their views on the certain topic which may be jointly set by the learners and instructors together. This kind of modern education is nothing new at all to the modern higher education in the world. Nevertheless, this paper tries to address the several issues which have something related to the daily classroom with its multiple functions for educational purpose in the modern Chinese higher education.

A Conceptual and Technical Model for General Education and Experiences from Hong Kong Yuk Wah Chan (City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong) This paper examines the discussions and implementation of GE in Hong Kong universities. Almost all Hong Kong universities have now had some sort of practices and platforms for GE. Yet, it is common among students to see GE courses as something unimportant, relaxing and a place for slackness. The paper discusses GE from the perspectives of both students and teachers, and provides both positive and negative experiences of teaching GE. Based on her experiences of being a learner and teacher of GE and her research on GE education, the author will suggest a conceptual and technical model for teaching GE. Knowledge Transfer on HealthCare Systems in an Interprofessional Curriculum Based on Real Patient Cases Daniel Tolks (Witten/Herdecke University, Germany) Development of an innovative teaching concept by using the case descriptions of the US-EU-MEE programme will be explained in this session. The US-EU-MEE cases were shortened and questions enhancing the learning process were formulated. Specific aspects of the respective health systems related to the cases could be worked out and were implemented in the curriculum. In addition to the patient cases newspaper articles were used to give an understanding of the health systems of Germany, Denmark and the US. The curriculum consisted of group work phases and teacher-centered discussions. Three lecturers gave keynote presentations about the different health care systems and about health care system analysis. Furthermore the US Health Care Reform was taught using journal papers and a cartoon movie. Students of the different subjects (medicine, dentistry, nursing sciences and economics) worked together during the winter and summer semester 2010/2011 applying the Case Method (6) to answering the case- and system-related questions. After each semester a standardized course evaluation by questionnaiere and an oral feedback round was conducted with participating medical, economics and social sciences students at Witten/Herdecke University. Cross Fertilization: Technology from Conference to Classroom Valerie Arms (Drexel University, USA) The benefits of sharing collegially has led to improvements that show how flat the world has become as we trace the evaluation of an English course from Philadelphia, PA, to Glasgow, Scotland to British Columbia to Australia. Participants would gain an

understanding of how to be flexible and adaptable in transferring technology and assessment techniques. Using the <emma> LMS for Collaborative Writing, Editing, Feedback, and ePortfolios Paul Quick (University of Georgia, USA) Bring your laptops and test-drive a learning management system (LMS) that is designed to improve student writing through drafting, collaboration, feedback, revision, and ePortfolios to encourage deep, significant learning. <emma> (which stands for Electronic Markup Management Application) makes grading easier with a rubric linked to the online version of the St. Martins Handbook. A growing number of institutions are adopting <emma>: see for details. To participate in this session you need to download the free OpenOffice application suite available at and have internet access. If thats not possible, come to see <emma> in action through demonstration. You Are Not Alone! Cooperative Learning and Libraries Erik Senst (Bielefeld University, Germany) The benefits of sharing collegially has led to improvements that show how flat the world has become as we trace the evaluation of an English course from Philadelphia, PA, to Glasgow, Scotland to British Columbia to Australia. Participants would gain an understanding of how to be flexible and adaptable in transferring technology and assessment techniques. Improving Outcomes for Pupils and Preservice Teachers through Meaningful Partnerships with Public Schools Katherine Mitchem (California University of Pennsylvania, USA) & Timothy Mitchem (West Virginia University, USA) This session provides information on an innovative partnership with a high need school district in which teacher candidates, university faculty and public school teachers collaborate to provide instruction and support to K-8 at risk pupils. As part of a federally funded preservice training improvement program, special education faculty redesigned the field work component of the teacher preparation program to enhance candidate use and analysis of evidence-based practices and provide needed resources to a local high need school district. Collaborative projects among preservice candidates, public school faculty, university faculty, and school pupils and tips for success will be shared.

Encouraging Learning in On-line Group Projects Claudia Caruana (University of Maryland, USA) Group projects are not welcomed in most on-line courses, especially when students are located across several time zones. There are the usual complaints: he or she doesn't do her fair share of work Here are suggestions to make on-line group projects work for your students. Business Games as Instruments for Creating a Collaborative Classroom Ursula Bach (ZLW/IMA der RWTH Aachen University, Germany) The aim of this Round Table Session is to discuss the impact of business games on creating a collaborative classroom. Business Games are trying to intensify theoretical contents of the lectures by relevant impressions in the context of concrete situations. With the help of new media the different challenges of lecture contents as well as the effects of decisions in this context become understandable. Thus the learning aims of the event are supported with lasting effect. Our discussion topics are: What exerperiences were made by the application of business games in lectures? What advantages or disadvantages do you see? Teaching by Design Think: Innovations in Education Experience Part I Claudia Nicolai (Hasso-Plattner-Institut, Germany) & Jennifer Schn (Freie Universitt Berlin, Fachbereich Veterinrmedizin Creativity, motivation and teamwork are considered to be relevant skills for students of all academic fields in order to handle complex problems. Design Thinking, well known to foster human-centered innovation in business and society, has proven to be useful with respect to teach these skills. Design Thinking combines approaches, methods and tools that can be found in design and ethnography with technology and business skills. During this workshop, we will expose the participants to the basic principles of Design Thinking, radical collaboration, empathy, and an iterative problem-solving process. We will also generate a hands-on classroom experience of a Design Thinking cycle.

Community of Learners: Alliance for Education with National Parks Deborah Hill (Southern Utah University, USA) & Gregory Stauffer (Utah State Board of Regents, USA) The importance of engaged, meaningful learning involves being collaborative and valuing and having the skills to work with others. Southern Utah Universitys Alliance for Education includes the following National Parks and Monuments: Zion National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Cedar Breaks National Monument, and Pipe Springs National Monument. The Alliance involves the partnership of the National Park Service, University faculty and staff, local school districts and the surrounding communities. Together we form a community of learners meeting the needs of the 21st century. Overcoming Apathy and Creating Excitement in the Classroom Todd Zakrajsek (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA) What can instructors do to facilitate learning when they encounter students who seem uninterested and even apathetic toward course content and assignments? Part of the responsibility for learning belongs to students, but as faculty, we can find new ways to motivate, inspire, and maybe even cajole students to learn. This workshop will demonstrate and explain how instructors can make classroom learning, perhaps one of the most artificial learning settings, a more meaningful experience for students. The presenter uses theories of learning and motivation as a basis for creating strategies to increase student engagement in course content and class sessions. Participants will have an opportunity to try out and experience first-hand some of these techniques. Topics covered in this session include a discussion of active learning, motivation, collaborative learning, metacognition, learning theory, and interpersonal communication. Encouraging Learning in On-Line Group Projects Claudia Bremer (Goethe-University Frankfurt, Germany) In order to qualify students to use new media, the University of Frankfurt has introduced a study program for students who become teachers which especially addresses their competencies to use new media in classroom teachings. As part of this program, the students collaboratively produce digital content such as an elearning course, a webquest, or create a concept for an elearning setting which includes the usage of a wiki or blog for cooperative usage in schools. The whole study program new

media competencies for school teachers prepares them for their work as a teacher and especially focuses on active and collaborative learning settings. The Good Professor as Perceived by the Students at a Teachers College of Education Mordechai Miron (Telavi University, Israel) & Miriam Mevorach (Levinsky College of Education, Israel) Our research focuses on perceptions of the "good professors" by graduate students who are professional teachers. They came back to study after years of teaching experiences. A sample of students at a graduate college of education was asked: what are the three most important characteristics of a "good" college professor? The students perceived the "good professor" as a knowledgeable professional, capable of transmitting material in an organized, lucid and interesting manner. In addition the interaction with the students was essential to his/her role. The personality traits and research ability were not considered critical to the competent of the good professors. Artistry, Creativity, and Inquiry: Promoting Collaboration across Disciplines Janet Chwalibog & Patricia Peknik (Berklee College of Music, USA) Working across disciplines presents challenges and opportunities. In this session, we will share a series of exercises used to bring 50 faculty members together, across disciplines, to create 25 unique sections of a new course which shares learning outcomes, visiting artists and scholars, and key assignments. Using small group discussion, peer work, electronic portfolios, and monthly seminars, faculty in this program designed and taught sections of a new Artistry, Creativity, and Inquiry Seminar while reflecting on and refining their teaching methods. Participants will leave with a clear definition of collaboration, clear guidelines for writing and assessing learning outcomes, and a draft of their own teaching philosophy.

Poster Presentations
Collaborative Approach towards a First Year Science Seminar Course Design and Implementation Gulnur Birol, (University of British Columbia, Canada) We took a collaborative approach towards the design and piloting of the new First Year Science Seminar course which aimed to foster better knowledge about science through studying science as a way of knowing and to operationalize it through writing. The team consisted of experts in science education and faculty members across Science departments. Through the scholarship of teaching and learning, we designed an evaluation plan which was implemented in the piloting phase of the course. The results indicated overwhelmingly positive student and faculty responses to the course. Teaching and Learning in the Life Sciences: A Graduate Course Gulnur Birol, (University of British Columbia, Canada) Biology 535, Teaching and Learning in the Life Sciences, is a graduate course offered at the University of British Columbia by a team of faculty and science education experts as a collaborative effort. The course has proven to be an effective tool for professional development filling a gap in graduate education. As a result of taking this course, participants have critically explored teaching and learning in the biological sciences from a constructivist theoretical perspective. The collaborative approach towards teaching has been found to be the key in the success of this course allowing students to explore different perspectives. A Collaboration between Supervisors and In-service Early Childhood Teachers to Enhance Professional Growth Siu Man Wong (The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong) The current study was based on the Integrated Field Studies (IFS) course of an in- service Bachelor programme in early childhood education in Hong Kong. This qualitative study aims to examine how the supervisors and their students could work together through their experience of teaching and learning in the IFS course to facilitate the professional growth of each other. Data was collected through interviews and course documents. The findings showed that the IFS course was characterized by four features: 1) the focus on individual students area of interest for investigation; 2) students being perceived as active learners; 3) an opportunity for a continual and practical research experience; and 4) the provision of an interactive learning environment.

Developing the Role of Graduate Teaching Assistants: Collaborative Networking Anne Tierney (The University of Glasgow, Scotland) Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs) are traditionally used in undergraduate science practical classes to assist the lab leader in helping students. These young people, at the start of their academic careers, are more than just "assistants" - they have their own opinions and enthusiasm to bring to undergraduate teaching, a talent which can sometimes be left unused and ignored. In 2009, following a successful bid for funding from the UK HIgher Education Academy Centre for Bioscience, we developed networking events for GTAs. Prior to the events, GTAs were sent a questionnaire which probed issues pertinent to them. Areas of interest which were identified were: Lab Teaching, Small Group Teaching and Feedback and Assessment. A research assistant, herself an experienced GTA, compiled resources for each of the topics, which assisted us in developing the event programme. Using a series of workshops, GTAs explore the issues identified by them. Facilitated by a member of staff, GTAs work in groups, reflecting on their experiences of being an undergraduate, exploring resources available to them to improve their teaching, participating in scenario-based problem sessions, and developing assesment strategies for defined undergraduate courses. All of the GTAs work is collected and collated at the end of the event, to be used as a resource for their teaching practice, As each event takes place, the body of the resource grows, and GTAs contribute to developing their own teaching practice. The format of the events lends itself to collaboration between the Centre for Bisocience, the academics and the Graduate Teaching Assistants, promoting the sharing of good practice across institutions and working towards the creation of an informal network of GTAs across neighbouring institutions. Course Design Institute: Transforming Teaching and Learning Dorothe Bach (University of Virginia, USA)

Since 2008, the Teaching Resource Center offers an annual multi-day Course Design Institute for faculty and graduate instructors interested in systematically and collaboratively rethinking their teaching. During the week-long institute, instructors spend four days designing or substantially redesigning a course to promote significant, long-term learning. This poster describes the Institute design, illustrate its immediate and long-term value to participants of this intensive faculty learning community, and show its effectiveness in helping instructors to create courses that generate deep learning and enduring understandings. The Course Design Institute (CDI) provides a group of 25-35 instructors the opportunity to engage in the iterative, dynamic, and scholarly process of learner-focused course design. The goal of the Institute is to propel participants to become teachers who create for their students the opportunity to engage in truly transformative learning experiences. During the institute, participants explore learner-centered design principles as a large group and then work on their individual course designs in small, field- or pedagogy-specific

learning teams. The learning teams, led by an experienced facilitator, provide participants opportunities for brainstorming, individualized feedback, and ongoing support. Building on Finks model for integrated course design, the curriculum for the Institute is grounded in the literature on course & syllabus design (Fink, Bain), learner-centered pedagogy and assessment (Tagg, Bonwell, Wiggins), and student motivation (Dweck, Svinicki). Through interactive lectures and active learning exercises, CDI facilitators prompt participants to consider other dimensions of learning: how they may inspire students to care about that knowledge, and what students might learn about themselves, others, and their own learning. And, it asks instructors to carefully consider questions such as these: How do I assess whether I and my students meet the course goals? How do I enact those goals in the classroom? Immediate and long-term feedback about the Institute has been overwhelmingly positive: The 35 participants of last years institute rated it 4.95 on a 5.0 scale. Follow-up surveys and focus groups attest to the transformative value of the CDI and report that it has fundamentally changed the way they approach course design and teaching. Based on the success of previous Institutes with UVa faculty and graduate instructors, in CDI is now open to faculty from other institutions (for details see Competence Development for Evidence-Based Action and Everyday Management through Learning Environment Collaboration and Networking Inge Bergmann-Tyacke & Barbara Knigge-Demal (Bielefeld University, Germany) The Dual Bachelor Study Course in Nursing (Gesundheits- und Krankenpflege) at the Fachhochschule Bielefeld, University of Applied Sciences is a new program for academic pre-registration nurse education. It is based on an innovative curriculum comprising three different learning places: the university, the vocational college and the practice setting. This approach promotes competence development for evidence-based action as well as managing everyday tasks. Within the theoretical framework of transfer- orientated learning, close collaboration between the three learning environments is crucial to this program. With this poster, we present some interventions that make collaboration and networking of learning and teaching partners effective. Activation of Engineering Students with Clickers Ma Andersen, (Institute of Chemical Engineering, Biotechnology and Environmental Technology, Denmark) Electronic voting system - clickers (Mentometer) were implemented in a secondary engineering subject: Materials Chemistry, which is a 6 ECTS point course, 4 hours each week at Engineering Faculty, University of Southern Denmark. Both teaching

material and evaluation were efficiently conducted via the technique. Experience and reflection were collected and analyzed in the presentation. Impact of Guidance and Counseling Interventions in Enhancing Teaching Effectiveness in India: A Study on Stakeholders Perceptions Ambili Gopalakrishnan (Christ Nagar College of Education, India)

The goal of education is to bring out and develop the inherent potentialities of an individual. However, the students of developing countries like India face multitude of problems at mental and emotional level which hamper their ability to study resulting in reduced teaching effectiveness. Apropos, guidance and counselling have an important contribution in achieving these educational goals. Guidance and counselling helps an individual achieve well in various areas of personal and social life, as well as in educational and career pursuits, which would ultimately help in proper utilisation of manpower. Thus the present work studies the impact of guidance and counselling interventions among students of teacher education (B.Ed. students) in enhancing the teaching effectiveness through analysing perceptions of various stakeholders. The sample for the present study consisted of 50 students, 50 teachers and 50 parents from 10 teacher training colleges of Thiruvananthapuram district in India, selected on the basis of stratified random sampling technique. Judgement schedule on perception of various stakeholders on the effectiveness of guidance and counselling interventions in enhancing teaching effectiveness, prepared by the investigator was used for collecting the data. The study reveals that guidance and counselling interventions among students enhance teaching effectiveness. Among the stakeholders, 57.5% students, 73.01% teachers and 69.15 parents perceived the guidance and counselling interventions to be very effective in enhancing the teaching effectiveness. Those who viewed the interventions to be very ineffective included 1.56% students, 0.68% teachers and 1.62% parents. In the combined perceptions of all stakeholders together, 66.55% perceived the guidance and counselling interventions to be very effective in enhancing the mental health status of adolescent students. 21.82% had the viewpoint that the interventions health status of studied B.Ed. students. are slightly effective. 7.88% felt the interventions to be average in effectiveness while 2.46% viewed the interventions to be slightly ineffective. Only a very small percentage (1.29%) had the opinion that the guidance and counselling interventions are very ineffective in enhancing teaching effectiveness.

Conference Participants
Al Abbas, Yahya, Institute of Public Administration (Saudi Arabia) Allard, M. June, Assumption College (USA) Andersen, Shuang Ma, Institute of Chemical Engineering, Biotechnology and Environmental Technology (India) Arms, Valarie, Drexel University (USA) Augenstein, Ingrid, University of Innsbruck (Austria) Bach, Dorothe, University of Virginia (USA) Bach, Ursula, ZlW/IMA der RWTH Aachen University (Germany) Bar-Yishay, Hanna, The Center for Academic Studies (Israel) Beaton, Fran, University of Kent (United Kingdom) Becerra Polanco, Manuel, Univeridad de Quintana Roo (Mexico) Bergmann-Tyacke, Inge, Bielefeld University (Germany) Bertelsen, Michael, IHK (Denmark) Birol, Gulnur, University of British Columbia (Canada) Bissbort, Dirk, University of Oulu (Finland) Borst, Alexander, Musikhochschule Stuttgart (Germany) Boughey, John, University of Zululand (South Africa) Bremer, Claudia, Goethe-University Frankfurt (Germany) Carrera, Mike, Berklee College of Music (USA) Chan, Yuk Wah, City University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong) Charney, Mick, Kansas State University (USA) Chwalibog, Janet, Berklee College of Music (USA) Cochrane, Matt, Edge Hill University (United Kingdom) Farley-Lucas, Bonnie, Southern Connecticut State University (USA) Fox, Peter, The University of Liverpool (United Kingdom) Frank, Andrea, Bielefeld Unviversity (Germany) Frhlich, Melanie, Bielefeld Unviversity (Germany) Gerhardt, Bert, Seminar Stuttgart (Germany)

Gibson, Heather, QAA Scotland (United Kingdom) Gopalakrishnan, Ambili, Christ Nagar College of Education (India) Harvey, Carol, Assumption College (USA) Henkel, Christiane, Bielefeld University (Germany) Hill, Deborah, Southern Utah University (USA) Holland, Tony, University of Technology Sydney (Australia) Holton, Nick, Kirtland Community Colllege (USA) Ji, Shaobin, Wenzhou Vocational and Technical College (China) Johnston, Kevin, Michigan State University (USA) Keil, Reinhard, University of Paderborn (Germany) Kirby, Steven, Berklee College of Music (USA) Kluczykowski, Monique, Gainesville State College (USA) Kristensen, Hans-Jrgen, University of Southern Denmark (Denmark) Kwan, Anna, The Open University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong) Land, Ray, University of Strathclyde (United Kingdom) Lenger, Janina, Bielefeld University (Germany) Lukas, Wolfgang, Hochscule Bremerhaven (Germany) Matzat, Hartmut, Kassel University (Germany) Menz, Petra, Simon Fraser University (Canada) Mevorach, Miriam, Levinsky College of Education (Israel) Miron, Mordechai, Tel Aviv University (Israel) Mitchem, Kate, West Virginia University (USA) Mitchem, Timothy, West Virginia University (USA) Mller, Andreas, LMU Munich (Germany)

Naidoo, Kethamonie, University of Limpopo (South Africa) Nicolai, Claudia, Haso-Plattner-Institut (Germany) Notzer, Netta, Center for Academic Studies (Israel)

Park, David, Florida International University (USA) Parry, Greg, Edith Cowan University (Australia) Paskarbie, Nils, Hochschule Bremerhaven (Germany) Peknik, Patricia, Berklee College of Music (USA) Pithers, Robert, University of Technology, Sydney (Australia) Quick, Paul, University of Georgia (USA) Rach, Jutta, WWU Muenster (Germany) Rankin, Graham, Kwantlen Polytechnic University (Canada) Richardson, Leslie, Florida International University (USA) Riznek, Lori, University of Toronto (Canada) Remmer-Nossek, Brigitte, (University of Vienna (Austria) Sabally, Ebrima, The Gambia Youth Care Foundation (Gambia) Sackville, Andrew, Edge Hill University (United Kingdom) Saranchuk, Natasja, University of Alberta (Canada) Sargent, Margaret, Southern Connecticut State University (USA) Schafft, Thomas, Bielefeld University (Germany) Senst, Erik, Bielefeld University (Germany) Sherratt, Cathy, Edge Hill University (United Kingdom) Shirley, Christine, Lingnan University (Hong Kong) Stauffer, Gregory, Utah System of Higher Education (USA) Stieger, Janine, RWTH Aachen University (Germany) Thielsch, Angelika, Technical University-Munich (Germany) Tierney, Anne, University of Glasgow (United Kingdom) Tolks, Daniel, Witten/Herdecke University (Germany) Truss, Matthew, Berklee College of Music (USA) Tyler, Clifford, National University (USA) Wachter, Hans Peter, University of Oklahoma (USA)

Wafula Judith, Daystar University (Kenya) Walker, David, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania (USA) Wei, Petra, Bielefeld University (Germany) Wilkinson, James, Harvard University (USA) Wilson, Aileen, University of Strathclyde (United Kingdom) Wong, Siu Man, Hong Kong Institute of Educaiton (Hong Kong) Zakrajsek, Todd, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (USA) Zubizarreta, John, Columbia College (USA)