Teaching Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education [1st ed.] 9789811548468, 9789811548475

This book discusses emerging issues related to teaching-learning in Indian higher education and the integration of techn

790 72 3MB

English Pages VIII, 179 [179] Year 2020

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Teaching Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education [1st ed.]
 9789811548468, 9789811548475

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-viii
Teaching–Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education: An Introduction (N. V. Varghese, Sayantan Mandal)....Pages 1-15
The Idea of Academic Freedom and Its Implications for Teaching and Learning (William G. Tierney)....Pages 17-28
Globalization and Higher Education: The Changing Context and Landscape in Singapore (Uma Natarajan, Hoe Yeong Loke, S. Gopinathan)....Pages 29-39
Developing Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Experiences from Danish Universities (Bjarne Wahlgren)....Pages 41-54
Developing Institutional Leadership for Improving Teaching–Learning with New Technologies (Thomas J. Sork)....Pages 55-65
Improving Teaching and Learning in Indian Higher Education (Sayantan Mandal)....Pages 67-83
Teaching-Learning: A Study of Undergraduate Level of Education (Neeru Snehi)....Pages 85-99
Blending Learning Provision for Higher Education: Planning Future Professional Development (Don Passey, Angela Siew-Hoong Lee)....Pages 101-116
Facilitating Active Learning Opportunities for Students Through the Use of Technology-Enhanced Learning Tools: The Case for Pedagogic Innovation and Change (Richard Walker)....Pages 117-133
Improving the Power of Lecture Method in Higher Education (Saemah Rahman)....Pages 135-147
Triangular Model of Outcome-Based Higher Education Performance (Mona Khare)....Pages 149-165
Collaboration for the E-learning Space in ASEAN (Nopraenue S. Dhirathiti, Supachai Yavaprabhas)....Pages 167-179

Citation preview

N. V. Varghese Sayantan Mandal   Editors

Teaching Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education

Teaching Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education

N. V. Varghese Sayantan Mandal •

Editors

Teaching Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education

123

Editors N. V. Varghese National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (NIEPA) New Delhi, Delhi, India

Sayantan Mandal Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology Jammu (IIT Jammu) Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir, India

ISBN 978-981-15-4846-8 ISBN 978-981-15-4847-5 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4847-5

(eBook)

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Contents

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Teaching–Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education: An Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N. V. Varghese and Sayantan Mandal

1

The Idea of Academic Freedom and Its Implications for Teaching and Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . William G. Tierney

17

Globalization and Higher Education: The Changing Context and Landscape in Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uma Natarajan, Hoe Yeong Loke, and S. Gopinathan

29

Developing Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Experiences from Danish Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bjarne Wahlgren

41

Developing Institutional Leadership for Improving Teaching–Learning with New Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thomas J. Sork

55

Improving Teaching and Learning in Indian Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sayantan Mandal

67

Teaching-Learning: A Study of Undergraduate Level of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Neeru Snehi

85

Blending Learning Provision for Higher Education: Planning Future Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Don Passey and Angela Siew-Hoong Lee

v

vi

Contents

9

Facilitating Active Learning Opportunities for Students Through the Use of Technology-Enhanced Learning Tools: The Case for Pedagogic Innovation and Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Richard Walker

10 Improving the Power of Lecture Method in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Saemah Rahman 11 Triangular Model of Outcome-Based Higher Education Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Mona Khare 12 Collaboration for the E-learning Space in ASEAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Nopraenue S. Dhirathiti and Supachai Yavaprabhas

Editors and Contributors

About the Editors N. V. Varghese, Ph.D. is a Vice Chancellor of the National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (NIEPA) and Director of the Centre for Policy Research in Higher Education (CPRHE) at NUEPA, New Delhi. He has been actively involved in educational planning at the federal and decentralized levels, and with the design and development of externally funded education projects in India, for many years. He has directed several research projects, and has published more than 20 books and research reports and nearly 180 research papers and articles on educational planning, financing, and higher education. Dr. Sayantan Mandal is a senior Assistant Professor at the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) in the Indian Institute of Technology Jammu (IIT Jammu). Previously, he has worked at the National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (NIEPA), and at the University of Delhi, New Delhi, India. Dr. Mandal also worked at the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning, Hamburg as an intern and has several years of working experience in the NGO sector, focusing on educational development. He has graduated from the Aarhus University, Denmark; has done his PhD, with Cum Laude, from the University of Deusto, Spain. He has published in several journals and presented papers at national and international conferences, especially on teaching and learning in higher education.

Contributors Nopraenue S. Dhirathiti Mahidol University, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand S. Gopinathan The HEAD Foundation, Singapore, Singapore Mona Khare NIEPA, New Delhi, India

vii

viii

Editors and Contributors

Angela Siew-Hoong Lee Sunway University, Bandar Sunway, Malaysia Hoe Yeong Loke The HEAD Foundation, Singapore, Singapore Sayantan Mandal Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Jammu (IIT Jammu), Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir, India Uma Natarajan National Institute of Education, Singapore, Singapore Don Passey Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK Saemah Rahman Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia Neeru Snehi National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi, India Thomas J. Sork University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada William G. Tierney University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA N. V. Varghese NIEPA, New Delhi, India Bjarne Wahlgren Aarhus University, Copenhagen, Denmark Richard Walker University of York, York, UK Supachai Yavaprabhas Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

Chapter 1

Teaching–Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education: An Introduction N. V. Varghese and Sayantan Mandal

Abstract Understanding teaching, learning, and the use of technology in improving, facilitating the process require in-depth understanding of the issue, which also helps investigating it with references of different contexts and from various standpoints. One of the important global trends in higher education in this century is the intensification of competition for reputation and the institutional reputation is based on the perceived quality of education imparted by higher education institutions. Modern digital technologies and widespread information have also added another dimension to this. And as a result, teachers are no longer seen as knowledge providers but more like mentors and facilitators of learning. Students also require to process, analyze, and make use of the information available, rather than to memorize it. Realizing these, the majority of developed nations have taken steps to revamp teaching–learning and integrate technology with the process in a coherent manner. In developing countries, including India, it is gradually becoming an emerging area of research. This chapter argues that there is a serious need to focus on the teaching processes, device robust feedback mechanism from different stakeholders, and continuous analytical insights to understand the changing needs before suggesting reform measures. There is also a need to re-examine faculty development. It should evolve to incorporate the new technological developments and use them effectively to facilitate learning. These reforms require a series of innovative and well-calibrated steps, and as of now, there is no single successful model, which stands out from the rest. Experimentations are going on all over the world to find suitable context-specific solutions.

N. V. Varghese (B) NIEPA, New Delhi, India e-mail: [email protected] S. Mandal Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Jammu (IIT Jammu), Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir, India © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 N. V. Varghese and S. Mandal (eds.), Teaching Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4847-5_1

1

2

N. V. Varghese and S. Mandal

Introduction One of the important global trends in higher education in this century is the intensification of competition for reputation. The advent of external and internal quality assurance regimes, the emergence of university rankings, and the move towards establishing world-class universities are reflections of competition for reputation. The institutional reputation is based on the perceived quality of education imparted by higher education institutions. The institutional reputation is the basis for attracting a large number of students, especially cross-border students, and high-quality teachers which together translate into increased revenues for the institutions and higher profits for the investors. The quality of teachers and the teaching–learning thus form important elements influencing learning outcomes and employment possibilities of the graduates in the global market. In the globalized context of higher education investing in reputation is, therefore, increasingly perceived as economically rewarding and academically satisfying. The globalization process has also set global standards to be achieved by national institutions of higher education. The quality assurance mechanisms (external and internal) and qualification framework help institutions to monitor teaching–learning processes, regulate quality and enhance learning outcomes. In fact, the establishment of internal quality assurance cells reflects the need for monitoring teaching–learning processes within institutions. The reliance on technology has added another dimension to the teaching–learning process. The technology has transformed the teaching–learning process from an institutional level activity to a globally connected process. The teachers and students now have access to online resources to supplement, if not substitute, the traditional classroom teaching–learning processes. The use of OER (Open Educational Resources), MOOCs, and other technology-mediated platforms to reinforce teaching–learning process is common in many institutions of higher education.

Link Between Teaching and Learning The focus on teaching stems from the underlying assumption that there exists a high and positive correlation between high-quality teaching and high-quality student learning (Erika and Prosser 1998). The fundamental question is how to improve student learning. The belief that good teaching will improve learner achievement forms the basis for all prioritizing teacher development and investing heavily in teacher training programmes. Although it is very difficult to identify the qualities of best teachers; some of the elements are common in effective teaching and of good teachers are content knowledge, pedagogic knowledge, and technical knowledge. A good teacher knows what to teach, how to teach, and how to improve (Stephenson 2001) student learning. Traditionally teaching–learning process revolved around

1 Teaching–Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education …

3

the course contents, textbooks, teachers, and lecturers. The new forms of higher education provisions demand change in the teaching and learning process. The belief that good teaching leads to improved student learning is true to a large extent, the influence of teaching on learning is, perhaps, declining because of the existing modes of learning in a technology-mediated learning situation. More importantly, classroom teaching–learning is context related and contexts vary widely between institutions. A good quality teaching needs to address the reality of the classroom context and the varying experiences of the students. Teaching is not only about subject knowledge and the methods of delivery in the classroom, it is also about adjusting the teaching process so that learning of all is promoted. Quality teaching is student-centered and it ensures that all students learn. The focus thus needs to shift from the pedagogical skills possessed by the teacher to the learning environment and classroom context. Learning does not necessarily imply the capacity to reproduce contents, although many institutions, especially at the school level promote rote learning. In higher education, unlike in school education, the students may try to interpret and understand the same study material differently. Such variations in understanding and learning processes are natural and should be accepted. The approach to learning in higher education needs to differentiate between surface learning and deep learning. A surface approach to learning focuses on rote memorization to meet the external demands such as examination. A deep approach to learning, on the other hand, focuses on efforts to understand the material they are studying (Trigwell and Prosser 1991) Needless to add, surface learning results in low-quality learning outcomes and deep learning leads to higher quality learning outcomes. The first step to quality teaching is quality teachers and that is why the profile of teachers who enter the teaching profession matters when measures are adopted to improve teaching. The relative status of the teaching profession is not very high in many countries and hence the best graduates are not necessarily attracted to the teaching profession. As part of the economic development process employment opportunities expanded in sectors other than education. Many a time salary and working conditions in the newly emerging areas are better and therefore the best graduates from higher education institutions are not attracted to the teaching profession in many countries. It seems two basic models that shape teacher employment are evident in the participating countries, namely, “career-based” and “position-based” (OECD 2014). In career-based systems, teachers are recruited based on academic qualifications and remain as civil servants throughout their careers. Internal promotion policies follow general rules governing public services such as years of experience. Position-based system allows more open access at a wide range of ages and entry from other careers. Promotions are based on successful competition for successive higher grades and jobs. Teaching profession enjoys a high status in some countries such as Finland, Korea, and Ireland. The teacher recruitment process in these countries is more comprehensive and competitive. The preference in recruitment is for those who show deeper subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and practice. Many countries have a system of intensive induction programmes after recruitment. In recent times,

4

N. V. Varghese and S. Mandal

India has made serious efforts to recruit quality teachers into the system. Not only the higher education teachers are offered better salaries and working conditions but also the recruitment criteria are redefined. At the recommendation of the Mehrotra Committee, the UGC introduced the National Eligibility Test (NET) examination from 1989 onwards to shortlist potential quality teachers for the higher education institutions.

Teacher Recruitment in India The first education commission of independent India also known as the Radhakrishnan Commission (1948), emphasized the central role of teachers in shaping the minds of students and the future of higher education in the country. The Commission pointed to the need for teachers to be aware of the latest developments in their respective domains of knowledge. The education commission (1964–66) advocated for all India search to identify outstanding and promising young persons for teaching and research jobs. The education commission also recommended a review of teachers’ salaries every five years and parity in the dearness allowance paid to teachers with that of the government servants with the same salary. It also called for a system of pre-selection of new teachers and attaching them to the major universities for about a year for orienting them to quality teaching. The University Grants Commission appointed a committee in December 1983 under the Chairmanship of Professor R. C. Mehrotra to examine the present structure of emoluments and conditions of service of University and College teachers to attract the best minds to teaching profession. The committee recommended that: (a) a qualifying NationalTest be conducted for entering the teaching profession; and (b) teachers should have a Master’s degree with at least 55% marks or its equivalent grade and good academic record. The first NET examinations were held in 1989 and NET has become a necessary eligibility criterion for teacher selection to institutions of higher education in India. There are two types of teacher recruitment processes in India. One pattern dominant in the public institutions of higher education, especially in the colleges, is recruitment to the system. The other pattern is institution-specific recruitments (Varghese et al. 2015). Teacher recruitments in most of the universities (Central and State Universities) follow institution-specific recruitment and the teachers are not transferable from one institution to another. They are governed by the rules, regulations, and salary and service conditions of the university and are not part of the civil service. In this case, the university notifies the positions, constitutes a selection committee, and invites candidates for interviews. The empirical research on teaching and learning has been limited in quantity and has been mostly confined to developed countries. However, it is becoming an emerging area of research in developing countries. Many countries have established academies or specialized institutions of teaching and learning to carry out research studies and develop strategies to improve learning outcomes in higher education.

1 Teaching–Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education …

5

India also needs to establish specialized institutions or academies to carry out research in the area of teaching–learning in higher education.

Teaching and Learning Process The teacher is no longer the sole source of knowledge. Neither teaching nor learning is a synchronic process taking place at a time and in a place. Very often than not, the teaching and learning process is asynchronous, anonymous, and invisible. This changes the teaching practices and the competencies to be possessed by the teacher. The teacher is not only a pedagogue but also a good manager of the teaching–learning process and classroom. This requires that a teacher needs to combine one’s subject expertise with managerial skills and teaching becomes more flexible addressing the needs of the learners. The teaching–learning process involves a wide range of complex interactions between teacher, students, classroom settings, and learning activities. Technology brings another dimension to the changes in teaching–learning practices. In fact, the shift towards a more technology-oriented higher education can be considered as a paradigm shift as well. The shift, not only changes the way the content is delivered and translated to the learners but also put the teacher in a state where s/he cannot remain only a source of information. As a result, teachers are becoming facilitators, mentors, and managers of learning. This fundamental shift from the traditional teaching model also brings the traditional roles of the teachers under the scanner. Empirical evidence suggest that the traditional lecture method is still the most common teaching method employed in institutions of higher education, mostly in developing countries. A recent study by the CPRHE/NIEPA (Mandal 2018) found that the lecture method is the predominant method of teaching at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels in Indian higher education institutions with some variations. The lecturing at the undergraduate level is much more authoritative, and informationdriven and focuses on contents. The students are passive respondents of the content knowledge and are mostly listeners to the lectures. The classroom process is teachercentric. The teaching at the postgraduate level, on the other hand, is much more interactive, involving questions and answers, and students are more engaged in the process. The changing role of teachers also puts considerable pressure to change the teaching style, adopt technology in a certain way, which can be termed as ‘mainstream’. However, in these changing circumstances, do they enjoy the same level of freedom that they used to enjoy in the traditional modes of teaching? Are they now bound by the obligations of new pedagogy and technological demands which often come as mandates? It is interesting to know-how the changing role of the teachers and the teaching–learning process affects academic freedom in the higher educational landscape.

6

N. V. Varghese and S. Mandal

Around the world, the objectives of higher education have become more complex, where teachers are expected to help students to develop knowledge, solve problems, become creative, collaborate with heterogeneous groups, and so forth. The students have to learn how to learn and how to use that knowledge in the world of work. On the other hand, the nature of learning has diversified as learners are not only supposed to get knowledge from the teacher(s), but also from various other sources—formal, non-formal, and informal. The learning should be meaningful, authentic, and usable and should foster creativity. The demands from the teachers and learners are many and those eventually come to the teachers to deliver.

Changes Brought by the Modern Technological Developments The global abundance of knowledge through digital technologies is challenging the teachers’ authority of knowledge. Students are becoming more demanding, questioning, and thus making the traditional job of the teacher much more stressful than ever. It is no longer ‘just teach’. HEIs are, on the other hand stressing on building ICT infrastructures and expect the teachers to use them optimally for the development of the students. Policies are pushing the idea of using technologies even further, with or without much consideration of the change process that is crucial to integrate teaching and learning with the technology. Irrespective of the tremendous progress and the benefits technology brings, there is a considerable amount of tension created. Not only do the teachers have to compete with their colleagues, but also compete with the vast body of knowledge that is being added to the digital world each moment. Moreover, they need to learn the technologies, master them, and incorporate them with their traditional teaching to satisfy not only the students but also the administrations and governments. It is obvious that these changes are not easy and need multilevel planning. The present trend to cope with these complex challenges is not at par with the complexities of the challenges. The suggestive measures are proposing simplistic solutions to the problems and expect to achieve overnight success. The linear-scaling that is to think of the same model for all levels of education where the scale of inputs increases, not addressing the complexities of each level and sub-levels (e.g. subjects, disciplines, and institutions). The proposed solutions are in turn increasing the burden on the teachers and expect them to do the ‘miracle’—which is very unlikely unless we evolve the components of conventional higher education to a new one. As mentioned earlier—this requires a paradigm shift.

1 Teaching–Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education …

7

Impact of Technology on Teaching and Learning The advent of technology in teaching–learning practices makes it fundamentally less structured. The information transaction has taken a backseat, whereas interaction and participation have become the new ‘mantra’ of teaching, as information is now readily available. This shift from a ‘transaction paradigm’ to the ‘constructivist paradigm’ has encouraged more debates and direct engagements with the students in both faceto-face and digitally mediated formats. From a presentation-oriented model, this is leading to demonstration, interaction, and finally collaboration; and from passive to active role of the learners and teachers; where a teacher is a facilitator, and not a provider of information. At this juncture, digital technology provides an active learning environment through increased access and sharing of the facilities and contents. The potential of this technology to reach large audiences was in fact the first advantage it offered. Its capacity to reach the users anyplace and anytime holds the key to the paradigm shift. It contested the belief that classroom time is equal to learning time. The advancement of digital technology has added even more facilities such as simulations, virtual labs, customizable contents and exercises, adaptive modules, and so on to cater to individual needs and demands. This has placed a strong argument for adapting the technological paradigm into teaching and learning. Recent studies have demonstrated that technology can help to improve the quality of teachers and teaching. The multimedia materials can enhance the quality of the training materials. Simulations, examples of best teaching practices, interaction with national and international experts in distance modes can significantly enhance the content and delivery of teacher professional development. It also provides the opportunity for lifelong learning and development as it supports anytime-anywhere mode of teaching and learning. The training on demand; easily customizable contents and introduction of new courses video lectures and so on work as enhancers of quality even further. Online interactions and group discussions make the teachers discuss more the problems and solutions. This may help to break the academic isolation and inject a sense of connected teacher community. Needless to say, technology integration can improve the learning process and outcomes. The technology-enabled learning such as e-learning, virtual campuses and learning spaces offer students alternative avenues for learning, which are different from the traditional face-to-face learning conditions. The ICT-based programmes provide wider access and flexibility of teaching and learning methods. E-learning can be synchronous, which involves interaction of participants with an instructor via web in real-time and is supported by media, such as virtual classrooms, audio and video conferencing, chats, shared whiteboards, etc. Since the availability and types of information have changed, it demands a different teaching–learning approach than the traditional one. Several experiments are going on around the world, to find out several workable solutions for various teaching–learning situations. Using MOOCs or online courses as a supplementary

8

N. V. Varghese and S. Mandal

mode for the entire or part of the traditional course is one example. Some universities and educational institutes are offering entire PhDs in online mode. Blended learning is another approach, where teacher uses both online and classroom lectures to teach. The flipped classroom is the latest addition in this domain, where online study assignments are provided to the students, and classroom time is utilized for discussions, debates, and quizzes. Students learn in the classroom, as well as outside, with the help of technology. For the new-age learners, who are also referred to as the ‘net generation’ learners—this flexibility and reliance on technology bring new opportunities. The ‘net generation’ is tech-savvy and comfortable in the digital world. A learning process involving digital technologies could be more effective in this regard. A number of countries, such as the UK (Future Learn), USA (Coursera, edX, Udacity), Australia (Open2Study and other university created MOOCs), Brazil (Unopar), China (XuetangX), Germany (diversity), Japan (JMOOC from the Open University of Japan), Malaysian universities and universities in New Zealand are using a variety of models of MOOCs for higher education. The Indian government has recently launched an Indian focused MOOC platform called ‘SWAYAM’—Study Webs of Active Learning for Young Aspiring Minds or the e-PG Pathshala, to promote both synchronous and asynchronous teaching and learning.

Challenges A major difficulty in promoting ICT-based courses is the lack of inter and intrainstitutional collaboration for the promotion of e-learning space. The proliferation of e-learning has also been criticized. The level of access to higher education through technology is diversified, which is often limited to those who know and/or can afford modern technologies. This is a big issue for the learners of developing/low-income countries. The idea of ‘technology reduces inequalities by providing easy access to all’ can perhaps be questioned. One of the important changes in the higher education sector is the increased demand. Alongside, the student body has diversified. The share of students belonging to disadvantaged families and first-generation higher education groups is increasing. The economic capabilities, technical competencies, and orientation of the students may be different from that of the elite students. Teachers are often not trained to address diversity in the classrooms and hence feel it is difficult to manage the students. Teacher-student interaction remains low and many teachers believed that this is the problem of the students rather than teachers or administrators. This attitude needs to be changed. Introducing technology and promoting it without a detailed understanding of the diversifying situation, therefore, comes with inherent challenges. To analyze the issue, we need to look at it from different vantage points. The first one is from the policy perspective. There is a naïve notion that technology alone can fix the problems of higher education. However, technology is a tool and it

1 Teaching–Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education …

9

can only facilitate the process. The idea that technology will provide access to all, does not address the issue of quality with equal importance (Varghese and Mandal 2016). If the loopholes of classroom education are carried forward in the online/distance mode, then it will result in expected negative outcomes. Therefore policies need to set the objectives first and then use technology as a tool, without over-glorifying its potential. Another point, which is related to the above, is that there is a belief that installing computers, internet connection and projectors will improve the quality of higher education overnight. No doubt these are some of the basic prerequisite for the promotion of technology-mediated teaching–learning. However, it is equally important to find out what is appropriate, how much is needed, and what will be the use. Moreover, in the world of fast-changing technology, there is a need for constant up-gradation of not just the hardware, but also the technical capacities of the persons using them. A clear framework with practically viable recommendations would provide the needed clarity. Financial arrangements for acquisition, installation, configuration, connection, maintenance, support, and replacement should be arranged based on the need and objectives. The above discussion brings us to the next important challenge—i.e. approach towards teaching–learning and technology. The objective of traditional education is to transmit the information as knowledge, which largely focuses on the mastery of the content. If this percolates into the domain of technology-mediated learning, then the results will not be much different than that of the earlier model. Moreover, it will miss the opportunities of interpersonal interaction and make the learners as static and passive recipients of the contents via virtual mode. There could be a minor enhancement, such as video lectures and online diagrams—but it neglects the idea of skill-building. Therefore the approach needs to be fixed first, and then it should be explored how technology can be used optimally to foster the skills, both generic and subject-specific. The previous point, however, does not invalidate the importance of content. In fact, it is the most crucial component of teaching–learning where technology provides us with different mediums to access and understand the content. So, how to create content which is relevant, exciting to learn, and are compatible with the modern teaching–learning process is the fourth important challenge. Merely compiling the contents from various available sources would fulfil just a part of the requirement halfheartedly. Innovative initiatives are required to collate reliable, relevant, and appropriate content for the teacher as well as for the learners. Perhaps one of the most important challenges is the integration of technology with teaching and learning. An approach of integration depends on certain preconceived notions of how the role of both sides (technology and teaching–learning) has been perceived. One, technology can be an additional mode of resources for the users (teachers and students) to take benefit from. The problem is this approach makes technology ‘additional’ and not an integral part of the system. The second approach is to offer the technology as the main tool in a parallel system. The distance learning mode is an apt example of the same, where it runs in parallel with the

10

N. V. Varghese and S. Mandal

existing brick and mortar system of education. The third approach is where technology can be treated as an integral part of the existing system. This requires complex efforts, as it involves resetting the objectives, redefining the delivery mechanisms, reformulating the content, and calibrating teaching–learning in a balanced way so that technology does not appear as a substitute, but as an inseparable part of the entire process. There are efforts to integrate technology and teaching–learning, but it is important to augment the processes, depending on the contexts and its requirements. Arguably, more in-depth studies and extensive experimentations are required to achieve a synergy between the two.

Conclusion Reforms in higher education have many avenues. The discussion above introduces us with an initial understanding of the discourses, some of which are discussed in detail in the following chapters. The discussion has highlighted several important points related to teaching–learning and new technologies in higher education. It is found that improving the quality of teaching–learning is a major concern in contemporary higher education around the world. Technologies have great potential to disseminate knowledge, promote self and assisted learning, and provide efficient educational services. However, its potential depends on several important and intertwined factors. Some of them are related to the policies, whereas some others depend on the capacities of the countries to reap the benefits of technology and spread it to all. The challenge is more prominent for the developing countries, as they are trying to invest in human resource development to keep pace with the global knowledge-driven economy and society. Their situations are more diverse too, where a larger share of the students are non-elites and have varied educational capacities and entering higher education with immensely diverse socio-economic conditions. In this regard, there are several important context-specific determining factors. There is a strong belief in support of technologies and it is considered as one of the most capable tools to solve the problems of effective teaching and learning. However, integrating technology into higher education teaching–learning is a very sophisticated and complex process. The common attribute stresses focusing on the core process and identify the main actors who are irreplaceable. There are three core actors in teaching–learning in higher education—teachers, learners, and administration, which largely creates a major share of the learning environment. Whether in physical or digital formats, the interaction of these three actors is necessary. First, it is important to focus on good teaching, as good teachers. Secondly, there is a serious need to focus on the teaching processes, device robust feedback mechanism from different stakeholders, and continuous analytical insights to understand the changing needs before suggesting reform measures. It is perceived that students in higher education want a joyful learning experience. Teachers recognize it too. Hence, the linkages between the students’ approach to learning and

1 Teaching–Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education …

11

teachers’ approach to teaching should be synchronized. There is also a need to reexamine faculty development. It should evolve to incorporate the new technological developments and use them effectively to facilitate learning. Finally, there is a need to re-examine the beliefs about technology and its potential. There is hope as it is now widely recognized that technology cannot be viewed as an elixir. To integrate technology, it is first important to understand the context, assess it well to figure out the technological requirements, and then plan ahead to achieve the objectives. Reform measures need to be rooted in an empirical contextspecific evidence. There is a need to think of what level of technology can be used most effectively. It is equally important to share that experience with others so that more innovative solutions can be found. It requires a series of innovative and wellcalibrated steps, and as of now, there is no single successful model, which stands out from the rest. Experimentations are going on all over the world to find suitable context-specific solutions.

Teaching, Learning, and New Technologies in Higher Education The book, Teaching, Learning, and New Technologies in Higher Education has four broad themes in its conceptual frame. The first theme is globalization and the changing discourse, which discusses the issues of academic freedom, teaching– learning in the context of globalizing higher education. The second theme focuses on the core issue of teaching and learning in higher education, followed by the third one, which discusses the issue of technology in improving higher education. The fourth theme on Teaching–Learning and Technology complements the discussions under the previous theme by emphasizing on various modes and methods of making teaching, learning, and evaluation effective.

Globalization and the Changing Discourse Increasing focus on outcomes of education and institutional autonomy are changing the landscapes of academic autonomy. Do the teachers of higher education enjoy more autonomy in these changing setups? This chapter on the Idea of Academic Freedom and Its Implications for Teaching and Learning by William G. Tierney discusses several facets of the relationship between institutional versus academic autonomy and its implications on changing teaching and learning in a globalized context. Chapter 2 by Uma Natrajan on Globalization and Higher Education: the Changing Context and Landscapes in Singapore provides a detailed case study of how globalization has (re)shaped teaching and learning in higher education in Singapore, one of

12

N. V. Varghese and S. Mandal

the developed places of the East. With changing demands, and international players, rules, and regulations have also changed to improve the standard of higher education to a global level. The efforts have multilevel consequences, which are critically discussed in the chapter. Chapter 3 by Bjarne Wahlgren discusses the condition of a Nordic country, which has yielded high regard for its educational achievements. Denmark, as one of the major Nordic countries, has been reforming its policies of higher education teaching and learning. It is now outcome-based, but with increased freedom to the academic and students. This chapter highlights the changing discourse of Nordic countries with a special focus on Denmark. The experience in Denmark shows that its priority is to promote the democratic structure of the teaching process, which includes flexibility, practical based education, and problem-oriented teaching methods. The structure in the Danish higher education system is characterized by a principle of flexibility. The pedagogic strategy must focus on the ability to solve problems and the ability to transfer knowledge from the university context to real-life situations.

Teaching and Learning in Higher Education This section deals with the core issue of teaching and learning from different vantage points. While the chapter by Tom Sork discusses the role of leadership in improving the qualities of teaching and learning, the case studies on Indian higher education depict how teaching and learning are taking place, in the chapter by Sayantan Mandal and Neeru Snehi. Tom Sork’s chapter on developing institutional leadership for improving teaching– learning provides us with a conceptual analysis of the interlinking technology and teaching–learning with the role of leadership in developing the qualities of higher education institutions. It elaborates on the general and specific strategies that determine which universities are able to adopt new technologies for teaching and learning, and what kind of leadership is ideal for making the necessary changes. Sork explains how by building capacities, inventing in digital ecosystem, incentivizing innovation, rewarding, and celebrating successes a leader can assure quality for the institution. The next chapter on ‘Improving Teaching and Learning in Indian Higher Education’ by Sayantan Mandal talks about teaching and learning practices, its variation across levels and disciplines in the Indian higher educational context. The chapter, based on a national level study, finds out why teaching in Indian colleges and universities needs substantial reforms. Based on the findings of the study, it recommends several key action points, for the improvement of the sector. The discussion on teaching in Indian higher education is taken forward by Neeru Snehi, who in the chapter ‘Teaching–Learning: A Study of Undergraduate Level of Education’ explores the teaching–learning activities taking place in the higher education institutions, highlighting the meaning and importance of teaching profession in Indian educational context. The chapter specifically focuses on teaching–learning in undergraduate higher education institutions, and draws references from case studies.

1 Teaching–Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education …

13

The empirical evidences and analysis lay the foundation for some of the suggestions for improving teaching–learning in Indian higher educational contexts.

Use of Technology in Improving Higher Education Followed by the previously mentioned theme, which discusses teaching and learning, this theme links them with technology. The section on the ‘use of technology in improving higher education’ thus not only talks about the influence of technology but argues how different kinds of modern technologies have the potential to improve higher education, if planned and implemented post customization according to the context(s). The chapter takes the discussion on blended learning forward and argues for ‘new ways’ of teaching and learning considering the massification of higher education. It focuses on the contemporary challenge for education, which is to develop a sustained, long-term, effective enactment of teacher practices with current and future digital technologies. The chapter categorically explains the shifts in teaching and learning processes and shows how the new pedagogies, entering with new technologies can be useful to the teachers, who consider the new practices and adapt to the changes. Passey’s chapter shows that due to the increasing influence of technology in higher education, not only teaching–learning, but also the management of learning is going to witness a major shift. Greater emphasis on mentoring and guidance and greater learner control on their education is a forthcoming path higher education is going to see in the coming years. The final chapter in this section by Richard Walker focuses more on innovation and how to facilitate active learning opportunities for students through the use of technology-enhanced learning tools. This paper reflects on recent developments in the adoption of technology-enhanced learning (TEL) tools across the UK higher education sector—in particular the rise of student-controlled and creative technologies to promote information, knowledge-sharing, and networking in learning and teaching activities. The paper also discusses the impact of these technological developments on the delivery of campus-based courses—specifically the scope that learning technologies now present for innovation in the delivery of the taught curriculum.

Teaching–Learning and Technology The final theme of the book is teaching–learning and technology, which starts with the chapter by Saemah Rahman on ‘Improving the Power of Lecture Method in Higher Education’. A common phenomenon in the higher education institution of the developing countries is that the traditional lecture method is often used in teaching large classes. However, the traditional lecture method of teaching is associated with inefficiency due to a lack of opportunities for students to engage in the learning process.

14

N. V. Varghese and S. Mandal

In this context, the use of an interactive lecture method provides a learning environment that encourages student’s active participation and has the potential to improve the quality of teaching and learning in large classrooms. This paper discusses the concept and benefits of interactive lecture method and the use of web-based applications to support the implementation of an interactive lecture method. To elucidate, it takes references from a study carried out in Malaysia on the implementation of an interactive lecture method. The chapter discusses the issue of learning outcomes. Written by Mona Khare, the chapter on ‘Triangular Model of Outcome-Based Higher Education Performance’ attempts to suggest an effective way of measuring student learning outcomes. It argues that the usual practice of measuring learning outcomes has to undergo a paradigm shift to become more broad-based and practice-oriented. It proposes a comprehensive yet simple triangular model by taking account of multiple dimensions of learning and their facilitating environment. The final chapter of the book by Nopraenue S. Dhirathiti titled ‘Collaboration for the E-learning Space in ASEAN’ It argues that besides the needs to use education, especially higher education, to be the driving force in the globalized world for economic growth and to increase regional competitiveness and social cohesion, it is also designed to meet the needs of the students and to accommodate the new paradigm of education. Hence, a significant step for both policymakers and educators is to consider joining the force in creating common spaces in higher education. Discussing the case of the ASEAN countries, Dhirathiti highlights that at the inter-governmental level, the attempt to collaborate for new learning, teaching, and research spaces is in progress. It is also an area where educational, research, and training activities could be conducted with the same standards or guidelines of assessment, recognition, and quality.

References Erika, M., & Prosser, M. (1998). What constitutes high quality teaching and learning and how to assure it. Quality Assurance in Education, 6(1), 28–36. Mandal, S. (2018). Teaching in Indian higher education: Six principles for improvement, Vol. 95, Fall issue. Boston: International Higher Education. OECD: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2014). Skills beyond schools: Synthesis report, Paris, OECD. Stephenson, F. (2001). Extra ordinary teachers: The essence of excellent teaching. Andrews Macmeel: Kansas City. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Improving the quality of student learning: The influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. Higher Education, 22, 251–266. Varghese, N. V., & Manda, S. (2016). Report on the international seminar on teaching-learning and new technologies in higher education jointly organized by CPRHE and British Council. New Delhi: CPRHE.

1 Teaching–Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education …

15

Varghese, N. V., Malik, G., & Gautam, D. R. (2015). Teacher recruitment in higher education in India: The role of national eligibility test (NET). New Delhi: CPRHE/NUEPA Research Report submitted to University Grants Commission.

Professor N. V. Varghese is the Vice Chancellor of the National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (NIEPA), New Delhi, and the Director of the Centre for Policy Research in Higher Education (CPRHE/NIEPA). He was Head of Governance and Management in Education at the International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP/UNESCO), Paris till October 2013. He was responsible for managing the Asian Network of Training and Research Institutions in Educational Planning (ANTRIEP) and was also the Secretary-General of the International Working Group on Education (IWGE). Dr. Sayantan Mandal is a senior Assistant Professor at the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Jammu (IIT Jammu). Previously, he was a faculty at the Centre for Policy Research in Higher Education, (CPRHE), National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (NIEPA), New Delhi. He has coordinated the CPRHE/NIEPA nationallevel study on Teaching and Learning in Indian Higher Education, funded by the UGC. He holds a Doctorate in Education Policy Analysis from the University of Deusto, Spain, and a Masters degree from the Danish School of Education. Before joining NIEPA, he was a faculty at the University of Delhi and worked at the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL, Hamburg).

Chapter 2

The Idea of Academic Freedom and Its Implications for Teaching and Learning William G. Tierney

Abstract Professors are evaluated by their peers based on the quality of their ideas in their research and teaching, rather than by administrators or legislators for instrumental or ideological reasons. Academic freedom—broadly defined as the freedom to teach and conduct research without fear or concern of retribution—remains at the heart of the modern university. Or does it? Is academic freedom a distinctly Western tradition, essential in such countries as the United States and Australia, but expendable in non-Western countries like China or Ethiopia? As academic labor becomes commoditized and transitory in the twenty-first century, is the value of academic freedom declining? Does a social medium pose different issues for how to think about academic freedom? In a knowledge-driven world framed by globalization is academic freedom more important than ever as an intellectual engine for creativity and innovation in the classroom and in the laboratory? These are the questions the chapter investigates by focusing on the classroom, teaching, and learning.

Introduction The concept of academic freedom in modern higher educational institutions is a little over a century old. As the research university emerged in the late nineteenth century, a growing number of graduate students studied in Europe became faculty members in the universities. These new faculty expected an environment where freedom of inquiry was celebrated. The ideas of new faculty members sometimes invited conflicts within the structures of the traditional university. The vast expansion of the academy during the latter part of the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth century incorporated research as a significant component of academic life, but the top authorities remained as the main arbiters of what an institution was to do. The role of the faculty was to transmit what was known and not to put efforts to invent, produce new knowledge. W. G. Tierney (B) University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 N. V. Varghese and S. Mandal (eds.), Teaching Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4847-5_2

17

18

W. G. Tierney

This chapter discusses the evolution of the notion of academic freedom in universities. The paper argues that academic freedom is a transcendent value and a core value of the academy cutting across various cultures of academic life. The chapter starts with a discussion on the genesis of academic freedom followed by a discussion on the contextualization of the term with regard to history and region. It further analyses how academic freedom functions in the classrooms and conclude by suggesting that academic freedom is a transcendent value and that although contextual interpretations certainly matter, as a core value of the academy, it cuts across the various cultures of academic life.

Evolution of the Idea of Academic Freedom For over a hundred years, the value for academia in many countries has been considered as academic freedom which includes the rights of a faculty member to have considerable autonomy in their research, teaching, and related academic activities. The belief that is key for academic freedom is that society gains when its academic counterparts are free to search and research knowledge and seek truth without external hindrance, and importantly, when they are equally free to represent their findings without any constrains. Professors are often evaluated by their colleagues, primarily on the basis of their ideas in their research and teaching, rather than by administrators or legislators for instrumental or ideological reasons (Tierney 1993). The assumption is that universities are conducted for the common good which depends upon the search for truth and its free exposition and not based on the political or economic interest of either an individual teacher or the institution. The acceptance of the importance of academic freedom has had several major consequences. In much of the world, to protect academic freedom, the idea of tenure—job security— has become commonplace in the academy. At the start of the twenty-first century, for example, over 95% of all traditional post-secondary institutions in the United States had some form of tenure (Tierney and Lechuga 2010). A tenured or permanent position in academia somewhat guarantees essential protection for academic freedom. The individual would be fearful of seeking the truth if his or her job was not secure. Administrators or external agents have the possibility to threaten faculty members to withdraw or not to renew the job contract(s). One the other hand, tenured faculty also had a particular responsibility to establish and protect academic freedom which is one of the central ideas of academia. Academic freedom is the freedom to engage in academic activities, conduct research, and teach without fear remains the cornerstone of the modern university. Or is it? Is academic freedom a predominately Western tradition, prevalent in countries such as the United States and Australia, from where it expanded to the non-Western countries? Does academic labor become commoditized and transitory in recent times? Does social media play an important role in influencing how to think and react to academic freedom? And importantly, is the value of academic freedom declining?

2 The Idea of Academic Freedom and Its Implications …

19

These are the questions I entertain here and focus, in particular, on the classroom academic freedom.which was traditionally associated with definitions of institutional quality. The underlying assumption says that society and the state are direct and indirect beneficiaries of the intellectual spaces, nurtured in the higher educational spheres, which resonates free inquiry and expression of ideas. The narrative champions that in a knowledge-driven global society, academic freedom is ever more important as it works directly as an intellectual core for creativity and innovation. Therefore, the world hugely benefits from intellectual institutions that support the ethos of academic freedom. Importantly, it plays a vital role to establish free societies by promoting and appreciating a greater level of awareness. Irrespective of the consensus, scholars throughout the world are criticized continuously by political, social, and cultural agents because of their research findings, new ideas, and their language of conduct in the classrooms. The frequency of these attacks have gone up in recent times, mainly as a consequence of commercialization. As the modern university enters the marketplace, the concerns about academic freedom started coming from new angles. With the advent of the internet, increasingly, scholars are utilizing blogs and social networking sites (e.g., Facebook), compared to the traditional academic resources (e.g., scholarly journals). It is important to note that powerful forces, with increasing control over the market and digital technology, now have the ability to limit access to information and new ideas. They perform this by suppressing academic activities such as research, publication, teaching, and learning which in turn, inhibiting academic freedom to a great extent. The perspective which contends various traditions of knowledge production indicates different understandings of the idea of academic freedom and the relationship between the society and scholarship. The issue of autonomy in higher education in India or Africa or that of the West goes through various norms and values of the region and is situated in a particular context on most occasions. Is it then practical to incorporate the Western perspectives of academic freedom to an Indian University, or a University located in the Middle East? The debates and associated answers are intertwined with one another. I would argue that (1) has the discipline or profession of the scholar, and (4) the profession of the academic the Clark (1987) are largely transferable. One does not study “Indian chemistry” or “American botany.” Accordingly, as I shall elaborate, academic freedom needs to be protected irrespective of cultural mores. The main purpose of the chapter is therefore to suggest academic freedom, which has been playing a foundational role in academia, varies widely by country, region, and with changing time. Deep down, academic freedom, in its traditional guise, resonates that the society benefits when faculty members engage freely, explore theories, and deliberate upon existing ideas and structures, without the fear of reprisal due to content.

Academic Freedom in Context As the research university took hold in the late nineteenth century, a growing number of students started studying in Europe, particularly in Germany, and assumed faculty

20

W. G. Tierney

positions with a desire to import the idea of Lehrfreiheit. Lehrfreiheit as defined by the historian Frederick Rudolph as, “the right of the university professor to freedom of inquiry and to freedom of teaching, the right to study and to report on his findings in an atmosphere of consent” (Rudolph 1962). The vast expansion of the academy during the latter part of the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth century incorporated research as a significant component of academic life, but the president and board of trustees remained as the sole arbiters of what an institution was to do. The major role of the faculty was not to invent, or produce new knowledge, but to transmit what was known. The notion of freedom from constraint, defined by Berlin (1958) as “negative freedom,” highlights a section of the puzzle regarding academic freedom. Berlin called the freedom to act and the capacity to do good things as “positive freedom” which represents the second part. These two parts, however, represent differing epistemologies, where positive freedom, focuses more on the development and enhancement of personal growth whereas the former enables people to act in a manner that they see fit, making negative freedom more individualistic. Negative freedom comes near synonymous or very close to being a “universal idea of academic freedom”— where academics cannot carry out any kind of responsibilities while they are literally constrained. On the contrary, positive freedom flows from a collective of individuals. It represents a great level of complexity and is a lot more culturally variant because the ideas of social action differ in the notion of positive freedom. The notion of academic freedom is linked with that of the social responsibility of academics. and if problems of “protection” and “vulnerability” are universal, national cultural perspectives might differ on whether a particular act of dissent or criticism is the exercise of academic freedom. Both of these ideas of academic freedom interact and are played out at the institutional level within countries that have a particular notion of the role of the university and the academics (Tierney and Lanford 2014). When “social” interactions are introduced, the equation of academic freedom started engaging with the articulations among universities and the state. It also engages with the universities and the community/society, and universities, and the public good. However, various articulations and their determinations are not the same in each case, but there is always a possible overlap between how one perceives the ideas of the “state”, “society” and “public good”. Although the enshrinement of academic freedom occurred in the twentieth century, violations of academic freedom have occurred as long as the Universities existed. The Catholic Church, for example, did not allow the teaching of free ideas that contradicted dominant doctrine. In addition to religious ideology, a country’s government also has circumscribed academic work for fear that a tertiary institution may contradict the ideology of the party in power. Nazi Germany, of course, is perhaps the clearest recent example of such a government where any form of freedom of expression in the universities was not allowed. The role of the state in higher education looms large in many, if not most, countries—in Latin America, Africa, North America, Asia, and in all those countries where the role of the state in the academia is not seen as a problem.

2 The Idea of Academic Freedom and Its Implications …

21

In Latin America, the Cordoba Reforms of 1918 pushed its countries to make their tertiary institutions autonomous, and consequently, allowed academic freedom to flourish. This action enabled academic freedom for, not only the faculty but also for students (Walter 1968). There, it can be said that the concept of academic freedom has gone hand in glove with the idea of university autonomy. Although academic freedom in countries such as the United States provided indirect support for all the stakeholders on campus to have substantial academic freedom, including students, in Latin America, the focus has emphasized student voice in addition to the professorate. However, elsewhere, there have been various degrees of infringements on academic freedom and autonomy throughout the twentieth century, but the idea has been a hallmark of academic life in Latin America (Tierney and Lanford 2014). What individuals teach in the classroom has long been a point of conflict. Catholic universities throughout the world required professors to adhere to the teachings of the Church. Universities in the Soviet Union required its faculty to teach from a particular standpoint, just as those institutions did in China under Mao Tse-tung. American academics were largely silent during the 1950s when their colleagues were purged from post-secondary institutions because they may have been members of the Communist Party. The books and materials faculty have used in their teaching has almost always been a point of conflict turning on how one defines and enacts academic freedom.

Contemporary Contexts Central and Eastern Europe and the countries of the former Soviet Union have had significant swings back and forth with regard to academic freedom. Some institutions are quite old and had a tradition of autonomy and freedom that was crushed during much of the twentieth century either from the Nazis or the Soviets. In the late twentieth century, however, with the collapse of communism, many of these institutions have seen a resurgence of autonomy. The free search for inquiry again trumps ideology and political control in some countries. In other countries, such as Russia, academic freedom is largely absent. The study of academic freedom in Australia was undertaken by Carole Kayrooz, Pamela Kinnear, and Paul Preston at the turn of the twenty-first century. It represents a good deal of discussion and their summation is helpful to quote at length: Academic freedom now operates within a financial environment characterized by increasing reliance on industry research funding, fee-based courses and consulting services. These trends, in turn, involve closer attention to the needs of ‘consumers’ and ‘markets’. The impact of this environment on social scientists’ experience of academic freedom is a matter of some concern for the quality of public debate and the health of democratic pluralism. (Kayrooz et al. 2001)

The publication of the study created a firestorm in the national press. Gerard Noonan and Abad Contractor pointed to the universities’ need to make money as a key concern for the health of universities. They outlined how increased reliance on full

22

W. G. Tierney

fee-paying international students had jeopardized the independence of academics to give a student a grade based on what the student earned, rather than on what the student had paid. They commented, “Some have alleged that they or their colleagues have felt under intense pressure to allow substandard work to be passed or be re-marked— invariably upwards—to keep as many full fee paying students as possible” (Noonan and Contractor 2001). The Sydney Morning Herald editorialized that the loss of academic freedom, ranging from the manner in which courses were graded to research funding methods, jeopardized the health and well-being of all of tertiary education and called for a government inquiry. Clive Hamilton, Director of the Australian Institute, which sponsored the initial study, asked: “The question the universities must answer is why a large number of academics, at considerable risk to their careers, would make the claims they have. Why would they lie?” (Hamilton 2001). Thus, there has been an increasing concern that academic freedom is at risk in Australian universities. Even though much has been deliberated about the administrative interference with academic freedom regarding the marks a student ought to get, there are multiple occasions where the academic freedom of a scholar is seriously jeopardized. Currie and Newsome (1998), for example, pointed out how individual autonomy had lessened in universities because of government cutbacks in funding, increased governmental regulation, and greater control. They pointed towards a linkage between greater accountability and a lessening of academic freedom with regard to the kind of research one did and the manner in which one carried out one’s research. Surveys conducted by McInnis (1998) and the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) (McConville and Allport 2000) supported the assertions by Currie and Newsome. They discovered an increase in the number of respondents who felt their intellectual freedom had been compromised. From these perspectives, academic freedom is an understood quality, a virtue of the academy, and it is at risk (Tierney 2009). The teacher is no longer free in the classroom to provide the correct grade to a student or to teach in a manner that he or she desires. Instead, the state or the institution have parameters defined by way of the marketplace and/or national ideology that determines what is to be taught, how teaching is to be done, and how faculty are to determine course grades. Rather than a search for abstract notions of truth where the academic decides the intellectual content of the course, the twentyfirst-century university is one where structure and function of academic coursework are taken out of the hands of the professoriate, and instead, the state becomes the arbiter of academic content and quality. The Asian and African countries which were colonies of the West experience less firmly rooted sense of academic freedom and it has been less well protected (Altbach 2001). The reasons for such trend are historically rooted when the colonizers established the tertiary institutions in the form of training institutions for better employment and more labor force than intellectual arenas engaged in the search and struggle for truth. Nevertheless, throughout the colonial era, many of these universities protested and gone against the establishment. Government interference in these institutions has been more intrusive than in America, Europe, or Australia where academic freedom and institutional autonomy have been more firmly planted.

2 The Idea of Academic Freedom and Its Implications …

23

The commercialization in Hong Kong as an industrialized space witnessed abuse of power in the academic sphere, as depicted by Currie and her colleagues (2006). A faculty pollster was warned by the Vice-Chancellor to suppress polls critical of the region’s chief executive. Philip Altbach emphasized how academia in China constantly self-sensor themselves. Even publishing a research paper criticizing the government or contradicts its views could result in loss of jobs or even imprisonment (Altbach 2007). Tierney and Postiglione noted how academic freedom has been particularly under attack in Hong Kong because of governmental interference in making academic appointments (2015). The result is that what one says in the classroom or with colleagues or to students is circumscribed because of a fear that the government has a way of finding out what is being said and the academic will be punished. Interestingly, in other South Asian countries such as Singapore and Malaysia also have minimal concerns in terms of academic freedom. For instance, public employees and faculty members in Malaysia do not believe that they have the right to be vocal about topics that are controversial to the government (Altbatch 2001). In Singapore, researches are done by the university faculty occasionally face defamation lawsuits (Sim 2011) and informal pressure by the city-state’s single-party system (Verweij and Pelizzo 2009). In Myanmar, the concept of shared governance does not really exist and as a consequence, the university is often being notified to close down periodically (Lall 2008). Not sparingly though, Afghanistan, a nation with tormented political past and present, has no tradition of academic freedom. Iranian social scientists have also been sentenced to death for expressing support for democracy and faculty and students have been frequently tortured and killed for expressing their opinions (Altbach 2007, p. 49). A concern exists that the current state has amassed enormous power over the intellectual life of many universities. So far as the public universities depend upon the state, the overt exercise of control has significant implications for academic freedom. The Indian Council of Historical Research, for example, has been entirely reconstituted such that all of the appointees now agree with the government’s focus. Political appointees on the position of Chancellor have enabled individuals to insert themselves in the academic life of the university in a manner that is relatively new for India, and again, has ramifications with regard to academic freedom. Similarly, the Middle East and North Africa have seen the rise of multiple institutions, but there has not been a concomitant to institutional autonomy or academic freedom (Mazawi 2005). Faculties in Egypt have been arrested for making controversial statements and Iranian social scientists have been sentenced to death for expressing support for democracy (Mazawi 2005). Unfortunately, since independence, there has been a relatively minimal movement toward enabling faculty to hold tenure in order to protect and stand up for academic freedom. Egyptian academics suffered under the Mubarak regime and they still lack basic freedom to teach in a manner that they desire. The lack of a democratic tradition, infused with instability in the political system and ongoing debates about fundamentalism and secular reform, have created a fragile position for Arabic universities. As Altbach has noted, “in Egypt, Algeria and some

24

W. G. Tierney

of the Arabian Gulf states, academics are at risk of getting arrested for their direct or indirect support towards the fundamentalist groups. In Sudan, which has had a pro-fundamentalist regime, dissident views from the other side engender repression” (Altbach 2001). Ethiopia expelled more than 40 academics as they were found opposing the government policies; many of them ended up in jail. Ethiopia, in the grips of reform and economic improvement, continues to struggle with the meaning and enactment of academic freedom (Degefa 2015; Assefa 2007). The conclusion one must make is that the academic freedom of individuals working in universities throughout the world is frequently hindered and conditions are getting worse, not better. Again, many institutions came about during the colonial era, and their freedoms were restricted. Post freedom, formally colonized countries have rarely enabled faculty members to hold tenure in order to protect academic freedom. The lack of a democratic tradition, infused with political instability and ongoing debates about secular reform and fundamentalism, have created a particularly tenuous position for many of these post-colonial universities. Elsewhere, entire systems have been put at risk and as outlined by the Women in Academia: Gender and Academic Freedom in Africa, numerous cases were reported where women’s academics were harassed and their work was curtailed (Sall 2000). Seven professors of an online university in Iran, serving members of the Baha’s faith were sentenced to 30 years imprisonment as the ruling government banned the Baha’s from post-secondary education. In Turkey, academics are regularly prosecuted and imprisoned using the law, which criminalizes “insults” to Turkish identity, nation, state, or official interpretations of history. The Nobel Laureate, Orhan Pamuk, is perhaps the most famous example of someone prosecuted under Article 301 because he referred to the Armenian genocide as “genocide” (Heisler 2007). As shown by the above instances, that history is nevertheless repeating itself as many developing countries have seen the rise of tertiary institutions, but a simultaneous commitment to institutional autonomy and academic freedom has not occurred (Mazawi 2005). Academic freedom was cherished by American graduate students who studied in Germany in the late-nineteenth century (O’Neil 2005) and students from developing nations who trained in the West, especially in the United States and Europe during twentieth and twenty-first century have returned with a desire for greater control over what they are able to teach, write, and think.

Implications for Teaching and Learning The abridgment of academic freedom frequently refers to the scholarship of an individual. However, academic freedom also has direct implications with regard to how one thinks about and acts in a classroom. Academic freedom is not simply about what one says in a classroom but how one constitutes a classroom. That is, the faculty needs to have autonomy in order to achieve their objective of searching for ‘truth’. There are four primary areas to think about teaching and learning and academic freedom.

2 The Idea of Academic Freedom and Its Implications …

25

Admissions: An infringement of academic freedom occurs when decisions extraneous to academic qualifications occur such that individuals are admitted to a program because one or another party benefits through payment or other resources. Australia, for example, traditionally had made decisions based on academic merit with criteria influenced by the faculty. When the government lessened its support to universities, the institutions dramatically increased enrolments of full-feepaying students. The result was a dramatic change in academic qualifications and the silencing of critics who decried the change in academic standards. Curricular content: Perhaps the clearest area where academic freedom occurs in the classroom pertains to curricular content. As aforesaid, various books have been banned. What should occur, however, if a professor decides that a particular text is important for the goals and objectives of the course yet it is banned? It is entirely possible that a faculty committee may be asked to determine if the course content is appropriate. If they decide that the content is germane, a violation of academic freedom occurs when the professor is not allowed to use that text because of criticism from external agents, whether they are members of particular interest groups or the government. Pedagogical style: Similarly, different individuals have different teaching styles. Professors use a particular pedagogy to enable learning to occur. Whether one agrees with that style is certainly within the purview of the university; a violation of academic freedom occurs when someone is told to change a particular pedagogy because an external authority has mandated it. The fundamental idea behind the curricular content and pedagogical style turns on the notion of peer review. It is entirely fine for a student or colleague or external authority to raise a question about one or another matter. The decision, however, rests with the faculty themselves. Decisions about what occurs within a classroom are within the purview of the individual teaching the class. When questions arise about an issue, the assumption is that the instructor’s colleagues are best able to determine what to do. When someone changes his or her teaching style entirely because an external agent has demanded it, then a violation of academic freedom is likely to have occurred. Grading: Perhaps the area that is of the greatest concern pertains to the grades that students get in the classroom. Logically, the person who is best suited to give a student a grade for a class, thesis, or defense is the individuals who taught the student. If a grade is based on a standardized examination, then issues of academic freedom may not come into play. However, where a professor is in charge of grading then what he/she decides is the grade that should be given. When external authorities intercede either to reward or sanction a student for extraneous reasons then the professor’s academic freedom has been abridged. It is useful to mention that professors, of course, are not autonomous agents in the classroom where they may do whatever they decide without any oversight. A professor has academic freedom to discuss topics on which he or she is an expert. A math professor does not have the academic freedom to teach about climate change in

26

W. G. Tierney

the classroom because as a citizen he is concerned about global warming. Similarly, a professor cannot say his or her academic freedom was abridged because he or she teaches at a time that is inconvenient. When concerns arise, the adjudication of conflict has to be done by way of peer review with one’s fellow academics. The point, then, is not that the individual has complete autonomy with regard to pedagogical issues, but that the process is circumscribed by an academic review. Academic freedom is at risk when that review is taken out of the hands of the faculty and decisions are made by others who are not one’s peers.

Organizational and Regional Responses to Protect Academic Freedom The challenges faced by academics are a matter of concern not only for individuals, but also for local, regional, and international agencies and groups. In response, the World University Service issued the Lima Declaration on Academic Freedom in 1988 and the Network for Education and Academic Rights (NEAR) was established because of a UNESCO meeting where participants realized that greater awareness needed to be developed throughout the world about the dangers many academics face (Akker 2002). In India, numerous academics have returned awards given to them by the government for the work they have done as a way to protest what they see as government intrusion into the academy. The point in returning such awards is not because something was done to the individual, but rather than as an academic, the individual stands for the idea of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Here t academic freedom is more than a concept that pertains to an individual institution or even a country and with the involvement of regional and international organizations, the implication is that the idea transcends a unitary perspective and represents its implications for a broader constituency.

Conclusion I have suggested that there are intellectuals of countries throughout the world for whom, their entire lives, and not only speech has been threatened and curtailed. As Martin Heisler has pointed out: The current challenges confronting academic freedom in the United States [are] serious. But important as those are, in most cases they affect some of the higher desiderata on Abraham Maslow’s well-known hierarchy of needs (Maslow 1970); Academic freedom— and especially the freedom of academics—in much of the rest of the world often engages the most basic human needs: physical security, liberty and the means for livelihood. Academic

2 The Idea of Academic Freedom and Its Implications …

27

freedom is a collective good [and] somewhat abstract. The freedom of academics from imprisonment, torture, or death is concrete. (Heisler 2007, pp. 347–348)

The idea of academic freedom and its infringements go beyond a bounded land, a geographic space, a temporal location, or a particular time. Heisler rightly emphasizes that academic freedom is an idea that binds individuals together regardless of geography and one must speak up for those who suffer persecution for their ideas. From a cultural perspective, Clark’s (1987) notion of the four cultures of the faculty certainly is true. How one teaches will vary significantly based on location. Whether one is trained as an engineer or historian will impact how he/she thinks about the world. And the national and professional cultures for an academic certainly exist. However, the cultures of the discipline and the profession are largely transcendent. Judgments about academic work are rightfully made by academics; when those judgments are abrogated or made by other entities then academic freedom is at risk. Academic freedom, therefore, as a transcendent value, which needs to be protected regardless of location (Akker 2002). I fully appreciate cultural differences and how a nation’s identity may shape the manner in which academic life is constructed. Nevertheless, when an institution exercises power and causes physical harm to targeted individuals because of the nature of their ideas, writings, or classroom teaching, it ought not to be viewed as a relativistic matter left to the socio-cultural mores of an institution or country. A threat to academic freedom in a faraway land is a threat to academic freedom everywhere.

References Akker, J. (2002). Protecting academic freedom worldwide. Academe, 88(3), 44–45. Altbach, P. G. (2001). Academic freedom: International realities and challenges. Higher Education, 41, 205–219. Altbach, P. G. (2007). Academic freedom in a global context: 21st century challenges. The NEA 2007 Almanac of Higher Education, 49–56 Assefa, T. (2007). The status of academic freedom in Ethiopia. Peace Review 19(4), 479–485 Clark, B. (Ed.). (1987). The academic setting: National disciplinary and institutional settings. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Currie, J., & Newsom, J. (Eds.). (1998). Universities and globalization: Critical perspectives. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Degefa, D. (2015). Social scientists understanding of academic freedom in Ethiopia. Higher Education for the Future, 2(1), 2–18. Hamilton, C. (2001). Why academic freedom is on the line. The Sydney Morning Herald, p 10. Heisler, M. O. (2007). Academic freedom and the freedom of academics: Toward a transnational civil society move. International Studies Perspectives, 8, 347–357. Kayrooz, C., Kinnear, P., & Preston, P. (2001). Academic freedom and commercialization of Australian universities: Perceptions and experiences of social scientists. Canberra, Australia: The Australia Institute. Lall, M. (2008). Evolving education in Myanmar: The interplay of state, business, and the community. In M. Skidmore & T. Wilson (Eds.), Dictatorship, disorder, and decline in Myanmar (pp. 127–149). Canberra: The Australian National University E Press. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.

28

W. G. Tierney

Mazawi, A. E. (2005). Contrasting perspectives on higher education in the Arab states. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 20, pp. 133–190). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. McConville, G., & Allport, C. (2000). Unhealthy places of learning. Melbourne, Australia: National Tertiary Education Union. McInnis, C. (1998). Academics and professional administrators in Australian universities: Dissolving boundaries and new tensions. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 20, 161–173. Noonan, G., & Contractor, A. (2001). The new import-export trade. The Age, 5. O’Neil, R. M. (2005). Academic freedom: Past, present, and future beyond September 11. In P. Altbach (Ed.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (pp. 91–114). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Rudolph, F. (1962). The American college and university: A history. New York, NY: Vintage. Sall, E. (2000). Introduction: Engendering academic freedom in Africa. In: E. Sall (Ed.), Women in academic: Gender and academic freedom in Africa (pp. ix–xix). Dakar, Senegal: Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa. Sim, C. (2011). The Singapore chill: Political defamation and the normalization of a statist rule of law. Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal, 20(2), 319–353. Tierney, W. G. (2009). Academic freedom in an age of globalization. In J. Knapp & D. Siegel (Eds.), The business of higher education (pp. 153–173). Westport, CT: Praeger. Tierney, W. G. (1993). Academic freedom and the parameters of knowledge. Harvard Educational Review, 63, 143–160. Tierney, W. G., & Lanford, M. (2014). The question of academic freedom: Universal right or relative term. Frontiers of Education in China, 9(1), 4–23. Tierney, W. G., & Lechuga, V. M. (2010). The social significance of academic freedom. Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, 10(2), 118–133. Tierney, W. G., & Postiglione, G. (2015). Integrity at risk. South China Morning Post. Verweij, M., & Pelizzo, R. (2009). Does authoritarianism pay? Journal of Democracy, 20(2), 18–32. Walter, R. J. (1968). Student politics in Argentina: The university reform and its effects, 1918–1964. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Professor William G. Tierney is a Wilbur-Kieffer Professor of Higher Education, and Codirector of the Pullias Center for Higher Education at the University of Southern California and past president of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). Prof. Tierney is an American scholar of higher education. He earned a master’s degree from Harvard University and holds a Ph.D. from Stanford University in administration and policy analysis.

Chapter 3

Globalization and Higher Education: The Changing Context and Landscape in Singapore Uma Natarajan, Hoe Yeong Loke, and S. Gopinathan

Abstract Singapore has had an outstanding record in socio-economic/educational development in the last five decades. A strong state used economic growth to obtain legitimacy and an expansion of educational opportunity cemented social cohesion initiatives. An essentially industrial model of education was developed to suit the industrial phase in Singapore’s development. University education was restricted to the most able and STEM subjects were actively promoted, while vocational and technical subjects via an expanded polytechnic sector were expanded. The advent of the knowledge economy has led to a reshaping of the higher education landscape. Access to universities has been widened but balanced, with a much greater emphasis on attention being paid to fostering a culture of risk-taking, innovation, and entrepreneurship. State-sponsored R&D activities have been enhanced to compliment university-based research. This chapter examines how Singapore’s higher education system has been reformed over the past decades and how a tiny city-state in Asia has managed to create world-class higher education institutions in the past 50 years, with one of them ranked best in Asia. What contexts are critical to sustaining this for the next 20 years? Looking forward, what challenges does Singapore face in meeting its strategy and vision for higher education. Further, what are the lessons, if any, for other countries in Asia from Singapore’s successful experience?

This chapter has been published by the author as an working paper with The HEAD Foundation, Singapore. U. Natarajan (B) National Institute of Education, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] H. Y. Loke · S. Gopinathan The HEAD Foundation, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] S. Gopinathan e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 N. V. Varghese and S. Mandal (eds.), Teaching Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4847-5_3

29

30

U. Natarajan et al.

Introduction Education policy-making in Singapore has evolved through several phases of reforms in the past 50 years. The initial focus to produce a literate population was transformed into a policy of producing for a competitive global labor market. The emphasis shifted to producing high quality trained manpower with the twenty first-century skills, which are critical to succeeding in today’s knowledge-based global economy. Singapore has a three-tier public higher education system consisting of universities, polytechnics, and the Institute of Technical Education (a system of technical and vocational training consisting of three “colleges”). The Singapore government has also implemented a wide range of neo-liberal reforms to stimulate diversity, autonomy, choice, and innovation in education. This is all with the view that the quality of human capital is fundamental to the city-state’s success and that competitiveness is linked to quality assurance across K-12 and Higher education. With the advent of globalization and the advancement of today’s knowledgebased economy in line with its aspirations to be a regional education hub since the early 2000s, Singapore’s strategy is not just to attract students but to restructure the higher education landscape via a range of policy reforms. Globalization has triggered considerable changes to the higher education landscape in East Asia, “where countries have tried to make use of the globalization discourse to address/justify the local policy/political agendas” (Mok and Lee 2003, p. 15). The Singapore higher education system launched several prestigious institutions and offshore partnerships. In the last decades, the overall research and development budget has increased substantially, and specialist research centers have been established to make the universities more research-intensive and inclusive. The number of students in a cohort attending a university in Singapore annually has long been kept at only around 25%. This is due to the fact that the government had long resisted calls to expand the number of university places, especially since the National University of Singapore (NUS) was established in its present form in 1980, itself the result of a merger of two universities.1 This system has been maintained thus by policy design as both universities are considered elite institutions of learning. More recently, there has been a push by the government to expand the capacity of public universities to take in more students (40% of each cohort) that was largely a reaction to the public demand for increased participation. These additional places will be provided for through the new Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) and Singapore Institute of Technology, and through expanding the existing SIM University (UniSIM). Acknowledging the fact that the demands for technical skills and proficiency will continue to rise as the workforce becomes more high-tech and globalized, the government is reviewing a set of recommendations from its reform committee on how to improve technical education and career guidance systems, strengthen workplace partnerships, develop better career pathways, and expanding apprenticeship opportunities so that graduates can be better placed and prepared for work. All of 1 See

for instance, debates in the Singapore Parliament, 1980s, as recorded in the Hansard.

3 Globalization and Higher Education: The Changing Context …

31

these come under the new 2015 “SkillsFuture” initiative and the need for higher education institutions to be plugged into the needs of industries and the real world of work. This paper examines how Singapore’s higher education system has been reformed over the past decades and how a tiny city-state in Asia has managed to create worldclass higher education institutions in the past 50 years, with one of them ranked best in Asia on most major league tables. What contexts are critical to sustaining this for the next 20 years? Looking forward, what challenges Singapore faces in meeting its strategy and vision for higher education. Further, what are the lessons, if any, for other countries in Asia from Singapore’s successful experience and solutions to the problems she faced?

Global Trends and Singapore’s Policies Survival is not just a slogan streaming from political agenda, but also a prevailing theme for the strengthening of political legitimacy of the government, which is there to mobilize support for the implementation of the inland and offshore policies formulated by the government in power (Chan 1971). A robust economy, dedicated to create and maintain optimum employment and the availability of world-class social infrastructure such as housing, education, and healthcare, which have established over three decades, is a precondition for supporting a stable socio-political environment in Singapore. The capability of the developmental state in Singapore to constantly produce and implement plans for sustained economic growth to scale up productivity and to systemically deconstruct the political resistance from such forces as labor unions and employers had smoothed the pathway to rapid economic development in Singapore. In other words, Singapore represents a case of successful state capitalism. Education and training, two of the major drivers of economic growth and development, is valued highly in Singapore for improving the educational qualifications and skill levels of the workforce in a fiercely competitive globalizing market. After the government successfully established a robust and well-resourced K-12 (kindergarten to year 12) system of education, its attention was directed towards improving post-secondary education. As a result, since 1980s Singapore has experienced rather rapid development of both polytechnic and general universities. The nation’s higher education institutions today are well acclaimed and well-funded institutions attracting a steady share of students seeking relevant higher education. Singapore’s objective to restructure itself into an innovation-driven and knowledge-based economy with world-class capabilities since the 1990s has opened new opportunities and challenges. A driving force here was an economic recession in 1985, and the government’s landmark review of economic policy the subsequent year,2 which 2 MTI, Report of the Economic Committee: The Singapore Economy: New Directions, 1986. https:// www.mti.gov.sg/ResearchRoom/Documents/app.mti.gov.sg/data/pages/885/doc/econ.pdf.

32

U. Natarajan et al.

sparked off a more rapid transformation of the economy-oriented more towards the services sector (“the knowledge economy”). A viable state with value-added economic development could be accomplished, with a significantly proportionate pool of high-quality human resources. In today’s economy, knowledge is the prime quotient contributing to the pace of economic growth and development around the world.

Increasing the Cohort Participation Rate for University Education All these developments in Higher Education took place while the cohort participation rate (CPR) for university students was long capped at between 25 and 27%. This rate, sustained until about 2011, stood in stark contrast with other similarly developed countries, including South Korea (70%) and Taiwan (85%) in the Asian neighborhood over the same period—the four were often dubbed the “Asian tigers” in the 1990s in recognition of their economic prowess. There is, of course, a qualification to be made here: while the CPR for university stood at 25–27%, the rest of the population went to polytechnics and Institutes of Technical Education—institutions regarded as some of the best in the world—for their post-secondary education. Inspired by the renowned german and Swiss models of technical education, when one considers the phenomenon of graduate unemployment and under-employment in South Korea and Taiwan, which have been linked to the “over-massified” university systems in those countries, this would appear to have been a blessing in disguise. Except that the vast majority of these diploma holders graduating from polytechnics still felt the need to “upgrade” (to use the popular local colloquialism in the educational context) to degrees. Part of this is usually explained by the “Confucian” socio-cultural contexts of these East Asian countries that place a premium on educational qualifications. But more likely, Singaporean polytechnic diploma holders are competing with degree holders in the globalized marketplace of jobs that is Singapore. Some of the degree holders from other countries, with whom Singaporean polytechnic diploma holders are competing for jobs, hail from universities that were themselves converted from polytechnics. For instance, some of these include the 35 universities in England that were created, or converted, from polytechnics as a result of the British government’s 1992 exercise of ending the “binary divide” between universities and polytechnics. Therefore, it seemed unfair for Singaporean diploma holders. If unable to obtain a place after their polytechnic education at the public universities—considered the prestigious option—they would fork out large sums towards the tuition fees of private degree institutions which, while not being outright degree mills, were dubious in instructional quality. Some of such institutions were shut down abruptly with very detrimental effects on the academic pathways of their students. Singapore’s higher education market is gradually but steadily becoming more competitive while The nation projects itself as one of the biggest and improved markets for transnational

3 Globalization and Higher Education: The Changing Context …

33

higher education (Garrett 2015). Several private institutions, such as the UniSIM, are key local partners and have been drawn to foreign partnerships as a way of offering degrees. The government stepped up regulatory measures for such private institutions, introducing a regulatory body for that purpose. The government also stepped up its investment and support for SIM University (UniSIM), a private college that subsequently grew into a university with significant state support. And finally, the government decided to raise the CPR of university places from the long-held 25–27% to 40%, in 2011. Some observers read it as a reaction to the results of the 2011 general election in Singapore, at which the long-ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) took a drubbing at the polls (though still a rather impressive performance by international standards). Concerns in the area of educational qualifications and job prospects were read as possible factors for the less-than-stellar PAP results, though one should not interpret it as such too deeply. To raise the number of university places, two new “public-autonomous” universities were established by acts of Parliament—Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) and the Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT). Another salient characteristic of globalization is the worldwide auction for talent (Lauder and Brown 2013) and it is especially relevant for Singapore given its limited human resources. Singapore has utilized the internationalizing strategy and regional hubs, a dual mechanism in terms of the recruitment of a higher proportion of international of non-local students and also improving the alliances and partnerships between domestic and international universities of repute to collaborate in offering programmes and carrying out research and development. These affirmative steps suggest that the government recognizes universities and research laboratories as the backbones of knowledge creation and dissemination, and the nation’s ambition of becoming a world-class economy.

Current Challenges in Singapore and Its Responses Worldwide, countries are not immune from the influence of globalization, especially economic impacts, and the rise of the global knowledge-based economy, in which information and knowledge are the main drivers of different kinds of activities. Globalization presents Singapore with its own policy challenges: has globalization destabilized Singapore’s development state’s strategies? What strategies are needed to transform the nation in preparation for a fourth industrial revolution? According to Boston Consulting Group’s report, this new revolution “will affect the very foundations of society: economic growth, education, global trade, health, poverty, and much more”. And given that the global economy is in many ways a knowledge economy, what roles do the higher education institutions and other knowledge using and producing centers have?

34

U. Natarajan et al.

Various educational reforms globally indicate that this an unpredictable and vulnerable policy context, which requires well-educated and innovative workforce. The reform rhetoric focuses on fundamental changes to be incorporated into curriculum and assessment mechanisms in order to facilitate the education of learners and to make it creative and focused on thinking skills and innovative ideas. The Singapore government thinks that investment in the higher is clear evidence that this sector has positively contributed to the national economic uprising. In comparative terms, support for higher education in Singapore is therefore both steady and robust. There have been two primary strategies for the development of higher education in Singapore since the mid-1990s. The government is, one the one hand, committed to developing Singapore as a regional education hub, welcoming talented international students. On the other hand, Singapore has proactively demonstrated its strong commitment to develop and improve the state or publicly-funded higher education in research quality, managerial efficiency, and resource endowment. Policymakers realized that Singapore has the potential to enhance its competitive edge by establishing a regional education hub that will eventually grow expand its market share in the expanding global educational market. There is now an acknowledgment among policymakers that the economy that Singapore aspires for could possibly be modeled on the Silicon Valley experience, where high technology, clustered hot-spots provide the critical-mass for advanced knowledge creation alongside entrepreneurial talents, incubations centers, venture capitals, knowledge hubs, specialized professional services and so forth. The ‘Biopolis’ and ‘Fusionpolis’ cluster are Singapore’s emerging Silicon Valley. These hubs attempt to create an intellectually stimulating and creative physical environment for academics, researchers, and entrepreneurs to gather, interact, and share ideas. The Agency for Science, Technology, and Research (A*STAR) is Singapore’s leading public sector agency that spearheads economic oriented research to advance scientific discovery and develop innovative technologies. A*STAR attempts to bridge the gap between academia and industry. A*STAR oversees 18 biomedical sciences and physical sciences and engineering research entities primarily located in Biopolis and Fusionopolis. A*STAR strives to help Singapore develop into a world-class scientific research hub by building up to three types of capital: human, intellectual, and industrial. Critics (references needed) argue that innovation spirit cannot be “engineered” top-down but what is required is a fundamental change in culture and a risk-taking society. The R&D investments of over $16 Billion in the past half-decade has helped to create several jobs. The Director of Higher Education Policy in Singapore attributed this success to a combination of factors that include the reputations of local Higher Education institutions. The key to successful innovation (Inc.com) follows four essential phases: 1. The initial stage of investigation is the research and development of an idea and it usually happens at large universities and research labs. 2. The incubation stage is about spinning these early findings into a workable prototype that might actually function.

3 Globalization and Higher Education: The Changing Context …

35

3. In the acceleration stage, building startups happens that will realize its full potential. 4. The final stage, commercialization, entails bringing the innovation to scale, building, and selling as the industry needs or the consumers want. The United States focuses on the first and the last stages emphasizing early research and taking things to scale. High-ranked nations like South Korea, Finland, and Israel have a welfare state model, where the government invests in creative initiatives. This is essentially government intervened match-making: the government gives startups capital and connects them with universities and research labs. Welfare states like Singapore, Korea, and Finland usually depend on a vertically integrated model of growth. Singapore began this in the 1970s, when its government integrated the National University, the Science and Technology Board, and Temasek holdings, and tasked them together to facilitate and fund startups. The challenge ahead for the sector is to scale these inventions and ideas to generate impact from the knowledge. In order to maintain the city-state’s geo-economic and geo-political viability, the Singaporean government has progressively linked its economic interests with its multilevel free trade activities. Singaporean leaders and policymakers are known for their ability to stay competitive, responsive, and constantly seizing economic opportunities to stay relevant. The pursuit of economic development and free trade has become the heart of its national policy and strategy.

Singapore as a Model for Other Countries in Asia? Singapore’s vision for pursuing world-class status for its universities was a systematic pursuit which was part of a grand nation-building strategy. It would seem that the lessons for other middle-income Asian countries, for example, would be to model on Singapore and believe that significant government intervention, funding and proactive measures to support implementation will result in a well-managed higher education hub. “The Singapore case shows how strategic thinking directed toward national development economic growth can become a driver for academic excellence, enabling universities from a newly industrialized economy to rapidly ascend into the league of leading global universities” (Altbach and Salmi 2011, p. 162). It takes years to build institutional and infrastructure capacity in Higher Education and also requires the political will, bringing together “national policies, institutional capabilities, and knowledge integration” (Bhaskaran 2009, p. 141). Mok (2012) argues that the story of the development of world-class universities in Singapore provides other universities in emerging economies an exemplar of development. As an active “market generator” (Mok 2012, p. 29), the governments set strategic directions for economic development and how Higher Education institutions would orchestrate the reform process to meet the national goals. In this regard, it might be more gainful to distill the right “lessons” in comparison to even Asian cases—Hong Kong and South Korea. Hong Kong, like Singapore, is

36

U. Natarajan et al.

a city-state; but the Hong Kong SAR government’s late and relatively lower investments into making the territory a center for high technology industries, and investing in the requisite educational infrastructure to support has benefitted key cities in China. This could be to the detriment of Hong Kong’s economy in the long run. South Korea, where the predominant national narrative has been that of a resource-scarce country facing an existential threat from North Korea, bears some similarities to Singapore in its model of state-led developmentalism; but its over-massification of university education, and insufficient coordination with the skill needs of the economy, has now led to a glut in degrees in the job market and to graduate unemployment.

Looking Forward: Policy Challenges and Directions for Singapore 2035 The Singapore government has lately been changing the narrative around higher education that a diploma alone will not guarantee jobs. Much of this was driven by the government’s realization that productivity in the domestic labor market was not improving,3 despite investments in various credit schemes, and was even stagnating for years.4 There is a heavy emphasis on the skills and attitudes required by young Singaporeans to succeed in the workplace. The new storyline revolves around the importance to help the youth succeed as “talent rather than capital” will drive productivity. The government sees the need for employers to help the “millennial generation” succeed at work and at home, as they are the ones who will shape Singapore’s next 50 years. Singapore envisions the need to evolve to keep up with the changing world in order to reinvent its economy. As the country enters its next phase of development, it recognizes the need to relook its economic growth strategies. There is a message to exercise greater discretion in decision-making in a changing complex world. The government has also been indicating its desire to reduce dependence on foreign higher education. There are numerous private colleges and companies partnering with foreign universities to offer degrees in Singapore but, a few like Johns Hopkins have left the country due to a mismatch in objectives. Others like New York University’s Tisch School of the Arts campus in Singapore have shut down due to huge losses in spite of subsidies,5 while the Asia campus of the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in Singapore moved to Hong Kong, ostensibly to be closer to the mainland China market of potential students.6 The underlying danger is that if providers such as SIM decides (or are required) to abandon foreign 3 https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/wages-may-stagnate-or-even-fall-if-productivity-does-

not-keep-pace-pm-lee. 4 https://sbr.com.sg/economy/news/locally-oriented-sectors-culprit-behind-singapore%E2%80%

99s-productivity-stagnation-mti. 5 https://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20121116104624469. 6 https://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/e30e88e0-e8a5-11e2-aead-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3ytMLquis.

3 Globalization and Higher Education: The Changing Context …

37

degree programmes, then a significant portion of the current market will shift from transnational to domestic status (Altbach 2015). As Garrett (2015) puts it, “for mainstream transnational delivery the “golden age” may soon be coming to an end in Singapore”. On the other hand, as Singapore’s only privately-funded university dedicated to adult learners, UniSIM has a unique place in the tertiary education landscape in Singapore. UniSIM plays an important role in supporting Singapore’s economic growth by equipping working adults with skills and knowledge upgrading pathways. Expanding the multiple pathways for higher education, the establishment of the YaleNUS College, Singapore’s first liberal arts college, is a move in this direction. It would initially appear counterintuitive to the Singapore government’s thrust in aligning education to economic prerogatives, but such education as afforded by a liberal arts education has been regarded a step towards the development of soft skills also highly prized by employers in the twenty-first century. Concerns over issues of academic freedom in Singapore marred the fanfare when Yale-NUS College was opened, in which some of Yale University’s own faculty in New Haven have protested over. This was sparked off again recently this year (2016) when the Yale-NS College student community protested the continued presence of a government affiliated ambassadorat-large on the institution’s board of governors, due to her views on homosexuality in Singapore. Singapore’s five polytechnics and retail companies recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to integrate student internships with the Skills Future Programme. Under this new initiative, the objective is to invest in talent management and retention programmes during students’ internships. Students who successfully complete at least 20 weeks of the Enhanced Internship with the organizations may now be offered employment through the Skills Future Earn and Learn Programme. In an effort to bridge the higher education institutions with the economy and industry needs, and to create flexible pathways, and to increase employability for young Singaporeans, the government has been focusing on increased access to upgrading skills. There is a renewed call to the local workforce not to blindly chase paper qualifications, and to ensure that the skills they choose to pursue are relevant to industry needs and translate to gainful employment outcomes. Through the Skills Future initiative, the government has begun to engage individuals, employers, industry, and educators to facilitate the creation of multiple pathways for success by building an integrated system for education and training for Singaporeans to advance their education and skills throughout life. More recently, in its effort to help people develop mastery in diverse areas of interest and to promote lifelong learning opportunities by providing working adults with pathways to acquire new skills and qualifications, key Institutes of Higher Learning like NUS will work closely with government agencies, industries and firms to design professional courses. In conclusion, Singapore’s labor market policies since 1965 have been shaped by the state-driven, foreign investment-led, export-oriented, manufacturing-focused development model, staying responsive to constant global challenges. Emerging into the future, the government is pursuing renewed economic restructuring, targeting

38

U. Natarajan et al.

Higher Education investments more selectively, and heavily promoting innovation, underpinning skills, and sustainability. The strategy is not just to focus on educational qualifications but on the “right” skills and innovation spirit to advance the economy. Additionally, in its vision for being a first Smart Nation, (a nation where people live meaningful lives enabled by technology) and to become a modern and technologically advanced society, Singapore plans to equip its human resource talent and capabilities in the fields of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). The SUTD’s new campus is a step forward in that direction. Finally, in the push for an innovation-driven economy, the Singapore government is taking proactive measures to encourage young Singaporeans to explore their passions, and to upgrade the skills of the adults throughout life, thereby making lifelong learning a need for the future.

References Altbach, P. (2015). Why branch campuses may be unsustainable. International Higher Education (58). Altbach, P. G., & Salmi, J. (Eds.). (2011). The road to academic excellence: The making of worldclass research universities. World Bank Publications. Bhaskaran, M. (2009). The Iskandar development region and Singapore. Reshaping Economic Geography in East Asia, 66. Chan, H. C. (1971). Singapore: The politics of survival, 1965–1967. Oxford University Press. Garrett, R. (2015). The rise and fall of transnational higher education in Singapore. International Higher Education (39). Lauder, H., & Brown, P. (2013). IPR Policy Brief—The global auction for high skilled work: implications for economic policy. University of Bath. Mok, K. H. (2012). Global aspirations and strategizing for world-class status: New modes of higher-education governance and the emergence of regulatory regionalism in East Asia. Mok, J. K., & Lee, M. H. (2003). Globalization or glocalization? Higher education reforms in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 23(1), 15–42.

Dr. Uma Natarajan is currently a Research Fellow at the Office of Education Research, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Her research involves education policy, teacher quality, STEM, and integrating technology in K-12 classrooms. Uma has extensive research and teaching experience across three continents. Her academic training is in Science from India, Public policy from Boston, US, and a Ph.D. in Education from Australia. Hoe Yeong Loke is the Editor of Higher Education in Southeast Asia and Beyond (HESB). He has graduated from the London School of Economics and Political Science and working as research Manager with several institutes. He was associated with the HEAD Foundation, Singapore, and conducted research and managed projects on education policy and related socio-economic issues, in collaboration with enterprises, governments, academics, and other stakeholders on higher education reforms. Professor S. Gopinathan is well regarded and often cited for his knowledge of the development of Singapore’s education policy and practice. He obtained his doctorate at the State University of New York. His career in education spanned about four decades at the National Institute of

3 Globalization and Higher Education: The Changing Context …

39

Education (NIE) in Singapore. He has held positions such as the Head of the policy and leadership academic group, Dean of Education, Head, Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice (CRPP), and as an Adjunct Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. He is currently an Academic Advisor at the HEAD Foundation, a Singapore based education think tank.

Chapter 4

Developing Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Experiences from Danish Universities Bjarne Wahlgren

Abstract During the last 50 years the Danish university system has undergone a lot of changes. There have been changes in governance of the universities. A board of directors has been established at each university to secure a certain degree of self-regulation. Furthermore the finance of the higher educational systems has been altered, aiming at implementing a system of encouragement to raise the productivity measured on the amount of students fulfilling the study and the amount of peer-reviewed articles produced. As concerns the organization of the courses four principles have been implemented: flexibility of the study programs, systematic interaction between the university and the surrounding society, a specific universitypedagogy, and a democratic structure in the teaching process. The flexibility of the study programs mean that the students can obtain credit transfer of parts of one study program in another study program. The relation between the university studies and practice has been elaborated. Work experience is acknowledged and credited at the university and integrated in the curriculum. Prior learning is assessed and is used in relation to the theoretical studies. Practical training is part of the studies at the university colleges. The teaching methods have a high degree of project-orientation, meaning that students apply theory in order to suggest adequate solutions on real life problems. The democratic element in the study process means that there is a low social distance between the students and the professors. The communication process is informal and equal. The students are free to develop their study process in cooperation with the professors. In spite of all these changes one principle has never been questioned: the principle of freedom for the research concerning choice of research topics and the use of research methods.

B. Wahlgren (B) Aarhus University, Copenhagen, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 N. V. Varghese and S. Mandal (eds.), Teaching Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4847-5_4

41

42

B. Wahlgren

Introduction Higher education in Denmark is provided at university colleges and universities.1 Colleges offer programmes at bachelor level, referred to as ‘professional bachelor’ (level 6 in the European Qualifications Framework). These programmes encompass a wide range of professions; e.g., teacher, childcare worker, social welfare worker, administrator, policeman, nurse, and human resources. Universities, meanwhile, offer programmes not only at bachelor level, referred to as ‘university bachelor’, but also a master’s and PhD levels (levels 6–8 in the European Qualifications Framework). There are university programmes qualifying graduates for almost any position within the arts, social sciences, law, medicine, natural science, engineering, and agriculture. In accordance with the Bologna Process,2 the higher education system in Denmark has adopted a bachelor’s and master’s degrees as the norm. This means that it takes 180 ECTS (European Credit Transfer System) to obtain a bachelor’s degree and a further 120 ECTS to complete a master’s degree. Access to the study programmes at university colleges and universities is in principle open to everyone with an upper-secondary level qualification. In practice, however, each study programme is regulated by a quota determined on the basis of the expected labor market demand within different fields (occupations). As such, it is only students with a high-grade point average who are admitted to certain programmes. In Denmark, higher education is free to all adult citizens. There are no tuition fees. Furthermore, Danish nationals or those awarded equal status are eligible to receive a monthly student grant from the state for a period corresponding to the standardized duration of the study programme. University colleges and universities are financed by the government. Unlike in other Western European countries (e.g. in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany), study programmes at the Danish universities are funded according to output-oriented principles rather than intake. This means that the government funds universities per student who leaves the university with a degree, not per student entering the university (Jongbloed and Vossensteyn 2001, p. 141). Total research funding (both public and private funding) constitutes a little more than 3% of GDP, the third-highest among the 27 countries in the European Union (Universities Denmark—A brief presentation 2013).3 During the last 50 years, the Danish university sector has undergone major changes. In relation to governance, the management structure has been changed significantly. A marked shift, for example, is that a board of directors has been 1 In

this chapter, the concept ‘university’ is used synonymously with higher education and thus covers both university colleges and universities. 2 The main objective of the Bologna Process since its inception in 1999 is to ensure more comparable, compatible and coherent systems of higher education in Europe. See more on: https://www.ehea. info/. The Bologna Process is described as one of the most extensive examples of policy transfer aiming to harmonize the structure of higher education in Europe (Brøgger 2016). 3 A more elaborate and comprehensive description of the Danish higher education system can be found on: https://ufm.dk/en/education-and-institutions.

4 Developing Teaching and Learning in Higher Education …

43

established at each university in order to secure a certain degree of professional autonomy. There have also been changes in terms of the funding of institutions of higher education; incentive structures that have been introduced aimed at raising the productivity of the universities as gauged by the number of students completing their studies within a given timeframe and the quantity of peer-reviewed publications produced by faculty. The principles and the size of the study support provided to students have also been altered. The organization of the study programmes has been revamped and a large degree of flexibility in the higher education system has been implemented. Aligned with this flexibility, the higher education system has implemented a parallel opportunity to gain an academic degree. This parallel system allows the student to take a bachelor’s degree, as well as a master’s degree, based on a combination of practical experiences and theoretical knowledge. The so-called professional degrees are practice-based studies based on new educational principles and practices. More efficient university teaching methods have been developed—not based on technology, as one perhaps might have expected, but based on problemsolving, the so-called problem-based teaching method. Furthermore, new internal organizational structures that give students greater influence on the content and form of study programmes, and even on research topics, have been developed. A democratic teaching process has been developed over the years. Finally, the need for excellent teaching competences among teachers and the corresponding need to train the trainers have come into focus. Comprehensive programmes for teachers in higher education have been developed. These programmes are mandatory.4

The Management Structure The management structure of the Danish higher education system has been transformed radically over the last five decades: from an oligarchy where the power was in the hands of ‘the old professors’, over a marked student influence on decisions concerning study programmes and even research, to a system where the institutions are governed by a board of people from outside the universities themselves. This transformation can be viewed as a strategy of moving away from self-government (first by the professors and later in cooperation with the students) to a policy of strong political and external influence on university affairs. In 1970, the Administration Act for universities was passed (Folketinget 1970). The Act constituted a radical reform introducing democratic governance structures and relocating power from the ‘old professors’ to the new generation of university teachers and students. The Act gave the students an important role to play in the university power structure and allowed the younger generation of researchers, staff members, and students to take part in the process of electing university leaders. Moreover, the Act allowed associate professors to run for office. The Act was a 4 An overview over the development of the content, structure and governance of the higher education

system is given in Trends in the development of the Danish universities (Christiansen et al. 2015).

44

B. Wahlgren

natural consequence of the general democratization processes in Danish society at the end of the 1960s: the so-called ‘youth rebellion’. The Act has often been regarded as the most collegial, democratic self-governance university legislation in the world. In 2003, a new and very different Act was passed (Folketinget 2003). The main content in this new Act was the introduction of a board of governors with a majority of external persons, whether representatives of trade and industry, cultural figures, or members of public institutions. This board is given the highest authority at the university, deciding how available resources are distributed, which educational and training programmes the university offers, and appointing the vice-chancellor, who was previously elected by faculty, staff, and students. Deans and department heads are likewise now appointed by the vice-chancellor and are no longer elected. Research staff at the university is employed by the vice-chancellor, who can delegate this function to deans. The previously powerful decisions-makers, the University Senate and the Faculty Councils, have been abolished and the supreme power is given to the board of governors. The 2003 Act also introduced ‘development contracts’. In these contracts, the university stipulates performance goals and identifies which research areas will be given priority for the coming year. The board decides the content of these contracts dependent upon the approval of the Ministry of Higher Education and Science. This process can be described in different terms. From the universities’ perspective, it can be regarded as a turn from ‘a bottom-up to a top-down governance model’ (Degn and Sørensen 2015, p. 936). From a governmental perspective, meanwhile, it can be seen as reflecting demand for more professional leadership and as an attempt to take more democratic control over the universities and their use of resources i.e. as enforcing greater societal accountability (Oddershede 2009, p. 3). Whichever perspective one chooses to apply, this change has had a tremendous influence on internal organizational structures in higher education institutions and has placed far greater focus on a visible and quantifiable production of graduates and research results.

Study Support and Completion Rates As mentioned above, students do not pay tuition fees and are furthermore eligible to receive a monthly student grant from the state for a period corresponding to the standardized duration of the study programme: the so-called financial ‘study support’ (SU). This study support is expected to cover students’ basic living costs. In 2014, the average government grant for a student in higher education was close to 800 EUROS a month. From an international perspective, this amount can be considered high and is indeed the second-highest among all OECD countries. One might expect that these relatively comfortable study conditions—free access, no tuition fees, and study support—would lead to a high proportion of students

4 Developing Teaching and Learning in Higher Education …

45

completing their studies. On the contrary, however, the dropout rate is rather high.5 The average dropout rate for the bachelor’s degree programmes is around 25% after the first two years. Those dropping out can be split into two categories: the first includes students who are dissatisfied with their specific study programme, regretting their initial choice, and therefore want to transfer to another study programme. The second is students, who are dissatisfied with the social and academic integration, who struggle at a more general level with university life, whether academically, socially or both, and may, therefore, leave higher education entirely. These two groups are of almost equal size. For both groups, it is important that the study system is adjusted in such a way as to address the issue of dropout. The higher education system must be flexible in order to cope with different groups of students with different expectations. The relation between financial support and student dropout concludes that financial study support does not reduce the dropout rate as such. However, it does reduce the impact of socio-economic factors on student dropout. As such, students in Denmark belonging to the lower socio-economic strata of society are less likely to drop out for financial reasons with causes of dropout in this group not significantly different from those in other groups. As such, while the study support system would seem a poor investment in terms of improving completion rates, it does seem to be efficient in terms of reducing the impact of negative social heritage (Troelsen and Laursen 2014).

Flexibility in the Higher Education System To counteract the effects of dropout and to create the best possible opportunities for transfer between different parts of the higher education system, it is important that the system is transparent and flexible.6 The flexibility of the study programmes means that students can obtain credit transfer from one study programme to another. Furthermore, students can integrate parts of what they have learned in one study programme into another study programme. The rationale behind this principle is to improve the efficiency of the higher education system by shortening the total length of study. Likewise, the rationale is to help students in choosing an adequate and appropriate study programme without spending unnecessary time in the system. Danish students are not pushed to complete studies they find irrelevant. For students, who are prone to discontinue a study programme they are dissatisfied with, this flexibility supports their motivation to continue their studies in another study programme and thus reduces university 5 Student

dropout from higher education, the reasons for dropping out and strategies to prevent it have been studied in many contexts (McGivney 2003; Rumberger 2011). However, few studies on the relationship between students’ economic situation, the amount of financial support provided and the risk of dropout have been carried out. 6 The principles for flexibility in the higher education system are described in Nye Veje (New steps in higher education): https://ufm.dk/publikationer/2014/nye-veje.

46

B. Wahlgren

dropout. As a consequence of this flexibility, however, students are now more than ever entering the same study programme with a broad array of different preconditions. The most obvious example of this kind of flexibility is the students’ possibility of entering a university master’s degree programme with a professional bachelor’s degree from a university college under the same conditions as students with an ‘ordinary’ university bachelor’s degree. At university colleges, study programmes are directed at a particular profession, as mentioned above. Students with a professional bachelor’s degree qualifying them to become, for example, a police officer, a schoolteacher, or a nurse, can alternatively elect to continue their studies at a university and obtain a master’s degree in fields related to this professional field. If, for example, you have a professional bachelor’s degree as a school teacher, you have the opportunity to undertake a master’s degree in psychology or educational science or if you have a professional bachelor’s degree as a nurse, you can continue studying a master in nursing. In short, one-degree programme can lead to studies in another, higher-level degree programme. Students can use their professional bachelor qualifications as an admittance card to university study programmes at the master’s level. As a professional bachelor, you have the same rights to enter certain master’s degree study programmes as an ordinary university bachelor has, and your qualifications are at the same level. Due to the principle of flexibility, a Master’s degree programme at a university often consists of a mixture of students with a professional bachelor’s degree, and students with a university bachelor’s degree. As such, students entering university study programmes at the master’s level can differ considerably in terms of formal qualifications, experiences, knowledge, and competences. In some cases, the students can even have comprehensive practical experiences (spending several years working as, for example, a schoolteacher or a nurse) while others have followed a direct trajectory from school to university. As a consequence, a group of students is very heterogeneous. The teaching of such student groups must therefore take the students’ differences into account. Accordingly, the teaching and training must be differentiated. In practice, students are divided into smaller groups for certain parts of the course. This division is based on students’ educational background and the actual study programmes are developed and adjusted according to the needs of each of these groups.

Practice-Based Studies To fulfill the need for competence development and further education of the workforce from a lifelong perspective, the universities have established practice-based studies at the Master’s level: professional master’s programmes. Likewise, the university colleges have established diploma programmes offering adults with substantial practical experience, the opportunity of gaining a qualification at a professional bachelor’s level within a flexible framework. In both cases, programmes are structured as part-time studies. The new and important element in these programmes is that the

4 Developing Teaching and Learning in Higher Education …

47

students’ work experience is acknowledged and accredited by the educational system and integrated with the curriculum. The students’ prior learning is assessed and is used in the study programmes in conjunction with the more theory-based elements (Wahlgren 2015). To enter the professional master’s programmes, students must have at least two years of professional experience. Based on this experience, the programme only takes half as long to complete as a traditional bachelor’s or master’s degree. The vocational competence stands in place of formal academic competence. However, the academic competence obtained is formally at the same level as the traditional programme. Teaching is based on the student’s experiences and existing vocational competences and aims to combine these with evidence-based, research-oriented knowledge acquisition. The guidelines for these programmes specify that the content and organization of the courses should consider adult students’ work and life experience and make it possible for them to combine their studies with current employment (hence the parttime nature of the course). The legislation promotes building on work experiences and life experiences, both of which are believed to be crucial factors in overall competence. The rationale behind the strategy focused on adults in the labor market, who must have access to learning and skills development throughout their lives. The principles of teaching and learning underlying the part-time master’s programmes are that the combination of work experiences and formal academic competence improves the total competence of the students. Training must, therefore, be organized in such a way that there is a functional link between prior learning of the students and the research-based knowledge taught at the university. In this practice-oriented education, the principles of pedagogies are different from a traditional university education: the aim is to manifest a relationship between the professional competence of the students, which helps them to enter the university and the research-based knowledge they gain from the university. This structure stems two major pedagogical challenges: the former regards how to integrate the diverse experiences of the participants so that they complement and inform the researchbased knowledge imparted. And the later regards how to ensure that research-based knowledge is effective in the future professional practices of the learner(s). The diversity of prior learning and experience that they bring to class comes with its own challenges for the teacher, who is expected to find a way to integrate these experiences and make the teaching–learning process meaningful and coherent. A common baseline must be established for the communication of experiences and this means, (i) students should learn to perceive the overlapping elements which underlie superficially diverse practical experiences; (ii) the teacher also need to find and disseminate rigorous theoretical knowledge that can shed new lights on the different experiences. They also require to systematize the experiences under a coherent principle that requires substantial pedagogical and subject-specific knowledge.7

7 An

overview over some of the different pedagogical challenges is presented in Learning and Knowing in Practice-Based Studies (Gherardi and Strati 2012).

48

B. Wahlgren

The diploma programmes and master’s programmes are, as mentioned, based on students’ prior learning and existing competencies, when entering the study programme. The programmes aim to increase students’ competences in a way that they become more able to use these competences in practice. A traditional academic university programme measures student outcomes in terms of potential for action. The professional bachelor’s and master’s programmes, by contrast, are based on real and demonstrable current actions. The establishment of parallel adult education at the university level in Denmark has proved to be a sustainable and valuable contribution to lifelong learning. Today, more than ten years after the programmes were established, almost one in ten of all students in educational science are professional master’s students. The practical master’s programme seems to be a forward-looking and successful contribution to the process of adapting Danish higher education to lifelong learning strategies.8

Problem-Based Teaching As a consequence of the Bologna Process, the curricula at the Danish universities are no longer described in terms of knowledge students must acquire and syllabuses containing books students have to read; they are described in terms of competences and learning outcomes. The focus has thus shifted from the acquisition process to the process of application; from learning to the transfer of what has been learned to new contexts. One important and relevant function of this change is the value of supplying students with competences that can be used in practice after they have completed their study. To do this, universities must establish study programmes focused on problems outside the university context. To this end, universities must supply students with two types of competence: the ability to adapt competences when faced with emerging and potential new problems; and the ability to ‘transfer’ their knowledge, which means to apply skills and knowledge acquired in one context to problems and situations encountered in another. Problem-solving constitutes a key element of experiential learning which focuses on developing productive and critical thinking. University teaching must, therefore, be organized in such a way as to promote the students’ ability to solve problems. This is often realized through problem-based courses working with projects based on specific and current issues. As such, almost all Danish university study programmes are partly arranged according to a problem-based curriculum. As a consequence, the teaching methods have a high degree of project orientation, meaning that students apply theory in order to suggest adequate solutions to real-life problems(Krogh and Wiberg 2015).

8 The

universities’ role in a lifelong perspective is discussed in the UNESCO publication The Role of Higher Education in Promoting Lifelong Education (Yang et al. 2015).

4 Developing Teaching and Learning in Higher Education …

49

In a problem-based curriculum, the selection of problems is an important process. First of all, the problems must be relevant to the general subject studied. If you study engineering, the problems must be pivotal or central for the skilled professional engineer or if you are teaching educational science, the problems your students choose to work with must be related to and crucial for working in the educational system. In other words, the problems chosen must be exemplary of important issues in the relevant professional field. Secondly—and equally important—the problems must be regarded as relevant by the students. If the students regard the problem as relevant, they are more motivated to actively participate in the learning process and the learning is much more efficient. To ensure that the selected problem is perceived as relevant and interesting, the educational process is guided by a principle of ‘participant decision’. Participant decision means that the participants make their own decisions regarding which subject is going to be studied and in what way. It is important to understand this concept. Participant decision does not mean that the study process is guided solely by the students’ more or less arbitrary current interests. While the students’ interests play an important role in the study process, it is important to stress that the students have to justify their choices. They must be able to convince their teachers that the problem they are going to tackle is relevant for the total study process and for the relevant professional field. This kind of argumentation gives the students a much deeper insight into what is relevant to work with and what is not. The argumentation for the chosen problem is itself an important part of the total learning process. As a consequence of this procedure, the chosen problem could be abandoned and a new and more relevant problem can be chosen. Participant decision does not mean a laissez-faire approach where students are left to their own devices; rather, students are in control of their own learning process, but decisions are made in dialogue with teachers. The teachers remain important players in the learning process. The teacher is also a participant. To refine the problem-based teaching method, a didactic strategy for learning has been developed and organized around student projects. This means that study programmes are composed of a number of projects which are characterized by the following three principles: problem-oriented, student-centered, and group-based. At some universities—mainly the more traditional ones—project-based teaching is one component of the curriculum in its entirety alongside more traditional lecturebased teaching; at others—mainly the newest and smallest universities—the entire curriculum is based on project-organized work supplemented with some courses on more specific subjects. Organized teaching method has been refined and improved over the last thirty years and is exhaustively described in different forms (Barge 2013; Krogh and Jensen 2013). In modern universities, educational focus has, as mentioned, shifted from knowledge acquisition to knowledge application. However, this shift actualizes another challenge: the transfer of knowledge and skills from university to work. Research in this field has found that there is often a gap (sometimes described as a ‘practiceshock’) between the training students receive at the university and their ability to bring

50

B. Wahlgren

this training into play in practice (Bransford et al. 2000, pp. 235–239). To find solutions to this challenge, the universities—and especially the university colleges—have developed programmes where practical activities are integrated into the university study programme. The students are trained to apply theoretical knowledge to real-life situations.

A Democratic Teaching Process Fifty years ago, academics in Denmark talked about the professorial hegemony at universities. The professors had almost total power to decide what was right and wrong, which books should be read and what syllabus was correct. At the same time, the hierarchy among employees at the faculty was well-established. Teaching mainly took the form of one-way communication from professor to student. Following the student uprising in 1968, the relationship between professors and students has gradually become more and more equal and democratic. The relationship and communication between students and university teachers (including professors) are now based on mutual respect. From an educational perspective, the main purpose of the expanded interaction is to optimize the learning process. The basis for the interaction is the content of the subject to be learned. What is right and wrong is decided through argumentation and not by an individual’s formal position in the system. With a concept borrowed from the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, the interaction process could be described as ‘a communication free from power’. Accordingly, the democratic structure in the teaching process is guided by the principle of the ‘power of the good argument’. The professors are respected on the basis of their knowledge and their ability to bring this into play in argumentation with the students, not on the basis of their formal status. In the Danish higher education system, the democratization is obvious in the formal distribution of power. Students have a significant position in the steering councils and committees at the universities. Of course, such councils and committees are under the hegemony of the board of governors, as mentioned above. Nevertheless, with regard to informal power structures, the relatively high degree of equality is visible, for example, in the informal tone between students and teachers, with students calling teachers by their first name; by the way, communication is dispersed equally when the teacher is mentoring the students either in groups or bilaterally; and by the way in which students freely question the content of the teachers’ lessons. From a teaching and learning perspective, the argument is that, if students are to be trained to think in new directions and find ways of dealing with problems, it is vital that they are allowed to formulate their points of view freely. They are going to be trained as researchers or scientists in cooperation and in a dialogue with the professors. The students are going to be active in the process of learning and in the process of implementing the learned (Fry et al. 2009; Light and Micari 2013). An important element in Danish university didactics is, therefore, to train students to express themselves, both in writing and orally. They are allowed and encouraged to

4 Developing Teaching and Learning in Higher Education …

51

speak up. They are invited to discuss problems and solutions with their professors and to find arguments for and against different points of view.

Training the Trainer A precondition for a qualified fulfillment of the pedagogical activities outlined above is that the university teachers are able to carry out the required actions. The teachers need the necessary competences to be able to fulfill the demands of the job and therefore have to receive adequate and appropriate training. To this end, assistant professors (lecturers) are required to complete a training programme in general university pedagogy. They have to start this programme as soon as they are employed and must complete it within the first three years of their employment. Furthermore, it is a requirement that this programme has been successfully completed before applying for a position as an associate professor (senior lecturer). In the Danish context, the teacher training programme is mandatory for employment at the university. The aim of the study programme is to supply the teachers with adequate competences for teaching at a university level. The teachers are trained to be able to communicate the subject matter, relate to the learners’ preconditions, create a constructive learning environment, and reflect on their own experiences to constantly improve performance(Wahlgren 2016). The content includes learning theory, goal setting methods, motivational techniques, planning assessments of student training programme, assessing students’ preconditions, and establishing a constructive learning environment. At the end of the training programme, the university teachers are asked to describe their own pedagogical competences in a portfolio similar to that demanded in applications for a permanent position as a university teacher. The teacher training programme corresponds to 150 working hours, taking the form of a combination of lessons, practical training, and peer exchange of experiences. Different methods for acquiring these teacher competences are used, such as reflective writing, critical incidents, or action research (Fry and Ketteridge 2009). Corresponding to the training programme for assistant professors, there is a training programme for associate professors. This programme is aimed at qualifying associate professors to provide constructive supervision to Ph.D. students. The most important and remarkable issue in relation to these training programmes is not the content or the form; it is that pedagogical competences are given high priority in the higher education system. As stated, a pedagogical qualification is a mandatory requirement for applying for a permanent position as a university teacher and in the assessment and evaluation of the qualifications of applicants for a position as an associate professor, pedagogical qualifications are, in principle, given the same weightage as research qualifications. The reason why pedagogical qualifications are being given such high priority within the higher education system is that efficient

52

B. Wahlgren

training of university teachers results in efficient training of students in terms of learning outcomes and transfer to new contexts.9

Conclusions The structure of the Danish higher education system is characterized by a momentous shift and development during the last fifty years. The power structure has been altered. Today, legislation offers institutions of higher education a relatively higher degree of self-government under the hegemony of a board of, primarily external, governors. A guiding principle for this development has been the principle of flexibility. Students can obtain credit transfer from one study programme and benefit from this in another study programme. They put some of what they have learned in one study programme to use it as an integrated part of another study programme. A better interplay between the higher education system and workforce is highlighted. To improve the supply of competences as required in the labor market, special part-time bachelor’s and master’s degree programmes have been established. Students with comprehensive work experience can take a master’s degree in half of the normal time based on the integration of their practical experiences with scholastic knowledge. Access to the university has thus been widened by opening for students with relevant practical experience. One pedagogical challenge emerging from this development is that the practical and work-based experience that (some) students bring to the university should be taken seriously and integrated with the theoretical knowledge base in the universities. This means that a practice-based curriculum must be developed. The content of such a curriculum must be closely related to actual practice and to problems encountered therein. To be able to tackle real-life problems outside a university context requires specific competences. To meet this challenge, universities need to consider the teaching process in new ways. Rather than concentrating solely on the acquisition of skills and knowledge, teaching and learning must focus more on the practical application of such skills and knowledge outside the university. The pedagogical strategy must focus on the ability to solve problems and the ability to transfer knowledge from the university context to practical real-life situations. To develop and train student’s critical thinking and academic performance, a democratic learning process is appropriate, perhaps even necessary. The democratic element in the study process means that there is a low distance of power between students and their professors. The communication process is informal and equal. Students are free to develop their study process in cooperation with their professors and are encouraged to join in the discussion on academic matters on an equal footing. 9 In

other European countries, a similar development can be seen. ‘In virtually all UK universities and institutes, even top-flight researchers with some formal responsibilities for students are expected to possess and demonstrate continuing expertise in teaching, including the supervision of research students (Marchall and Pennington 2009, p. 485).

4 Developing Teaching and Learning in Higher Education …

53

To be able to tackle all the above-mentioned challenges, teachers in higher education must be qualified to teach: the trainers must be trained. Accordingly, institutions of higher education offer a comprehensive teacher training programme with the goal of improving teaching skills. Indeed, institutions take these kinds of qualifications seriously in the sense that such competence development courses are mandatory and are a requirement in the employment process for more advanced academic positions. The principles outlined above are components in the development of teaching and learning in Danish higher education. They have been guiding principles, contributing to the optimization of learning outcomes of university teaching in a changing world.

References Barge, S. (2013). Principles of problem and project based learning. The Aalborg model for problem and project based learning. In L. Krogh & A.A. Jensen (Eds.), Visions, challenges, and strategies—PBL principles and methodologies in a Dansh and global perspective. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn—Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Brøgger, K. (2016). The rule of mimetic desire in higher education: Governing through naming, shaming an faming. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(1), 72–91. Christiansen, F. V., Harboe, T., Horst, S., Krogh, L., & Sarauw, L. L. (2015). Trends in the development of the Danish universities. In L. Rienecker, P. S. Jørgensen, J. Dolin, & G. H. Ingerslev (Eds.), University teaching and learning. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. Degn, L., & Sørensen, M. P. (2015). From collegial governance to conduct of conduct: Danish universities set free in the service of the state. Higher Education, 69(6), 931–946. Folketinget. (1970). Lov om universiteternes styrelse [Law on the steering of the universities]. Folketinget. (2003). Forslag til Lov om universiteter [Proposal for law on universities]. Fry, H., & Ketteridge, S. (2009). Enhanching personal practice: Establishing teaching and learning credentials. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, & S. Marchall (Eds.), A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education—Enhancing Academic Practice. New York and London: Routledge. Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., & Marchall, S. (2009). Understanding student learning. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, & S. Marchall (Eds.), A Handbook of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. New York and London: Routledge. Gherardi, S., & Strati, A. (2012). Learning and knowing in practice-based studies. Chekterham and Northhampton: Edward Elgar. Jongbloed, B., & Vossensteyn, H. (2001). Keeping up performances: An international survey of performance-based funding in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 23(2), 127–145. Krogh, L., & Jensen, A. A. (2013). The development of PBL methodologies in Denmark and current challenges. In L. Krogh & A. A. Jensen (Eds.), Visions, challenges, and strategies—PBL principles and methodologies in a Danish and global perspective. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press. Krogh, L., & Wiberg, M. (2015). Problem-based and project organised teaching. In L. Reinecker, P. S. Jørgensen, J. Dolin, & G. H. Ingerslev (Eds.), University teaching and learning. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. Light, G., & Micari, M. (2013). Making scientists—Six principles for effective college traching. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London: Harvard University Press.

54

B. Wahlgren

Marchall, S., & Pennington, G. (2009). Teaching excellence as a vehicle for career progression. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, & S. Marchall (Eds.), A handboook for teaching and learning in higher education—Enhancing academic practice. New York and London: Routledge. McGivney, V. (2003). Staying or leaving the cource: Non-completion and retention of mature students in further an higher education. Leicester: NIACE. Oddershede, J. (2009). Danish universities—A sector in change. Retrieved from https://dkuni.dk/ wp-content/uploads/2017/10/a-sector-in-change.pdf, October 2020. Rumberger, R. (2011). Dropping out—Why students drop out of high school and what can be done about it. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Troelsen, R., & Laursen, P. F. (2014). Is drop-out from university dependent on national culture and policy? The case of Denmark. European Journal of Education, 49(4), 484–496. Universities Denmark. (2013).Universities Denmark—A brief presentation. Retrieved from https:// ufm.dk/en/education-and-institutions on 17 February 2016. Wahlgren, B. (2015). The parallel adult education system: A Danish contribution to lifelong learning at university level. In J. Yang, C. Schneller, & S. Roche (Eds.), The role of higher education in promoting lifelong learning. Hanburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning. Wahlgren, B. (2016). Adult educators’ core competences. International Review of Education. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11159-016-9559-4. Yang, J., Schneller, C., & Roche, S. (Eds.). (2015). The role of higher education in promoting lifelong education. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.

Prof. Bjarne Wahlgren is professor in adult education at Aarhus University, Denmark, and Director of the National Centre for Competence Developed. Formerly Dean of Research at the Danish University of Education. His research has focused on competence development, assessment of competences and prior learning, transfer from education to the workplace, teacher training and professionalization.

Chapter 5

Developing Institutional Leadership for Improving Teaching–Learning with New Technologies Thomas J. Sork

Abstract Few would contest the claim that higher education is in the midst of a major transformation. Pressures to offer programs at reduced cost, to be more inclusive and accessible, to internationalize, to respond to the learning preferences of “digital natives,” to “flip” classrooms away from more traditional modes of delivery, and to apply new insights about learning to instruction, are examples of opportunities to innovate. As higher education institutions respond to these pressures, they are defining the future of teaching and learning. The chapter discusses several programmatic, policy and organizational strategies designed to enhance innovation in teaching–learning processes. Each of these strategies relies on developing a core group of institutional leaders who understand the culture of the organization, the potential of new technologies, and how to initiate and sustain instructional development programs—and supportive policies—necessary to transform teaching and learning.

Introduction All told, many popular, political and academic commentators now presume a pressing need to re-arrange contemporary forms of education around students’ affinity with digital technology and media….As such, universities are now engaging in all manner of desperate attempts to meet the perceived digital needs and demands of a generation of students who are assumed to be yearning to connect, communicate and interact through digital technologies. (Selwyn 2014, p. 75) Technology-mediated teaching and learning is the need of the day. It is not that we need to engage with technology, it is more so whether we can afford to postpone utilization of technology in our day-to-day classrooms. (Prakash 2014, p. 23)

These two quotations reflect elements of an important discourse underway globally in higher education. Universities everywhere are struggling with decisions—and engaging in debates—about the kinds of new technologies to invest in, to promote, T. J. Sork (B) University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 N. V. Varghese and S. Mandal (eds.), Teaching Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4847-5_5

55

56

T. J. Sork

and support on their campuses. These discussions and decisions are being prompted by many factors including pressures to reduce costs, demands to enhance access, the desire to respond to changing expectations and learning preferences of students, and new research-based insights into the learning process. Also in this conversation are the voices of skeptics who do not believe that technology-mediated higher education can produce outcomes equivalent to those produced through traditional instruction, and those who believe that the investments needed to introduce and support new technologies would be better directed to fund places for more traditional students and to expand research activities (Straumsheim et al. 2015). Some universities began to cautiously experiment with various learning technologies nearly 25 years ago as “distance education” began the transition from print-based to digital delivery. With the advent of the web, the development of various learning management systems (e.g., WebCT, Blackboard, Moodle, etc.), and other tools that made possible highly interactive, constructivist approaches to instruction, universities took deliberate steps to encourage and reward instructional innovation and build the required supportive infrastructure. Many universities have their share of technology skeptics, but their number and influence seem to be diminishing as a new generation of academics brings a higher degree of digital literacy and experience to their teaching and research duties. This chapter elaborates on the general strategies that determine the degree to which universities—especially research-intensive universities—are able to successfully adopt new technologies for teaching and learning. Putting in place and sustaining these strategies requires forms of academic leadership which, I argue, must be systematically nurtured if we want our institutions to remain relevant and competitive in a rapidly-changing educational landscape.

Developing Institutional Commitment If expanding the use of new technologies is left to the motivations and actions of individual faculty members, institutions should not expect much change. Faculty members are busy people with full agendas. Some will embrace new technologies and incorporate them into their teaching and research activities, while others will continue to teach in traditional ways, often reproducing or replicating the way they themselves were taught. The change will be slow and uneven with some disciplines embracing new technologies much faster than others and some simply being left behind. Moving institutions in new directions requires a clear public and sustained commitment from institutional leaders. Such a commitment will ideally be the product of a collaborative, consultative process with key university stakeholders including students. Building support for new directions related to learning technologies also involves reviewing and making public the most current research, debating contentious issues, and engaging the support of influential opinion leaders. Arguments—with little or no basis in fact—expressed by those opposing investments in

5 Developing Institutional Leadership for Improving …

57

technology need to be challenged and debunked. Academic leaders at all levels who understand the potential benefits and limitations of new technologies can be instrumental in decreasing resistance and increasing the willingness of others to experiment and innovate.

Building Capacity It is impossible to predict with any confidence which technologies will predominate in higher education five years from now. And yet decisions must be made continually about the human, hardware, and other resources needed to support current and nearterm instructional practices. The capacity of an institution to innovate depends, in part, on two key types of investments: the digital ecosystem and the people. Investing in the digital ecosystem. Unless a university is relatively young, it likely suffers from a dizzying mix of information and communications technology (ICT) hardware, software, and other digital resources, a mix that is the product of historical decisions on how to solve reasonably well-defined, discrete problems. Systems developed or purchased to manage admissions, student records, finances, human resources, curriculum, course scheduling, communications, marketing, and research data are rarely well-integrated and are often incompatible. Added more recently to this already complex mix are learning management systems (LMSs) and a plethora of digital tools designed to support aspects of research, communication, instruction, and administration. But the digital ecosystem is not limited to the campus. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Research Gate, Instagram, Pinterest, Google+, WhatsApp, WeChat are only a few of the “external” platforms that universities ignore at their peril. It is the rare university website that does not display the logos of the social media that visitors are most likely to be using and through which universities can stay connected to current and prospective students, alumni, the media, donors, and other supporters. Student use of various digital devices is also changing as are their expectations to remain connected to learning resources wherever and whenever they wish. Making strategic investment decisions in the digital ecosystem—including elements that directly support teaching and learning—is complex and risky but a necessary prerequisite to innovation. Developing faculty and support staff. As investments are made in the digital ecosystem, they should also be made in professional development programs and technical support for faculty and staff. For every professor who ‘tweets’ with a rapt and responsive community of followers, there are a thousand more whose main experience of digital scholarship is the weekly grind of uploading PowerPoint slides to an LMS and attending cursorily to students’ forum postings and emails. (Selwyn 2014, p. 123)

There are many ways that universities organize the expertise needed to support effective and creative uses of technology. UBC in Canada, where I work, has both

58

T. J. Sork

centralized and distributed expertise. Centralized expertise is largely located in the Center for Teaching, Learning, and Technology (CTLT). “Established in July 2010, CTLT builds on the collaborative and high quality programming legacy of its predecessor centres, the Centre for Teaching and Academic Growth (TAG) and the Office of Learning Technology (OLT) and integrates a re-configured Institute for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning…. CTLT takes a leadership role in addressing professional development needs for current and future practitioners in higher education and advances understanding of how technology can enhance UBC’s ability to create and maintain an outstanding learning environment” (CTLT website). Decentralized expertise resides, to varying degrees, in the disciplinary and professional faculties—Arts, Engineering, Education, Business, Law, Science, and so on. CTLT offers a wide range of short professional development events, a Learning Technology Institute, instructional skills workshops, course design intensives, consultative assistance, online course development assistance, and a full suite of instructional design and related services in support of our efforts to integrate technology into instruction. The range and types of support offered by units such as CTLT must constantly evolve with changes in the digital ecosystem. They must also strike a balance between responding to faculty requests for support and taking a more proactive, even assertive, leadership role on campus as champions of innovation. Persuading faculty of the potential benefits of incorporating new technologies into the teaching–learning process is more likely to be successful if research-based evidence is assembled and presented in a convincing way. Inviting respected scholars from other universities who are known innovators to speak about their experience has also been successful on our campus.

Incentivizing Innovation Academics are accustomed to responding to incentives. In the case of incorporating new technologies into instruction, more is needed than verbal encouragement from campus leaders and cheerleading by techno-zealots. Both campus-wide and discipline-specific schemes can be developed. Campus-wide incentive schemes. In 1991, our senior leadership group established the Teaching and Learning Enhancement Fund (TLEF) with an annual allocation based on a percentage of student tuition revenue (tlef.ubc.ca). This was a highly visible commitment to the enhancement of the student learning experience. Each year, faculties are invited to propose specific projects consistent with the purpose of the fund. Since its inception, TLEF has funded more than 1000 innovative teaching and learning enhancement projects. Currently, the fund supports “small” projects of up to CAD $50,000 and “large” projects of over CAD $50,000. Those who apply are encouraged to collaborate across departmental and disciplinary boundaries and to propose sustainable changes with substantial impact potential—number

5 Developing Institutional Leadership for Improving …

59

of courses enhanced, number of students reached, transferability of the innovation, its transformative potential, and so on. In 2013, the Flexible Learning Initiative was added to our incentive scheme and linked to the TLEF program. Our approach to flexible learning (FL) is based on six “pillars”: transformed teaching and learning, expanded career and personal education, improved student experience, enhanced personalization, extended bridging programs, and strengthened academic partnerships. Flexible learning projects are expected to employ research-based, technologyenabled teaching methods to increase the choice of when, where, and how students learn; strengthen faculty-student engagement; enhance learning and retention; and improve access. Case studies of completed projects can be viewed on the FL website [flexible.learning.ubc.ca]. The university-wide TLEF and FL schemes incentivize innovation in a highly visible way. They encourage outside-the-box thinking about the teaching–learning process and promote large-scale, transformative changes. UBC, like many universities, also entered the MOOC [massive open online courses] fray early with dedicated funding to underwrite the development costs of a relatively small number of “experimental” courses. The outcomes of all these projects—large and small—are carefully monitored and reported back to the larger university community. Faculty success in receiving funding for these innovative “experiments”—and providing project leadership—is recognized in merit, promotion, and tenure decisions. A discipline-based incentive scheme. In 2007, the Carl Wieman (Nobel Prize in Physics 2001) Science Education Initiative (CWSEI) was launched at UBC [www. cwsei.ubc.ca]. “The goal of the CWSEI is to achieve highly effective, evidence-based science education for all post-secondary students by applying the latest advances in pedagogical and organizational excellence” (CWSEI website). By 2015, the CWSEI had redesigned 100 science courses—affecting more than 15,000 students annually— and tracked the results. Active learning methods are employed to boost reasoning and retention and improve student learning. The three core components of the initiative are ‘establish what students should learn’ ‘determine what students are actually learning’ and ‘improve student learning (via evidence-based processes)’. This extract from the project’s website illustrates some of the initiative’s goals: Recent research in cognitive science and science education provides important insight into the teaching and evaluation of learning science. The development and utilization of information technology is also boosting the effectiveness and efficiency of science education…. There are numerous examples of how technology has been used to facilitate better learning in a costeffective manner, and enables more rewarding and efficient use of faculty time through better dissemination and duplication of materials. The use of [information technology] has also enhanced communication to allow better understanding of student progress and difficulties and more effective guidance. (CWSEI website)

Well-funded, discipline-specific initiatives with strong and credible leadership, such as the CWSEI, can have immediate and widespread impacts because they can be framed within the language and the research and pedagogical traditions of the discipline. The results of discipline- and profession-specific innovations can also

60

T. J. Sork

be disseminated in journals and other scholarly outlets that are viewed as credible, thereby avoiding the “not invented here” syndrome.

Rewarding and Celebrating Successes In the quest for global rankings, it is understandable why university reward structures place great emphasis on publishing research in respected peer-reviewed journals. In some institutions, significant financial incentives have been offered to faculty who publish their work in journals with high impact factors that influence institutional placements in global rankings. Rewards and recognition for teaching–learning innovations rarely carry the same weight as those for more traditional research and publication. Without visible, broadly accepted recognition of the value of successful instructional innovations, progress will be slow. Faculty understandably respond to the real or perceived institutional reward structure. Although it has been long in coming to our campus—and there is still resistance in some quarters to recognizing its legitimacy—we have put into place several strategies for recognizing and rewarding instructional innovations. Embedding instructional innovation in the promotion and tenure criteria. At UBC, we have two pathways through our promotion and tenure process: a conventional “research stream” and an “educational leadership stream”. Until recently, the “research stream” was widely considered the path taken by all serious scholars because of its heavy focus on research and publication. But the emergence of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) as an academically-respectable form of research has shifted expectations for promotion to the highest rank in both streams. The highest rank in the “educational leadership stream” is Professor of Teaching. Current criteria for this rank include: i. outstanding achievement in teaching and educational leadership ii. distinction in the field of teaching and learning iii. sustained and innovative contributions to curriculum development, course design, and other initiatives that advance the University’s ability to excel in its teaching and learning mandate (UBC-SAC Guide 2019). Even in the traditional “research stream”, criteria under the heading of “scholarly activity” now note that the “[…] scholarship of teaching ranks equally with scholarly research” and that scholarly activity may be evidenced by factors such as originality or innovation, demonstrable impact in a particular field or discipline, peer reviews of scholarly contributions to teaching, dissemination in the public domain, or substantial and sustained use by others” (UBC-SAC Guide 2019). Introducing such language into collective agreements and guideline documents has required a long-term commitment from institutional leaders at all levels. Because the promotion and tenure process is multilayered beginning with departments, everyone involved in reviewing cases must

5 Developing Institutional Leadership for Improving …

61

understand the institutional commitment to high quality and innovative teaching and recognize evidence of accomplishments in this domain. Showcasing innovative projects. Through annual “tech expos”, websites, and other outlets, UBC encourages widespread recognition of teaching–learning innovations. The purpose of these events is to raise the profile of what are most often highly creative and effective approaches to using technology in instruction. Those involved in the featured projects feel pride in their accomplishments and appreciation from their colleagues for the extra effort involved in proposing, implementing, and evaluating new approaches to teaching and learning.

Assuring Quality Techno-skeptics on campus are quick to raise concerns about possible diminished outcomes when technology is introduced into the teaching–learning process. Although research does not support this view, influential skeptics can delay or derail even the most carefully conceived plans. Other objections center on the fact that technology can introduce greater “distance” between teachers and learners and the effects of this distance on the quality of the student–teacher relationship. Again, there is abundant literature that shows how well-designed technology-enhanced learning can actually reduce the psychological distance between students and teachers and produce equal if not better outcomes. Putting into place quality assurance mechanisms—including peer review processes—can reassure those with open minds that maintaining the integrity and credibility of the teaching–learning process is a paramount consideration. Setting high but realistic standards. Recognizing the importance of maintaining quality, various organizations rely on externally-developed standards for different forms of technology-enhanced learning. Examples include the Sloan Consortium/Online Learning Consortium (OLC) Quality Framework (Moore 2005; OLC 2014) and FuturEd’s Canadian Recommended E-learning Guidelines (Barker 2002; Jung and Latchem 2012). Externally-derived standards provide benchmarks for periodically assessing how well technologies are being integrated and the degree to which the necessary quality control mechanisms are in place. Campus personnel responsible for assisting faculty with technology—especially instructional designers—play an important role in communicating and maintaining high standards. Peer reviews of proposed curricular innovations and of technologyenhanced teaching practices help maintain faculty engagement with and understanding of the changes taking place. Although peer review of teaching is an expected part of the promotion and tenure process on the UBC campus, some universities have not yet developed a university-wide protocol for the peer assessment of technology-enabled teaching—a weakness I hope is soon addressed. Periodic detailed program reviews—a normal part of most university quality control procedures—also provide opportunities to carefully evaluate whether or not

62

T. J. Sork

new practices are meeting expectations of faculty, students, administrators, and other stakeholders. Promoting “communities of practice” and “best practices”. Forming communities of practice around the application of various digital technologies in instruction has been useful on our campus because such groups span disciplinary boundaries, encourage networking, and provide a forum for sharing successes, failures, and the most recent research. Although the concept of “best practices” is contentious, the idea behind it is sound: that in a particular institutional and historical context, there will be some instructional innovations that are demonstrably successful and are potentially generalizable. Each successful innovation adds to the institution’s collective store of knowledge and continually “raises the bar” on expectations for quality in the teaching–learning process.

Documenting Accomplishments A longstanding primary role of universities is to generate knowledge through systematic research, but focusing our abilities as researchers on our own teaching is a relatively recent phenomenon. Recognizing instructional innovations in the promotion and tenure process is, as indicated above, also a relatively recent development. Documenting and disseminating what we learn about teaching and learning with technology is now an expected part of our work. Encouraging research and evaluation. All the major technology-enhanced learning projects on our campus are expected to have a substantial research and evaluation component. Although like most universities, we ask a standard set of evaluation questions to students who complete courses, these data provide us with limited information about the student experience and about the relationship between technology and learning outcomes. Institutional leaders play an important role in establishing the expectation that we research our own teaching as rigorously as we study other phenomena. Increasingly we have copious quantities of data available via the “analytics” modules of learning management systems. These data can provide fine-grained insights into student engagement, interaction, and performance that are difficult or impossible to detect in conventional teaching–learning formats. But understanding and determining the implications of the “analytics” now available to us requires an uncommon degree of attention to the dynamics of our teaching and will also require—for most of us—learning about how to make most effective use of these data. Disseminating findings. A growing number of outlets are available to faculty who carry out studies of the teaching–learning process. These outlets may not always have the same impact factors as disciplinary journals, but increasingly universities are recognizing their important role in disseminating knowledge about improving instruction through technology. In addition to journals, there are many conferences

5 Developing Institutional Leadership for Improving …

63

that focus on the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) and on using technology in higher education that provide a global forum for those with a SoTL focus. So there is no shortage of channels for disseminating research findings although there may still be reluctance on the part of some faculty to accord SoTL-focused research the same status as more conventional discipline-based research. Academic leaders can play a key role in disrupting more conservative notions of research and scholarship that do not value experimenting with innovations in the teaching–learning process.

The Role of Leadership At various points in this chapter, I have alluded to the role of academic leaders in communicating an institutional commitment to innovation in teaching, to establish the needed infrastructure and rewards, and in using the tools of scholarship to overcome whatever resistance might emerge. We have found at UBC that developing a cadre of committed innovators with a SoTL focus has been a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite for incorporating technology into teaching. Initiated in 1998, the UBC Faculty Certificate Program in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education has graduated nearly 450 faculty members—300 UBC faculty and 150 international colleagues. In recent years, the focus has been on developing institutional leadership with the commitment and expertise to promote strategic, evidence-based initiatives designed to enhance educational practices. The program has proven to be very popular both on campus and internationally. There are many “instructional improvement” programs on offer but few that focus on developing the kind of institutional leadership required to link the various strategies mentioned above. Each participant in this program carries out a research project. The methodologies employed include participant action research, appreciative inquiry, case study research, classroom ethnography, experimental design, grounded theory research, implementation analysis, longitudinal research, phenomenological study, program development/evaluation research, self-study, and survey research. More than 40 program-level, co-authored, peer-reviewed SoTL-focused publications have been published by certificate program graduates. Three “guiding questions” reflect the current emphasis of the program: • To what extent are strategic educational initiatives supported through researchinformed and evidence-based scholarship? • To what extent are educational leadership teams trained to research (a) the effectiveness and efficiency of strategically-aligned undergraduate and graduate-level degree program offerings, (b) the impact of undergraduate and graduate-level degree programs, and (c) the quality of student engagement experiences? • To what extent are benchmarks for student learning outcomes integrated within current undergraduate and graduate-level program offerings? (Hubball 2016)

64

T. J. Sork

What began as a face-to-face program on campus has since evolved into multiple versions…some making liberal use of blended and online learning and others offered in concentrated formats for international faculty cohorts. Along with other senior university administrators, this cadre of SoTL leaders has been instrumental in establishing and sustaining a climate of instructional innovation at UBC. We would not have ended up where we are today only through the isolated individual efforts of faculty members keen on experimenting with technology. It has taken sustained effort by numerous leaders at many levels who understand the institutional culture, the strategic allocation of resources, and an approach grounded in the commitment to research to get us to where we are today. Developments in digital technologies expand apace and will continually raise new challenges for all universities. Leadership links the various strategies and provides strategic direction (see Fig. 5.1). The debates about future directions will continue, but one thing is certain: a committed and collaborative leadership group will help universities navigate uncertain waters, learn from the inevitable mistakes that will be made, and keep them moving forward in the desired direction. I end this chapter with a quotation from Selwyn (2014) whose skeptical yet scholarly view of technology is both refreshing and challenging: Digital technology is not a solution to any of the problems that currently beset universities— in fact digital technology is more accurately understood as a set of problems posing as solutions (p. 141).

The challenge for today’s leaders in higher education is to understand both the problems introduced by new technologies as well as the promise they hold for enhancing teaching and learning in this digital age. Higher education systems globally are changing rapidly in response to many social and economic forces. Universities worldwide are being cajoled, coaxed, and coerced by governments and other stakeholders to offer more flexible, inclusive, accessible, and effective learning opportunities to a more demanding public. Learning technologies are not the “solution” to Fig. 5.1 The key “linking role” of leadership Commitment

Incentives

Capacity

Leadership Rewards

Research Quality Assurance

5 Developing Institutional Leadership for Improving …

65

any single problem currently faced by higher education, but they can play an important role in responding to the escalating expectations of society. Higher education leaders will play a key role in ensuring that all the necessary elements are in place to encourage, support, and reward those committed to instructional innovation.

References Barker, K. (2002).Canadian Recommended E-learning Guidelines (CanREGs). Vancouver: FuturEd and Canadian Association for Community Education. www.FuturEd.com. Hubball, H. (2016). See link to the SoTL website: https://international.educ.ubc.ca/sotl/ and Harry Hubball’s homepage at:https://edcp.educ.ubc.ca/faculty-staff/harry-hubball/. Jung, I., & Latchem, C. (Eds.). (2012). Quality assurance and accreditation in distance and elearning: Models, policies and research. New York: Routledge. Moore, J. C. (2005). The Sloan consortium quality framework and the five pillars. Now the Online Learning Consortium. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.115.4238 Online Learning Consortium. (2014). Quality scorecard for the administration of online programs. https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/about/quality-framework-five-pillars/. Prakash, V. (2014). Impetus to research in Indian universities: Strategic planning and work plan. Chandigarh: Panjab University, August 14, 2014. Selwyn, N. (2014). Digital technology and the contemporary university: Degrees of digitization. London: Routledge. Straumsheim, C., Jaschik, S. & Lederman, D. (2015). The 2015 inside higher Ed survey of faculty attitudes on technology. Washington, DC: Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/ booklet/2015-survey-faculty-attitudes-technology. University of British Columbia. (2019). Senior Appointments Committee-SAC. Guide to reappointment, promotion and tenure procedures at UBC, October, 2019. https://hr.ubc.ca/sites/def ault/files/2020-09/SAC%20Guide%20-%20published%20Feb%2027%202020_0.pdf.

Thomas J. Sork Professor Sork has been involved in the design and management of fully online degree programs at the University of British Columbia (UBC) for more than 20 years including the award winning Master’s in Adult Learning and Global Change, a three-university partnership involving institutions in Canada, Sweden, and South Africa. In addition, he has provided academic oversight for UBC’s fully online Master of Educational Technology (MET) program, the largest graduate program in the Faculty of Education. His teaching and research focus on educational planning and professional ethics.

Chapter 6

Improving Teaching and Learning in Indian Higher Education Sayantan Mandal

Abstract The massification of higher education, infused with globalization and digital connectivity has raised the bar of quality of higher education. Consequently, ‘teaching and learning’ has come to the forefront of contemporary discourses on quality. However, there is dearth of research on teaching-learning process in higher education. Based on a national level empirical study covering colleges and universities from four states in India, the chapter attempts to develop a holistic understanding of the process of teaching-learning in higher education in India. The chapter focuses on the status of teaching and learning conditions in higher education institutions in India and the variations in teaching learning process among disciplines and institutions. It will also suggest evidence based policy reforms to improve teaching and learning in Indian higher education.

Teaching-learning process is a crucial element in enhancing learning outcomes and improving the quality of higher education. It helps learners to acquire skills and competences for complex and competitive world (Henard and Leprince-Ringuet 2008). In recent time, there are some major changes in the higher education domains, which have direct and indirect implications of the teaching and learning practices. For instance, the social composition of the students in higher education institutions have also changed in the past two decades (Murphy and Hicks 2006), with the entry of more first generation learners, students from marginalized and poor socioeconomic groups and increasing number of girl students. Their competences and demand from teachers are different from that of a traditional elite student (Mandal 2016). Teaching this new diversified student population thus requires an inclusive educational approach and a different kind of teaching competences from teaching a homogeneous group in traditional higher education classroom(s). Further, with growing influence of digital technologies, learning is no longer information centric, S. Mandal (B) Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Jammu (IIT Jammu), Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir, India e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 N. V. Varghese and S. Mandal (eds.), Teaching Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4847-5_6

67

68

S. Mandal

as information is easily available online. Teachers and teaching need to cope with this drastic change and adapt accordingly to contribute effectively for the development of the learners, for the educational institutions and for the society at large. As a result, there is an increased sense of urgency to focus on teachers and teaching all around the world (Darling-Hammond and Lieberman 2013). Efforts are being made to improve teaching pedagogies, teacher training for interactive teaching and learning practices, and integrating digital technologies with the teaching learning process. However, in India, teacher development initiatives have long been focusing on the elementary and school levels and although there are efforts to improve teaching in higher education institutions (HEI), it has come under prime focus only recently. Based on a recent study by the Centre for Policy Research in Higher Education (CPRHE), New Delhi, this chapter, discusses the pattern of teaching learning process and factors contributing to its less effectiveness to improve the competences of graduates from institutions of higher education, especially in the undergraduate (UG) colleges, in India. The chapter also explains how teaching is being practiced at different levels (undergraduate and postgraduate levels) and across different disciplines in HEIs under central and state governments located in different parts of the country. Based on the discussion and findings, ten key action points are suggested for the educational administrators and teachers to improve teaching and learning in Indian HEIs.

Changing Student Characteristics With Enrolment of higher education increases substantially, it is observed that that a new section of students enters to the tertiary level, especially in the developing countries. In India, many of these new students are first generation learners in higher education (Varghese 2015). They often need guidance and handholding on what they can demand and get, what are the deliverables of the institutions and so on. It is perhaps not justified to expect same level of excellence from these students, who have entered into higher education after overcoming many hurdles. Certain characteristics of the expanding higher education in India are as follows, some of which based on the selected empirical evidences collected for different CPRHE-NIEPA project(s):

Increased Enrolment from Marginalized Sections Studies suggest that there are significant number of student from marginalized sections, termed as Scheduled Tribe (ST), Scheduled Caste (SC) and students from Other Backward Castes (OBC) in India, who have enrolled in the colleges and universities for the first time from their families (Sabharwal and Malish 2017). These students are largely from poorer socio-economic backgrounds and except a handful, a large section of them have studied in state run schools. OBCs are the new dominant

6 Improving Teaching and Learning in Indian Higher Education

69

group among the marginalized sections, which is also affirmed by the findings of the national level study by Sabharwal and Malish (2017).

Improved Participation of Girl Students A significant improvement is that a large number of girl students are entering into the HEIs. A large section of female students are first generation learners and many of them are coming from marginalized socio-economic backgrounds. These girl students are mostly from low household income families. For instance, in a recent study on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, the limited sample shows that, 36.5% female first generation learners are coming from families, where the Monthly Household Income (MHI) is below INR 5000. The participation of female first generation learners increases to 41.3% when the MHI improves to INR 10,000. It further improves to 42.1% with an MHI of INR 25,000. Post this level, it decreases steadily, which affirms that the comparatively affluent families have been more pro for higher education for their child/children, especially girls.

Learners from Families with Poor Parental Education There is a significant increase in awareness about higher education among all, even among illiterate and hi-school graduate parents. The samples from the study on teaching and learning show that there are 35% first generation learners, from the families, where both the mother and the father have studied up to 12th grade (hischool level). It is 19.9% when the father is illiterate but 30% even when the mother is illiterate. When we analyzed the data further, it revealed that 31.9% of the first generation female learners are coming from families, where the mother is illiterate. With the improvement of the education of the mother up to 12th standard, the percentage of first generation female learners improves to 46.7%.

Learners with Vernaculars as a Language of Instruction in School Language of instruction in the classrooms plays a major role in grasping, understanding and conceptualizing the teaching. However, sudden shift from one language of instruction in school to another in higher education can bring negative impacts. The analysis of the data from the CPRHE study shows that a majority of the students (57.7%) started their education in mother tongue and continued until they finished their schooling (higher secondary or 10 + 2 level). However, a drastic shift

70

S. Mandal

in the medium of instruction could be noticed when they entered college. From an average of 55% students studying in their mother tongue, it reduced to 14.5% and English became the dominant language of instruction of higher education. This has expected long-term consequences. Students, who are less capable to comprehend and use English, face problems in their higher educational institutions, as most of the higher education study materials are available in English. Moreover, students are expected to write in English in their written examinations as well. It is often difficult for many students to cope up, as the base of their English language skills remains weak. Many of such students feel less confident using English in their academic and professional lives (Table 6.1). Digital technology provides a self learning environment through increased access and sharing of the digital information in higher education. These new developments of ICT in higher education are providing opportunities to students to learn more and learn flexibly and hence contributing in the creation of the ‘net-generation’. Table 6.1 Medium of instruction in school and college levels (data in %) based on the sample from the study on teaching and learning in Indian higher education Guru Ghasidas University

Maharaja Sayajirao University

Periyar University

Calcutta University

Total

Medium of instruction in school up to 10th standard Mother tongue/regional Language

29.6

44.8

92.7

68.6

57.7

English

55.7

50.0

6.1

21.9

34.2

Bi-Lingual

10.0

2.0

0.6

2.8

4.3

4.7

3.1

0.6

6.7

3.8

INA

Medium of instruction in school up to 12th or equivalent standard Mother tongue/regional language

26.4

41.7

92.7

62.6

54.7

English

56.7

48.9

6.3

25.3

35.1

Bi-Lingual

8.8

1.8

0.4

3.4

3.9

INA

8.1

7.6

0.6

8.7

6.3

25.3

14.5

67.3

Medium of instruction in college in/up to graduation (bachelor degree) Mother tongue/regional language

8.6

3.8

20.5

English

63.1

82.1

78.5

48.0

Bi-Lingual

12.5

2.5

0.4

12.6

7.4

INA

15.8

11.7

0.6

14.0

10.7

Students with improved ICT uses

6 Improving Teaching and Learning in Indian Higher Education

71

The empirical evidences from the study on teaching and learning in higher education, both shows that in terms of ICT uses, students are significantly advanced than many of their teachers. In all the universities, the students are focusing on ICT uses for improved learning. Nearly 60% of the students, we have collected data from, have computers and the large section of these students use computers and internet for nearly one– three hours, every day. The focus group discussions with students show that they want interaction, debates and direct engagement with their teachers, peers and experts both on-line and face to face mode. The study also revealed that there are considerable level of differences in teaching, learning, students’ demands from their teachers and so on across various disciplines and levels. Further analysis of the same would therefore complement the above discussion.

Teaching in Indian Higher Education The main form of teaching is mostly giving lectures and the teachers follow this method without many exceptions. Whereas this is largely ineffective in todays’ world of information abundance, many teachers continue the practice. Interestingly, almost all the teachers claim to be extremely supportive of learning, building critical abilities and so on. According to our analysis, there is a mismatch between the perception of the teachers about their teaching style and their actual teaching in the classrooms in reaching those targets. In the study, we have found that more than 95% of the teachers feel that they help the students to understand the lessons better and solve problems. However, at the same time 57.9% teachers have also expressed that they are more interested in evaluating what the students have memorized. Memorization strength of the students may be needed in some courses, particularly in higher education; the focus should not be on memorization of the information, but on the ability to critically analyze them. When we enquired about the teaching style they follow in the classrooms, 60.8% teachers affirm that the traditional lecture-delivery method of teaching is followed where 64.1% teachers have clearly mentioned that their teaching in more on building skills rather than just providing information (Table 6.2). Students on the other hand specified certain characteristics of an effective teacher. While a large section of teachers support these theoretically, it does not reflect in their teaching practices. Table 6.3 shows that both student and teacher prefer a teacher who has adequate knowledge about the subject and who can motivate the students. In addition, students also want a ‘friendly’ and ‘open minded’ teacher where most of their teachers are said to be focused more on the subject and knowledge domain specific competencies (such as up-to-date).However, a teacher, who is more interactive, has seen to have a widespread preference. Looking beyond the top five characteristics of an effective teacher, the trend becomes clearer; on one hand, where being creative, confident and enthusiastic has

72

S. Mandal

Table 6.2 Perceptions of teachers regarding aims of higher education based on study of the case study institutions Calcutta University

GGU

F

F

%

MSU %

F

Periyar University %

F

%

Teaching in higher education should focus on preparing students for research Yes

35

68.6

33

73.3

30

69.8

33

56.9

No

15

29.4

12

26.7

11

25.6

24

41.4

INA

1

2.0

0

2

4.7

1

1.7

0

Teaching in higher education should focus on preparing students for employment Yes

29

56.9

27

60.0

29

67.4

31

53.4

No

22

43.1

18

40.0

12

27.9

26

44.8

INA

0

2

4.7

1

1.7

0

0

0

Teaching in higher education should focus on preparing students for competitive exams Yes

17

33.3

18

40.0

21

48.8

26

44.8

No

34

66.7

27

60.0

20

46.5

31

53.4

INA

0

2

4.7

1

1.7

0

0

0

Teaching in higher education should focus on preparing students for the academia Yes

27

52.9

26

57.8

16

37.2

22

37.9

No

24

47.1

19

42.2

25

58.1

35

60.3

INA

0

2

4.7

1

1.7

0

0

0

The focus of college/university education should be to help students in passing exams Yes

9

17.6

6

13.3

2

4.7

22

37.9

No

42

82.4

39

86.7

39

90.7

35

60.3

INA

0

2

4.7

1

1.7

0

0

0

The focus of college/university education should be to help students towards learning skills Yes

36

70.6

31

68.9

19

44.2

31

53.4

No

15

29.4

14

31.1

22

51.2

26

44.8

INA

0

2

4.7

1

1.7

0

0

0

The focus of college/university education should be to help students in learning how to learn Yes

24

47.1

27

60.0

17

39.5

22

37.9

No

27

52.9

18

40.0

24

55.8

35

60.3

INA

0

2

4.7

1

1.7

0

0

0

The focus of college/university education should be to help students in building confidence Yes

33

64.7

29

64.4

31

72.1

38

65.5

No

18

35.3

16

35.6

10

23.3

19

32.8

INA

0

2

4.7

1

1.7

0

0

0

# INA Information not available, GGU: Guru Ghasidas University, MSU: Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda

6 Improving Teaching and Learning in Indian Higher Education

73

Table 6.3 Desired characteristics of an effective teacher: students’ and teachers’ opinions Rank

Students’ opinion

Teachers’ opinion

1

Knowledgeable

Knowledgeable

2

Motivating

Motivating

3

Friendly

Up to date

4

Open minded

Approachable

5

Interactive

Interactive

Desired characteristics of an effective teacher Teacher’s opinion Rank

Chhattisgarh

Gujarat

Tamil Nadu

West Bengal

1

Knowledgeable

Knowledgeable

Knowledgeable

Knowledgeable

2

Interactive

Stimulating

Interactive

Motivating

3

Motivating

Approachable

Motivating

Approachable

4

Approachable

Organised

Up-to-date

Interactive

5

Open minded

Motivating

Approachable

Creative

been considered to be important traits for a teacher among the students, on the other, the teachers themselves prefer to be confident, stimulating and open minded. It is also evident that the teachers, who interacts and are open to the students, are considered effective. Even with the lack of exposure to new forms of teaching, students are able to point out what are the lacks in the present teaching practices. Students’ opinion therefore holds great value also and can provide insights while devising new forms of teaching learning practices based on the their needs. The above empirical evidences imply that the expectation of teachers’ role is largely to understand the problem areas and address them interactively to organise student activity and thereby to facilitate effective and collaborative learning (Ramsden 2003). This approach in teaching helped improving the interactivity in the classroom. We have observed that the students of the PG courses are more vocal than that of the UG students. However, ICT use is minimal, similar to that of the UG level. A general comparison between UG and PG teaching is provided below (Table 6.4).

Teaching in Different Disciplines For the ease of discussion, we are going to divide the departments studied, into four broad categories, viz- professional and technical, Science, social science and commerce. Few major issues are highlighted in this section. In addition, the section also provides a comparative account of teachers and students regarding some of the attributes of teaching. It can be seen that there is a consensus between the teachers and students, with some degree of differences. Teachers are usually more optimistic

74

S. Mandal

Table 6.4 General comparison between UG and PG teaching based on selected factors Major factors

Teaching at UG level

Teaching at PG level

Teaching method

Non interactive lecturing

Interactive lecturing

Process

Supply of information as knowledge without realizing the need of the students

Understanding the demands and levels of the students and somewhat augmenting the process of delivering information to suit the needs

ICT uses

Teacher—Minimal, use for the transmission of information Students—Minimal. To communicate with fellow students regarding study

Teacher—More and varied. Efforts to use audio and video sources Students—Form online study groups, find and share information from various sources

Learning method

Passive: Taking notes, listening Semi-Active: Initial discussion with to lecture the teacher followed by taking notes and limited follow up discussion

Learners’ participation

Minimal

Moderate

Success

In transmission and acquisition of information. Successful in memory based assessment system

In transmission of information and acquisition of required information. Discussion helps in interactive skills building. Successful in memory and project based assessment systems

Challenges

Teachers and students are accustomed to the traditional methods, creating a culture of information oriented teaching

Teachers are willing to modify their method of teaching with several limitation and restrictions

about the current situation, or their own teaching attributes, whereas, students are somewhat critical. This comparison is useful in understanding the opinions and may not be taken as a depiction of the actual situation/quality of teaching and learning of the case study institutions. Teaching in professional and technical subjects in the case study institutions is traditional in nature with some level of interactivity. These departments use modern ICTs comparatively more than other departments. Teachers use examples to explain the topic to the comparatively slow learners, repeat the topic and encourage group work in laboratories. Teachers also seen using a combination of both English and regional language in teaching. This is due to the fact that there are more first generation learners, learners from rural background, who mostly studied in regional language. Although using bilingual teaching method will work as an immediate solution, but it will not help in long run and the English language competency need to be improved considering that most of the study materials are available in English language (Table 6.5). Teaching in Science subjects demand more practical and laboratory time. However, sometimes the recurring laboratory materials (such as chemicals) are not available

6 Improving Teaching and Learning in Indian Higher Education

75

Table 6.5 Students’ and teachers’ responses on current situation and importance under the following categories (active/important) across technical/professional subjects (data in percentage) Department

Bio-technology

Respondents Teachers Student (%) (%)

Computer Science

Computer Science and Engineering

Mechanical Engineering

Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Response on the question/statement—regular organisation of open discussion Current Situation

25.0

22.7

30.0

35.8

22.2

18.5

15.8

8.0

Importance

25.0

31.8

30.0

30.1

44.4

46.2

36.8

26.9

Response to the question/statement—department is learner friendly Current Situation

25.0

16.7

40.0

25.2

22.2

40.0

25.0

15.9

Importance

50.0

25.0

30.0

23.6

33.3

52.3

20.0

36.7

Response to the question/statement—students can freely question and even challenge teachers on academic issues for critical learning Current Situation

50.0

22.0

30.0

36.6

33.3

36.9

50.3

23.9

Importance

25.0

31.8

22.0

26.8

33.3

27.7

40.0

33.7

Response to the question/statement—peer learning is encouraged Current Situation

25.0

29.5

65.0

26.8

44.4

36.9

42.1

28.0

Importance

25.6

26.5

25.0

30.1

22.2

21.5

47.4

30.7

Response to question/statement—special attention is provided to facilitate advanced and slow learners Current situation

30.0

27.3

55.0

17.9

27.0

30.8

10.5

15.5

Importance

50.0

28.8

20.0

26.8

22.2

29.2

36.8

34.1

Response to the question/statement—departmental library is available and the use of library is encouraged Current Situation Importance

25.0

34.8

35.0

29.3

11.1

36.9

45.0

33.3

0.0

15.2

15.0

22.8

0.0

24.6

35.0

23.1

Response to question/statement—teaching contributes to students’ self management of knowledge development and skill formation Current Situation

40.2

50.0

34.1

65.0

36.9

33.3

22.0

45.0

Importance

31.1

30.0

26.0

25.0

38.5

55.6

35.6

25.0%

76

S. Mandal

on time, due to administrative delays in procuring them. Teachers focus more on the blackboard based chalk and talk mode of teaching in these subjects. The over emphasis on note-books and lack of focus on current development have made the teaching somewhat outdated and less effective. ICT use is also basic, and the lack of training to deal with fast and slow learners are visible in classroom teaching. As a consequence, bookish knowledge is becoming the main outcome (Table 6.6). Teaching in Social Sciences have a similar challenge of managing diverse classrooms. More than two third of the teachers are finding it difficult to address the issue of varied base level, prior subject knowledge of the learners. Large class size comes as a major problem in social science teaching, especially at the UG level courses. The use of ICT to teach a large class is also absent. Poor ICT infrastructure on the one hand and lack of training to manage large classes on the other are making it difficult to improve the situation. In addition, there is a lack of up-gradation in subject specific departmental libraries. All the departments of the faculty share limited number of common classrooms in our case study institutions. This prevents the teachers to take additional unscheduled classes or prolong the classroom teaching if required (Table 6.7). Teaching in Commerce is dependent on the latest software applications related to auditing and accounting, in present context. However, commerce departments often do not have the latest software or sometimes a dedicated commerce computer lab to teach the subject. Up-gradation of teacher skills about the latest software is equally important. Teachers respond to these challenges with impromptu methods, which are often less effective. They borrow computers from other departments, teach the software theoretically or with power point, without any hands on experience. Along with it, very large class sizes are a common trait of commerce departments (Table 6.8).

Discussion The above discussion of teaching in Indian colleges and universities highlights several general, level and subject specific factors, issues and problem areas. Discussions with teachers, focus group discussions (FGD) with students, classroom observations and personal interviews with academic administrators provide us some of the clues, why teaching, especially at the undergraduate level is less effective. The prime reasons are the following: (i) Large class sizes in UG level, especially in the colleges. (ii) Lack of teacher training of UG teachers in interactive pedagogies. (iii) Culture of non-interactive teaching due to top-down management of higher education. The classroom sizes of UG colleges are alarmingly large. In some occasions, it is observed that there are more than 150 students in a single UG classroom for general/pass courses, although for each subject (honours subject) the number of

6 Improving Teaching and Learning in Indian Higher Education

77

Table 6.6 Students’ and teachers’ responses on current situation and importance under the following categories (active/important) in science subjects Department

Chemistry

Data in percentage (%)

Teachers (%)

Geology Student (%)

Teacher (%)

Physics Student (%)

Teacher (%)

Psychology Student (%)

Teacher (%)

Student (%)

Response on the question/statement—regular organization of open discussion Current situation

70.60

23.8

20.3

23.6

26.70

26.5

26.70

32.7

Importance

29.40

34.3

51.8

36.5

33.30

23.5

46.70

45.5

Response to the question/statement—department is learner friendly Current Situation

64.70

25.7

42.90

21.6

53.30

28.6

46.70

30.7

Importance

35.30

30.5

50.00

43.2

33.30

25.5

40.00

40.6

Response to the question/statement—students can freely question and even challenge teachers on academic issues for critical learning Current Situation

58.80

32.4

50.00

26.4

13.30

31.6

60.00

42.6

Importance

35.30

26.7

42.90

32.4

9.00

20.4

33.30

40.6

Response to the question/statement—peer learning is encouraged Current Situation

23.50

25.7

21.40

28.4

40.00

32.7

26.70

40.6

Importance

17.60

32.4

50.00

31.8

46.70

23.5

40.00

35.6

Response to question/statement—special attention is provided to facilitate advanced and slow learners Current situation

58.80

24.8

35.70

23.0

6.70

26.5

6.70

21.8

Importance

35.30

26.7

64.30

27.7

26.70

22.4

40.00

32.7

Response to the question/statement—departmental library is available and the use of library is encouraged Current Situation

17.60

31.4

31.80

27.7

13.30

31.6

25.00

27.7

Importance

12.00

27.6

4.50

14.2

20.00

17.3

12.00

25.7

Response to question/statement—teaching contributes to students’ self-management of knowledge development and skill formation Current Situation

35.2

41.2

29.7

35.7

31.6

53.3

51.5

33.3

Importance

21.0

47.1

30.4

42.9

23.5

46.7

31.7

40.0

78

S. Mandal

Table 6.7 Students’ and teachers’ responses on current situation and importance under the following categories (active/important) in social science subjects Department History Data in percentage (%)

Political Science

Social Work

Teachers Student (%) Teacher (%) Student (%) Teacher (%) Student (%) (%)

Response on the question/statement—regular organization of open discussion Current Situation

33.30

25.5

50.00

18.2

42.90

32.1

Importance

16.70

22.2

90.00

19.6

12.50

40.7

Response to the question/statement—department is learner friendly Current Situation

66.70

35.9

89.00

16.9

57.10

29.6

Importance

25.00

22.9

91.00

18.2

12.50

42.0

Response to the question/statement—students can freely question and even challenge teachers on academic issues for critical learning Current Situation Importance

33.30

34.6

100.00

22.1

14.30

19.8

8.30

23.5

60.00

27.3

12.50

34.6

Response to the question/statement—peer learning is encouraged Current Situation

50.00

25.5

45.00

18.2

42.90

32.1

Importance

33.30

29.4

76.00

22.1

12.50

23.5

Response to question/statement—special attention is provided to facilitate advanced and slow learners Current situation

16.70

30.7

89.0

15.6

42.90

18.5

Importance

16.70

31.4

11.0

26.0

10.00

29.6

Response to the question/statement—library is available and the use of library is encouraged Current Situation Importance

33.30

34.0

48.0

23.4

57.10

33.3

0.00

17.6

15.0

15.6

12.50

24.7

Response to question/statement—teaching contributes to students’ self-management of knowledge development and skill formation Current Situation

34.0

33.3

31.2

27.5

39.5

57.1

Importance

23.5

8.3

31.2

100.0

29.6

30.0

student are limited. The lack of training sometimes also prevents the teachers from focusing on scientific approaches to manage large class sizes and adopt a teaching method other than information centric lecturing. Although there are provisions of induction and other forms of short term teacher training for higher education teachers,

6 Improving Teaching and Learning in Indian Higher Education Table 6.8 Students’ and teachers’ responses on current situation and importance under the following categories (active/important) in commerce

Department

Commerce

Data in percentage (%)

Teacher (%)

79

Student (%)

Response on the question/statement—regular organization of open discussion Current situation

35.70

17.2

Importance

32.10

25.5

Response to the question/statement—department is learner friendly Current situation

35.70

22.8

Importance

25.00

28.4

Response to the question/statement—students can freely question and even challenge teachers on academic issues for critical learning Current situation

39.30

27.0

Importance

21.40

28.8

Response to the question/statement—peer learning is encouraged Current situation

39.30

27.8

Importance

21.40

25.6

Response to question/statement—special attention is provided to facilitate advanced and slow learners Current situation

21.40

21.1

Importance

25.00

23.2

Response to the question/statement—library is available and the use of library is encouraged Current situation

25.00

26.8

Importance

14.30

19.0

Response to question/statement—teaching contributes to students’ self-management of knowledge development and skill formation Current situation

27.0

32.1

Importance

28.1

32.1

they are mostly general in nature and criticized for not being effective enough (Panda 2018). Compared to the teaching of undergraduate level, teaching in postgraduate level is more interactive. Although lecturing is the prime mode of teaching in postgraduate level, there are considerable variations to it. Teachers spend some more time asking questions to the students to get an overview of their understanding of the subject before lecturing. They ask students about their opinion on where exactly they want the teacher to focus more. Many of them provide regular feedbacks; sometimes offer more choices to the students regarding their assignments; help the students

80

S. Mandal

to solve problems; seek questions from students; encourage students to organize, recognize and analyze information; and provide overall idea before going into the detail of the subject during lecturing. However, teaching at the postgraduate level needs improvement, but not as much as teaching in undergraduate level demands. To improve the qualities of teaching from its current stage it seems important to make context specific strategies. The strategies should consider the level of teachinglearning (undergraduate or postgraduate) and the subject specificities with the uniqueness of the higher education institution(s). However, there are some common areas, which need systemic interventions and could be effective to improve the qualities of teaching and learning in Indian higher education. It is utmost important to manage the information-oriented, theory-based teaching, with an instrumental approach. The empirical evidences show that teaching at both UG and PG levels are somewhat similar, still following an information centric paradigm. This, as seen, is not effective in the present context. Considering the need for skills and competence development, higher education teaching, both at UG and PG levels, should move away from information transaction and focus more on imparting the learning skills. The potential of ICTs can be used optimally in regular classroom teachinglearning. Not only the information is available online, but also the new generation students are proficient and willing to use digital resources for their education. ICT, thus, can be used in an integrated way in regular classroom teaching, so that face-to-face teaching time can be used more effectively for discussion and critical reflections. It is important to train teachers rigorously for interactive in-class teaching methods, with effective use of modern digital resources. Teachers can use various modern pedagogic techniques; involve students in the discussion to establish a dialogic process of teaching and learning. In addition, our analysis shows that teachers as well as educational administrators need to adopt several inclusive measures to manage diversified classroom and students with a varied level of competences. The management of diversity is crucial in the age of massification, to bring the level of the marginalized students, first generation learners and students with minimal English language skills at par with the rest of the learners. The present efforts, such as using bilingual mode of classroom discussion is not a sustainable step, as most of the study materials are available in English. Also, English proficiency is required in post study world of work, at national and international spheres. In order to understand the difficulties faced by the students, and their demands, constructive feedback from the students can be considered as another step towards an inclusive and student centred teaching. The study has found that students can identify the problem areas and provide important insights about what they are lacking. However, because of the lack of exposure to different forms of teaching, they are mostly unable to point out which teaching style is more suitable to their learning needs. This is the responsibility of the teachers and educational planners to find out several context-specific teaching methods, which are effective. Nevertheless, students’ feedback can provide valuable information which may lead to the changes in the present teaching styles.

6 Improving Teaching and Learning in Indian Higher Education

81

Overall improvement of infrastructure, including ICT infrastructure, administrative awareness, and sensitivity towards teaching and learning process is required to support the changes (Mandal 2018). Interestingly, teachers and a section of the administration are aware of the needs, but their efforts are rather limited due to the lack of training, or coordination between teaching and administrations at various levels. The above section highlighted few of the problems in teaching and learning in Indian higher education institutions. Some of them can be validated by the empirical evidences in the study. The problems are varied and scattered in different layers of teaching, learning, and administration and are linked. Moreover, the complexity of the problem is context specific and there may not be any blanket solution to all the problems for any HEIs. Nevertheless, based on the evidences and the discussion, the following section briefly discusses some of the action points, which can be taken in order to improve the situation of teaching.

Action Points for the Improvement of Teaching in Indian Higher Education Based on the findings of the national level study, we have suggested ten major action points to improve teaching and learning in Indian higher education. Managing the information oriented teaching culture and converting it into a collaborative teaching practice is perhaps the most difficult yet important task in order to improve the condition of teaching in Indian higher education, especially in the colleges. To make classroom teaching more interactive, it is important to (re)build strategies to include college teachers and provide them more freedom to teach and experiment. It is equally important to train them rigorously to train them in interactive pedagogies. Mechanisms can be devised to train newly recruited and experienced teachers differently. We suggest a longer, more intensive training for newly recruited teachers, which will focus on pedagogic skills, interactive competence building, innovative delivery of subject content, and integrated use of ICTs. For the experienced teachers, multilayered training modules can be devised which will take into account their subject expertise and level of teaching competences. Making classroom teaching interactive is helpful in imparting necessary communication competences for the students. This challenge can be addressed by taking small steps by introducing interactive components in all levels of education. Teachers of undergraduate courses must also convert their course progressively by bringing in more interactive components. Integrated use of ICTs in regular classroom teaching could be promoted so that classroom teaching time is used more effectively for discussion and critical reflections. It is important to effectively use information from online sources in classroom

82

S. Mandal

teaching. Improving the digital content repository for the students and teachers with authentic online resources are required to help them prepare for the classes in advance. Online inter-institutional and intra-institutional forums for sharing of knowledge and good practices would be helpful in identifying the challenges as well as innovative solutions. Several inclusive measures to manage a diversity in classrooms The use of multiple languages (English and regional language) is one of them. Incorporating a multilingual approach initially helps students to understand the lecture and discussion. For long-term gains, it is important to improve English language competences. Establishing language laboratories can help in this regard. Along with the teachers, institutional administrators should also take proactive role to become more empathetic, sensitive to prevent the marginalized and first generation learners from overt and covert forms of micro discriminations (Sabharwal and Malish 2017). Constructive feedback from the students can be considered as another step towards an inclusive and student centred teaching. Students’ feedback will not only help the teacher to improve, but also enable the teacher to understand students’ demands and their levels of difficulties. Students’ feedback in the forms of open discussions, anonymous feedback using online platforms will help identifying the challenges students face. Organized meetings between teacher-students and administration on regular intervals are helpful to establish the trust among the students. It is found in the study that students open up more and provide critical feedback once they trust. Overall improvement of infrastructure, administrative awareness and sensitivity towards teaching and learning process would be required to impart the above mentioned changes. While in some institutions, basic infrastructures required to be developed; other institutions required to upgrade their laboratories, provide recurring materials regularly and improve ICT infrastructures. Orienting departmental and institutional administrators about the process of teaching and learning could help bridging the communication gap between teaching, learning and educational administration.

Conclusion This study, in spite of its limitations, highlighted the need to improve teaching in Indian colleges and universities. Although we neither claim that the findings are representative of the entire Indian higher education, nor the suggested action points are applicable for the HEIs of the nation; we do gain some important empirical insights in this front. We also argue that a change is required and the empirical evidences have confirmed that clearly. There is an overall dominance of information oriented, non-interactive lecturing especially in the undergraduate level. ICTs are underutilized or outdated. In addition, we found that, this form of monologues lecturing is resistive to critical comments.

6 Improving Teaching and Learning in Indian Higher Education

83

This, over time has reduced students’ participation in teaching and learning activities. This form of lecturing has also gained legitimacy due to its continued practice, post the structurization of Indian higher education. It has become a culture to some extent, which is difficult to alter. In postgraduate level, teaching is more interactive. However, it is far from satisfactory. Teaching, even in the PG level is more theory oriented, where syllabus is followed narrowly and the focus is less on improving skills, and more on passing examinations. Hence, in spite of some marginal differences, inter disciplinary differences in teaching practices are not very prominent. Optimal use of ICTs is an issue in all the HIEs and in some cases the departments lack basic infrastructures to facilitate effective teaching and learning. It is clear that we need more effective teaching methods and related reforms. The discussion provides insights for teachers and administrators wanting to make teaching effective. The action points, suggested on the basis of empirical evidences provide some insights for teachers and administrators wanting to make teaching and learning effective. The success of these actions points however depends on practical short and long term strategies with an integrated approach of teaching, learning, and institutional development in a sustainable manner.

References Darling-Hammond, L., & Lieberman, A. (Eds.). (2013). Teacher education around the world: Changing policies and practices. Abingdon: Routledge. Henard, F., & Leprince-Ringuet, S. (2008). The path to quality teaching in higher education. Paris: OCED Publication. Mandal, S. (2016, July). Teaching-learning process. Economic and Political Weekly, 79–81. Mandal, S. (2018). Teaching and learning in Indian higer education: A national level study. New Delhi: CPRHE-NIEPA. Murphy, C. G., & Hicks, T. (2006). Academic characteristics among first-generation and non-firstgeneration college students. College Quarterly, 9(2), n2. Panda, S. (2018). Professional development of teachers in higher education. In N. V. Varghese, A. Pachauri, & S. Mandal (Eds.), India higher education report: Teaching, learning and quality in higher education. New Delhi: Sage. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. Abingdon: Routledge. Sabharwal, N. S., & Malish, C. M. (2017). Diversity and discrimination in higher education institutions in India. New Delhi: NIEPA. Varghese, N. V. (2015). Chellenges of massification of higher education in India. CPRHE Research Papers, 1–46.

Dr. Sayantan Mandal is a senior Assistant Professor at the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Jammu (IIT Jammu). Previously, he was a faculty at the Centre for Policy Research in Higher Education, (CPRHE), National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (NIEPA), New Delhi. He has coordinated the CPRHE/NIEPA national level study on Teaching and Learning in Indian Higher Education, funded by the UGC. He holds a Doctorate in Education Policy Analysis from the University of Deusto, Spain and a Masters degree from the Danish School of Education. Before joining NIEPA, he was a faculty at the University of Delhi and worked at the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL, Hamburg).

Chapter 7

Teaching-Learning: A Study of Undergraduate Level of Education Neeru Snehi

Abstract The teaching-learning activities are the core activities of educational institutions and an urgent need to enhance learning- and therefore teaching-is recognized in Indian universities and colleges. Many factors impact on achieving positive learning outcomes which are the result of interplay between the teaching activities and learning environment provided by the university and the skills, knowledge, attitudes and behavior of its students. In order to promote excellence in teaching learning therefore the focus lies on, not only, ensuring the provision of consistently high quality learning experiences and outcomes for all students but also on supporting academic staff which is needed to achieve these goals. Over the years efforts to improve quality of teaching learning are continuing- revision of curricula, provision of infrastructural facilities and resources such as library and equipped laboratories, encouraging new approaches, professional development of teachers, use of technology in delivery of lessons, assessment reforms etc. among others. However much remains to be done particularly in the backdrop of the massification of higher education taking place in the country. Based on the results of an empirical survey among college teachers the chapter focuses on the challenges faced by the teachers during the teaching-learning process and ways to improve teaching -learning at the under-graduate level.

Introduction Teaching-learning constitutes the primary function of every educational institution. It is a major component of quality assurance and an important indicator in the ranking of higher education institutions. An improvement in the quality of teaching-learning process contributes to the enhanced quality of graduates’ improvement (Henard 2010). Curriculum transaction and teaching-learning activities are undergoing transition due to the influence and integration of technology in every facet of higher education. N. Snehi (B) National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi, India e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 N. V. Varghese and S. Mandal (eds.), Teaching Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4847-5_7

85

86

N. Snehi

Use of technology has resulted in development of knowledge systems that are interconnected and interdependent. New platforms i.e. open education resources (OER) and massive open online resources (MOOCs) and new teaching methods such as blended learning; flipped classrooms etc. are changing the traditional face of classrooms and teaching-learning process as well. In the evolving scenario, the role of the teacher too is assuming critical importance. In this background, this Chapter focuses on exploring teaching-learning activity taking place in higher education institutions. The next section highlights the meaning and importance of teaching-learning. Section three discusses teaching-learning in Indian undergraduate institutions, followed by a section on suggestions for improving teaching-learning in colleges, and ends with the concluding observations.

Understanding Teaching-Learning The emphasis on the quality of teaching and learning in higher education is reflected through the large volume of literature available (Chalmers 2007). The term ‘teaching’ can be considered as an educational activity intended to give or transmit knowledge. Ramsden (1992) explained that ‘the aim of teaching is simple: it is to make student learning possible’. Further, he explained ‘learning’ in educational institutions implies the ‘ways in which learners understand, or experience, or conceptualize the world around them’ (p. 4). Learning varies with the age, level, and capacities of the individual. He further opines that “good teaching involves striving continually to learn about students’ understanding and the effects of teaching on it” (Ramsden 1992). Based on the review of research in quality teaching in higher education, Henard and Roseveare (2012) observed that ‘good teaching’ depends on what is being taught along with other situational factors such as learning environment. According to them, quality teaching matters in determining student learning outcomes and needs to be fostered so as to improve the quality of teaching-learning in all disciplines. Similarly, Gebre et al. (2015) reemphasized that effective teaching constitutes transmitting knowledge, engaging students, and developing learning independence while effective teachers are the ones’ having pedagogical skills, knowledge of subject, and ability to manage interpersonal relationships. Thus, in other words, it is reflected that teaching facilitates learning in the learners. Teaching-learning practices have been changing continuously in the twentieth century. The initiatives to improve teaching-learning led to the development of different approaches across the globe. Reviewing the paradigm shifts experienced in past few decades, Brown (2005) pointed out the shifts from reproductive learning to productive learning, behaviorism to constructivism, teacher-centered to learnercentered, teaching to learning facilitation, content-based to outcomes-based approach to education and content-based evaluation to outcomes-based assessment of learning in the learners. Further, based on the recent developments and trends the shift from constructivism (construction of knowledge by the learner) to social constructivism (learning as a result of active participation in a community) and from knowledge

7 Teaching-Learning: A Study of Undergraduate …

87

production to knowledge configuration (due to developments in the field of ICT) were emphasized. These shifts in education have influenced the ways of teaching and learning taking place in institutions. As a result, the present focus in education institutions is on learner-centered teaching across all levels. Student-centered Learning represents both culture and a mindset within any higher education institution. It is a learning approach as well, which is broadly related to, and supported by, constructivist theories of learning. Teaching and learning here are characterized by innovative methods aiming to promote learning in communication between teachers and learners. By design, it takes students and their opinions seriously and considers them as active participants fostering transferable skills such as, reflective thinking, critical thinking, and problem-solving (Attard et al. 2010). The definition shows that student-centered learning requires new approaches to teaching-learning in order to foster critical and reflective thinking skills in the students studying at the higher education level. This also reflects that fostering these skills should be the goal of higher education. The research evidences in this regard corroborate that the learner-centered approaches bring about enhanced learning outcomes and constructivist approaches are being practiced in higher education teaching-learning (Cornelius-Shite 2007). Role of the teacher is also undergoing change with the move from a teaching paradigm towards a student-centered learning paradigm. Since the focus in behaviorist epistemology was on instruction for knowledge and reinforcement while constructivist epistemology emphasizes that learners construct their own knowledge on the basis of interaction with their environment; the teacher is acquiring the role of a guide and facilitator (Fosnot 1996; De Meyer 2016). The changing role of teachers in the context of learner-centered approaches requires them to be proficient not only in the subject but also have pedagogical skills for achieving desired learning outcomes. Berthiaume (2009) also emphasized that ‘Discipline-specific pedagogical knowledge (DPK) for university teaching’ is required which includes fundamental teaching knowledge, the specific features of discipline and beliefs vis-a-vis the knowing, construction, and assessment of knowledge. Moreover, implementation of the learner-centered teaching requires teachers to do more work in planning for delivering and assessing instruction than in traditional lecture recitation evaluation method (Barr and Tagg 1995). Consequent to this shift, ‘learning’ became the center of teaching-learning process in the higher education institutions (Snehi 2008). In Europe, student-centered learning was endorsed by the Bologna process too. This change in the educational paradigm was cited as significant for the educational paradigm in the European continent (Henard and Leprince-Ringuet 2008). This move towards learnercentered education and constructive approach is now being used by a large number of universities and colleges in different countries. In contemporary higher education, teaching-learning systems are influenced by changes taking place in their environment. The globalization process has directed the focus on developing skills and competencies for students to succeed in national and global labor market. This led to development of National Qualification Framework (NQF) by the countries to reform national education. Since, the NQF links skills,

88

N. Snehi

competencies, and qualifications, this reinforces the position of teaching-learning process as an important instrument for attaining the felt need and demand for skills and competencies. Secondly, higher education systems have become massive and highly diverse. The increasing socio-economic diversity among stakeholders in these educational institutions and their classrooms is calling for developing newer teacher and student engagement activities (Varghese 2015). There are many individual and institution-specific factors which influence the quality of teaching and quality of learning too. Some of them cited time and again include: the aptitude and motivation of individual students and their own approaches to learning, the quality and diversity of the student body of which they are part, the curriculum they study, the caliber and strategies of those who teach them, the size and nature of their classes, the ways in which learning is encouraged by assessment processes and feedback, the learning resources (such as libraries, laboratories, and information technology) available and used, the scope for learning in the classroom to be enriched by learning outside the classroom. (Markwell 2003)

In recent years, digital technology has significantly impacted the higher education sector all over the globe and its presence is strongly influencing teaching-learning. The information or knowledge revolution has helped in accessing the hitherto unavailable data. The monopoly of teacher as transmitter of knowledge stands broken, new modes and approaches of teaching-learning have emerged. The scenario demands to look for new teaching-learning paradigms to fulfill the needs of these new students (De Meyer 2016). On the other hand, in case of existing teachers, some have never used technology during their teaching-learning while many others are struggling to learn and use, calls for addressing the need to train teachers for playing their role effectively. However, in the said situation, the classroom environment is shifting from being passive to active involvement of students in teaching-learning process. The emergence of new teaching-learning approaches such as blended learning approach flipped classrooms, e-learning, virtual campuses, and online courses has revolutionized the teaching-learning methodology on the one hand and transformed the fabric of traditional ways of teaching-learning. This means that activities which were earlier part of classroom activities have shifted out of the classroom and vice versa. In comparison to traditional face-to-face, contentoriented, structured teaching, the technology-based learning is unstructured, flexible, and learner-oriented. The continuing and evolving use of technology at all levels in countries across the globe is bringing forth alternative modes of teaching-learning. However, at present the use, availability of infrastructure and access to e-learning materials, integration in teaching-learning, developing teaching-learning strategies, etc. are the continuing challenges for promoting technology in education structure in many countries (Snehi 2009).

7 Teaching-Learning: A Study of Undergraduate …

89

Teaching-Learning in Indian Higher Education Institutions Higher education system in the country is experiencing a transformation from being a system for the elite to system for the masses. Providing quality teaching-learning experience to this increasing student population in colleges and universities is a huge challenge more so for the colleges. This is because major share i.e. nearly 80% of the total enrolled student population is studying in undergraduate colleges (AISHE 2016–17). These colleges are affiliated to a university, do not have their own degree awarding powers; they deliver the courses, curricula, and examinations specified and regulated by their parent university. However, a small number of autonomous colleges though affiliated, enjoy academic autonomy. Further, the colleges have differentiated managements i.e. government colleges, private-aided colleges, private colleges, and autonomous colleges. Colleges cater to a highly diverse student population, differentiated faculty in terms of job conditions, salary structures, inadequate staff, finances, etc. During the past decades, initiatives to introduce reforms in the content and delivery of educational programmes so as to provide quality higher education started. The twelfth five-year plan reflected the government’s drive for expansion, inclusion and excellence (GOI 2012). Unfortunately, undergraduate colleges in the country show large variations in terms of their performance. Some are reputed for the quality of graduates they produce and are in demand during admission time, while other colleges function as just gateways for acquiring degree only. Ranking of colleges under National Institutional Ranking Framework is the initiative intended to improve the quality of colleges. The quality of teaching-learning in the colleges has always remained a contested domain; there is renewed interest in exploring teaching-learning activities taking place in universities and colleges. Mandal (2018) has developed a tool called ‘Multidimensional Analytical Tool for Teaching-Learning’ (MATT) for analyzing the process of teaching and learning in higher education institutions. This is significant as the quality of teaching-learning process is an indicator of quality of higher education. Thus, to explore how teaching-learning is taking place in colleges or in other words what is the process of teaching-learning in the classrooms, a small study was conducted. This study is part of the ongoing research project entitled ‘Autonomy in Indian higher Education Institutions’ (Snehi, forthcoming). The methodology adopted was conducting interviews and organize focus group discussions for the teachers of the colleges. Nearly 153 teachers from 35 colleges affiliated to seven state universities formed the sample. Although, the sample is not very big and representative, but has captured the situation of teaching-learning taking place in the range of colleges (government, private-aided, private unaided, and autonomous colleges). Sample was a mixed group of male and female teachers. The data collected through focus group discussions and interviews were analyzed. Based on the discussions and visits to observe the continuing classes in the college, the practice of teaching-learning process adopted in the classroom inferred is described below. Further, the analysis

90

N. Snehi

highlighted two important dimensions; firstly, the changing scenario in undergraduate classrooms and their impact on the teaching-learning and secondly, the aspects related to execution of teaching-learning i.e. the teaching-learning process in the classroom at the undergraduate institutions, which are described in subsequent sections.

Undergraduate Colleges: Changing Scenario in Classrooms As mentioned earlier, undergraduate education accounts for nearly 80% share of enrolments in higher education institutions in the country. The participants recognized that teaching in colleges has become much more demanding because of increasing numbers as well as the heterogeneity of the student population. It was pointed out that increased diversity is resulting due to twin reasons namely entry of a large number of first-generation learners and secondly due to an increase in the mobility of students. This mobility may be due to move for getting access, shift from rural to urban institutions, or issue of quality, i.e. desire to move to a better institution. The study strongly emphasized that increased student diversity in the classrooms creates challenges for teachers and teaching. During the discussions, it was stated that student’s characteristics differ due to their different socio-economic and regional backgrounds such as previous academic experiences, their attitude, and motivation decides their learning outcomes and learning abilities. Teaching a highly diverse class consisting of first-generation learners, students from disadvantaged background, rural students, high achievers, and others is a challenge for the teacher. Teaching students who have studied in regional or local languages is another challenge in the classroom, e.g., students in state of Maharashtra complete their schooling in Marathi medium, whereas in college courses may be offered in different instruction mediums. The study noted that teaching-learning in multilingual class rooms create a difficult situation for students especially for the first generation learners or the ones who moved from rural to urban areas as they are unable to understand or keep pace in the class and eventually lag behind in achieving learning outcomes. Increase in student numbers in the classroom, i.e., large classrooms was stated as one of the biggest constraints to attempt innovation in teaching-learning process. Due to very large class strength, accommodating all the students in the classroom is also a challenge. Teachers’ focus remains on completion of course in time. In such a situation, teaching for developing problem-solving abilities or critical thinking skills through other teaching methods take a back seat, and to achieve expected learning outcomes becomes a challenge. The class management for effective teaching-learning and to address the individual needs of heterogeneous group is a challenge. This also influences the student-teacher engagement in tutorials, project work, etc. There are colleges where student absenteeism is reported as one of the biggest hurdles in achieving the desired learning outcomes. This is in spite of the fact that students are required to attend at least 60% of classes for being eligible to sit in

7 Teaching-Learning: A Study of Undergraduate …

91

examinations, as per the university rules. The government colleges and constituent colleges face high absenteeism due to various reasons. Many students do not attend classes because they prepare for competitive exams in order to secure admission in professional courses or even for entering into a better educational programme and/or college. There are others who join coaching classes or work along with the studies. There are students who are not interested to come to class as they feel they can learn better on their own. In one of the colleges, the faculty pointed out that out of more than 200 students enrolled in a course, daily strength remains around 50–60, in such cases completion of the syllabus becomes the goal, and ensuring quality and continuity in teaching takes the back seat. However, in the case of private colleges, absenteeism was more prevalent among the students studying liberal art courses in comparison to professional courses. On the other hand, autonomous colleges’ face fewer problems, might be due to the type of courses they offer as well as the greater institutional control. This analysis indicates that the quality of teaching-learning taking place in the colleges is not able to fulfill the needs of learners. The study further revealed that the fast-spreading use of digital technology has changed the learners profile in the colleges. The new generation of learners is digital natives. Even during the class many students especially in city/urban colleges keep their laptops open and others had mobile phones/smart-phone on the side. Reliance on technology, the internet and online information has increased. The situation is more prominent in professional courses. The discussions emphasized that despite the gap in access and use of technology, teaching-learning in the classrooms is becoming challenging. The teachers too need to update their competencies for providing quality learning experiences. Nevertheless, use of technology on the part of the teacher was found to be rather limited. One of the basic components of teaching-learning in the curriculum i.e. the content meant for transaction in the classroom. The role of relevant and context-specific curriculum is imperative as teaching-learning process in any institution invariably depends on the curriculum of the offered educational programme. The prescribed curriculum for the course is taught by the traditional method, i.e., lecture method of teaching. However, role of college teachers in development of curriculum is minimal. Another challenge is the ‘one size fits all’, centralized curriculum prepared on the basis of guidelines/templates of model curriculum prescribed by the UGC for all affiliated colleges except autonomous colleges. The study revealed, in some of the autonomous colleges one program can run under two modes- regular mode and autonomous scheme with two different curricula, fees, and taught by different teachers. This shows the incomparability of learning outcomes for students in such situations. Role of teacher is then confined to transaction of the curriculum provided in the class in all affiliated colleges including private/self-financing colleges. Revision of curriculum is not a regular phenomenon. The availability of adequate physical resources such as classrooms with required seating capacity, equipped laboratories, library and reading rooms, computer laboratories for facilitating teaching-learning process in the institutions is being strengthened. Availability of ICT facilities also enhances the quality of teaching. Though large variations among colleges were stated, Private-aided, self-financing colleges, and

92

N. Snehi

autonomous colleges were found to have the good infrastructure available. Government colleges showed large variation in terms of existing infrastructure, two of them which were established recently were placed in school buildings. The teachers in government colleges were facing the challenge of inadequate resources, especially in the teaching of science programs. However, efforts to provide the required equipment and material especially for science teaching are increasing and would have a significant impact on teaching-learning. The above discussion reflects the emerging challenges in the undergraduate classroom environment across the colleges in the country. Thus, the study reported that changing classroom environment has implications on the quality of teaching-learning and student learning outcomes. The emerging challenges for the students, teachers, and other stakeholders call for developing initiatives to achieve better classroom environment.

Current Practice The teaching-learning method in undergraduate classrooms currently in use is the traditional ‘chalk and talk’ method or ‘lecture method’ and is examination-oriented. The teacher transacts the curriculum prescribed by the university in the class. The methodology of teaching a particular topic is designed by the teacher. In general, the curriculum is transacted through lecture method as observed by the respondents. This is to complete the teaching of the prescribed curriculum in time for the examinations. Teachers plan the content as given in the curriculum and method of delivery accordingly. Practice of taking and sharing notes in the class and working on followup assignments for internal assessment exists. Since the examinations are conducted by the parent university; the examination paper for a particular course is the same for all the students enrolled in the course, admitted in different affiliated colleges. Rote learning is rampant to pass the examinations. It is stated that classroom teaching is predominantly teacher-centric, yet to provide individual attention to students’ there is practice of keeping tutorial classes in the time schedule. Discussion among students and teachers is encouraged by a few teachers in their subjects e.g. literature, sociology, political sciences, etc. Use of innovative methods is rare. It was reported that the students also prefer this method as they get notes and come to know the length and breadth, of course, to be covered for examination. The respondents from different colleges observed that teaching-learning takes place in all colleges fundamentally through lecture method, but other strategies or activities adopted do differ from one institution to another. The teaching-learning strategies do reveal significant differences across the differently managed colleges too. In fact, the observations from the government college, government-aided college, private college, and autonomous colleges all reflected that ‘chalk and talk’ method of teaching has persisted for number of decades. Every curriculum has a practical part too, how regularly these practicals are organized vary from college to college. Practical work is usually carried out in groups or as demonstration activities instead

7 Teaching-Learning: A Study of Undergraduate …

93

of individual activity. However, the methods are changing now due to availability of resources, technology, and awareness in some colleges. In case of government colleges majority of courses follow lecture method. Home assignments, tutorial classes, internal assessment exams are part of teaching activities yet the focus is completion of course for examinations. Some of the reputed government colleges do employ different methods such as seminar presentations, group discussions, project work etc. for improving teaching-learning in the colleges. Although the scenario in case of private and private-aided colleges is not much different, they do boast of large and advanced infrastructure in terms of laboratories, library, computer, and language labs. Yet, the majority of courses are taught using lecture method. The focus of teaching-learning at the undergraduate level is to obtain good marks in examinations. On the other hand, autonomous colleges though follow traditional methods of teaching-learning, do include other activities as prescribed in their curriculum. Besides the traditional lecture method, the teachers use group projects too.

Teaching-Learning Process in the Existing Classrooms Quality teaching has become non-negotiable criteria for higher education institutions to retain their place and figure in global level rankings. This has led to a greater focus on the teaching-learning activities in universities and colleges as compared to earlier days. In fact, the teaching-learning process in the classroom is essentially an interaction between teacher and learner. The student-teacher engagement activities in the actual classroom setting result in transaction of prescribed curriculum. In order to delve deeper and analyze the teaching-learning process in the class, the teaching pedagogy of the teachers to teach and assess students was studied and is discussed below. As mentioned earlier, the study revealed that in undergraduate programs, even today, the most preferred and used method of teaching is the traditional one, i.e., lectures-based method, in almost all the disciplines and in all the colleges. Largely, teaching of the prescribed curriculum is carried out through the lecture mode using blackboards and/or dictate notes. The aim of teaching remains the completion of course for preparing students to sit in exams. Students generally study through the notes provided or the ‘text books’ which are solely developed to cover the syllabus for passing the examinations. In few cases, it was reported that in addition to textbooks, use of reference books, readings/journal articles in addition to classroom teaching, in order to encourage the practice of using library among students to some extent. The stocking of copies of the recommended textbooks or the locally available textbooks in the library as compared to limited availability of the standard reference books and journals etc. too highlighted the type of teaching-learning process taking place in the institutions.

94

N. Snehi

Further, the teaching of prescribed practical part of curriculum of educational programs in general and particularly the science programs failed to provide the handson-experience to students as it was observed that students usually worked in groups comprising of 8–10 students or they were shown demonstrations of the practical exercises. The reasons cited for such a situation included presence of large number of students in the class, shortage of space, equipments, and chemicals in the laboratories, etc. Although, the private colleges as well as autonomous colleges reveal adequate infrastructural facilities, in fact, in many cases availability of advanced facilities of laboratories, library, technology/computer labs yet their use for undergraduate teaching is not much. In case of government colleges, firstly the availability of the infrastructure was limited; secondly, the opportunities to use it are less due to sharing of facilities among the different departments. In comparison to government and private colleges, the use of digital technology and innovative methods in teaching such as seminars, projects, PowerPoint presentations by students was more among the teachers from some reputed autonomous colleges. Classroom transactions are planned and delivered by the teachers thereby implying that focus still remains on teacher-centered approaches. The teachers may occasionally supplement their teaching in some cases by inviting guest lectures, study assignments, provision of reading assignments for group discussion-large and small group discussion, showing videos/DVDs/online clips, project work or problemsolving activities or student presentations in class, the blended approach of learning, seminar presentations, student debates, labs/experiments, role play, brainstorming and use of internet websites, field trips, etc. The variations in implementation strategies were noted among government, private and autonomous colleges. On the other hand, the integration of these practices has also transformed the traditional fabric of teaching-learning in the classroom. It is observed that many activities such as teaching of concepts and topics which were taking place in the classroom traditionally, are now given to students as assignments, online reading materials, etc. and after wards, they are discussed by the students and teachers in the classroom, i.e. the concept of blended learning and flipped classroom are being experimented by few teachers. This reversal of responsibility in teaching-learning process requires a fresh relook into the learning paradigms to achieve intended learning outcomes. It was pointed out by the respondents that in adoption of such methods, limitations are availability of internet, e-resources, continuous guidance, and support to students. Enhancing the capacity of teachers for facilitating learning, assessment, and evaluation of students learning is a big challenge. It was noted that in all types of colleges, primarily the objective of pedagogy adopted was completion of syllabus for the forthcoming examinations. The practice seen in case of few private colleges was test–retest drills for rote learning after completion of the course at the earliest to score better marks in end-term examination and enhance its performance. Moreover, teaching-learning process observed in the reputed private colleges and autonomous colleges of the sample showed the use of different teaching strategies. Teaching pedagogy in autonomous colleges included

7 Teaching-Learning: A Study of Undergraduate …

95

presentations, activities, projects, reading assignments, etc. but like other colleges lecture method is the preferred one. However, it gets supplemented due to adoption of other classroom strategies. As autonomous colleges have their own examination system, component of internal assessment varies from 30–40%. Therefore, they use other methods like project work, presentations, and term papers for giving internal assessment grades. Use of technology in the form of showing films, quiz/discussion, assignments, etc. is prevalent. They collaborate among the departments and even with other colleges for improving the quality teaching experience. It appears that the teaching-learning process in these colleges is more learner-oriented, yet to generalize this it is felt that exhaustive/detailed research is required. In case of government colleges, the lecture method remains the basic methodology for interactions between teachers and student in most of the classrooms. Also, the focus still remains on teacher-centered approaches. The teachers continue with their lessons with whosoever is present on that day. In such a scenario, it is felt that implementation of different strategies will help not only in attracting the students back to classroom e.g. by dividing the class into working groups, placing the responsibilities to develop and present learning material, etc. for all the students. In such cases, implementation of different teaching strategies requires not only the know-how of the strategy but also organizational and management skills for the content, task, and class as whole. The lack of use of different teaching practices also reflects on the fact that teacher’s awareness and improvement in teaching pedagogy need to be addressed urgently. There is a need to develop a strategy for continuous faculty development of teachers to improve/ transform teaching-learning process in the colleges. Barring small number of autonomous colleges, it was observed that the teaching process in classrooms is oriented towards common pattern of end-term external examination conducted by affiliating university. The extent of topics covered in the class depends on type of questions asked in the exams. Rote learning, test–retest are used to enhance practice in order to get good grades in final examination. Since, component of internal assessment is very small in government, private-aided and private affiliated colleges and emphasis on formative assessment is not strong, the teachers focus on completing the courses and preparing their students to attempt and score in the examinations, efforts to innovate teaching-learning/pedagogy are limited. On the other hand, in autonomous colleges, although the teaching-learning process is examination-oriented conduction and evaluation of examinations take place at the college itself. The college teachers participate in internal evaluation, paper setting, and evaluation of answer sheets, preparation, and declaration of results, though the degree is granted by the affiliating university. In these colleges, the autonomy to introduce innovations in regards to teaching-learning and evaluation mechanisms leads to enhancing quality. However, this approach to teaching-learning reveals the use of surface approaches for learning resulting in superficial learning among students. This aspect is supported by the studies/employers many times when it is proclaimed that a major share of graduates are unemployable and lack skills. The situation needs urgent attention. Nevertheless, some government colleges are an exception, e.g. in

96

N. Snehi

one of the colleges every student has to present a seminar (which is evaluated) at the end of every semester. This way student learns to develop a project, use of technology, and presentation skills. To sum up, the current practice of teaching-learning in higher education institutions has not changed much during the last few decades. It continues to be traditional chalk and talk i.e. instruction oriented and the assessment is based on end-term examinations and to a very small extent on activities undertaken during teaching-learning process. The shift towards learner-centered and constructivist approach has not taken place, only sporadic activities here and there are being adopted.

Improving Teaching-Learning Process The analysis of teaching-learning process taking place in the colleges highlights that improving its quality is an issue of importance. It is seen that despite the focus of learner-centered education in the aegis of academic reforms initiated in higher education sector, the pace of change is slow in the colleges. Therefore, efforts for improvement of teaching-learning process in the colleges are urgently required. Presently, the learning paradigm has become central to higher education policy in India and the focus is on developing skills and competencies of the students. In view of this, it is imperative from the earlier analysis that a fresh look to design/redesign the curricula, the pedagogy, and assessment framework are essential. In order to cater to large student population for improving the quality of learning there is a need to strengthen the student-teacher engagement in the teaching-learning process. This calls for exploration and development of new methods for teaching-learning in the classroom. In addition, in order to improve the teaching-learning process, the teaching-learning processes need to be conceptualized based on the context-specific research. In our context, this area is the least researched and warrants urgent attention. The literature reveals that the move from the lecture method to constructivist method would enhance the learner’s engagement to content and process of learning (Snehi 2008). The integration of other activities such as project works, paper discussion, field attachments, mentoring, tutoring, etc. with the traditional method of instruction would also improve learning of students. A key aspect that emerged from the discussion on teaching-learning process is that teachers’ expertise in both - the discipline and its pedagogical methods is the essential attribute for quality teaching-learning. This indicates the need for continuous teacher development initiatives from the time of induction and during career progression. Presently, the responsibility of strengthening teacher capacity lies with the Human Resource Development Centers earlier known as Academic Staff Colleges established by UGC. These HRDC’s are based in universities across India, yet the huge gap exists. Recently, launched initiative of the Government of India namely Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya National Mission on Teachers and Teaching (PMMMNMTT) is an attempt to focus on improving and supporting teachers and their teaching for the first time.

7 Teaching-Learning: A Study of Undergraduate …

97

A large number of new agencies such as Schools of Education, Centers of excellence for curriculum and pedagogy, center for excellence in science and mathematics, faculty development centers, teaching-learning centers, subject-based networks, and others have started functioning. These agencies are mandated to empower teachers and researchers and help improve the quality of higher education. It is expected that these agencies would emerge as networks for providing the stakeholders of higher education the necessary dissemination of knowledge and academic support (Snehi 2014). Another dimension for improving teaching-learning scenario in the colleges is the use of technology in imparting higher education. In view of the rapid advancements in the field of technology and their impact, the higher education system cannot keep itself aloof from its potential. The use of technology as a tool to improve teaching-learning process is enormous. This has resulted in development of new modes and approaches for teaching-learning such as blended learning approach, flipped classrooms, and online courses. These approaches can be adopted and adapted in the college’s teaching-learning framework based on the research. At present, technology integration in colleges and universities is being achieved through Government initiated programs such as National Knowledge Network (NKN), National Mission on Education through Information and Communication Technology (NMEICT) promoting MOOCs, through SWAYAM programme. Econtent development for MOOCs and other open and distance learning programme is continuing at a fast pace. In addition, developing and implementation new mechanisms for teaching-learning would have the added benefit of reducing the cost of education in universities and colleges and will increase access to higher education to the learners. Strengthening of these initiatives would result in harnessing of the enormous potential to improve teaching-learning and develop trained manpowertechnicians and teachers. However, the major hurdle in institutionalization of the learning paradigm in teaching and learning is the limited autonomy to the teachers in curriculum design and adopting newer methods of teaching and learning in the classroom. The systemic restrictions in terms of workload, doing research, and examination mechanism along with a lack of motivation and incentives are a huge challenge. These other contextual features also require a relook in order to enhance teaching-learning in colleges.

Conclusion The preceding discussion reflects that teaching-learning activities play a significant role in determining the quality of teaching and student learning outcomes. The shift from teaching paradigm towards student-centric teaching is being observed in higher education institutions of a large number of countries. As a result, the teachers’ role is undergoing change and they are expected to be proficient in imparting education through learner-centered approach. Yet, it is evident that the traditional lecture method in the classrooms will continue to remain the basis of teaching-learning,

98

N. Snehi

quality enhancement would be brought by adopting newer pedagogies and integration of technology. Research in these domains is leading to development of innovative methods of teaching-learning. Although teaching-learning scenario is undergoing a change in Indian universities and colleges but primarily traditional teacher-centered approach is being followed in almost all the institutions. Keeping in view, the emerging demands of relevant skills and competencies for employability at the national level it is imperative to develop new innovative learner-centric programs and methods for teaching-learning. Teaching-learning process in the classrooms requires intensive research to develop new modes of teaching-learning strategies and methods through the use of continuously evolving technology. In addition, emerging technology may function as an important instrument for enriching teaching and learning experiences. In order to orient teachers towards best practices and teaching methods and inculcate skills for quality teaching, continuous professional development strategies for teachers to be designed and developed. Along with technological integration, collaboration among agencies being set up for improving teaching-learning needs to be encouraged. Thus, efforts for improving teacher–student interactions in the classroom as well as outside would help in achieving intended student learning outcomes. In practice, the education reforms in teaching-learning would address the concerns of the provision of quality education to the growing number of students in the country’s higher education system.

References AISHE (All India Survey of Higher Education) 2016–17. (2016). Ministry of human resource development. Govt. of India, New Delhi Attard, A., Di Iorio, E., Geven, K., & Santa, R. (2010). Student-centred learning: Toolkit for students, staff and higher education institutions. European Students’ Union (NJ1). Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning—A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change. November/December. Berthiaume, D. (2009). Teaching in disciplines. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, & S. Marshall (Eds.), A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice, 3rd edn. New York: Routledge Brown, T. H. (2005). Beyond constructivism: Exploring future learning paradigms. Education Today, issue 2, Thames, New Zealand: Aries Publishing Company. Chalmers, D. (2007). A review of Australian and international quality systems and indicators of learning and teaching. Australia: Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. Cornelius-Shite, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A metaanalysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 113–143. De Meyer, A. C. L. (2016). Impact of technology on learning and scholarship, and the new learning paradigm. Universities priorities and constraints (pp. 283–295). Research Collection Lee Kong Chian School of Business. Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/5442 Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 8–33). New York: Teachers College Press. Gebre, E. H., Saroyan, A., & Aulls, M. (2015). Conceptions of effective teaching and perceived use of computer technologies in active learning classrooms. International Journal of Teaching and

7 Teaching-Learning: A Study of Undergraduate …

99

Learning in Higher Education, 27(2), 204–220. Available at: https://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJT LHE27(2).pdf Government of India. (2012). Report of Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012–2017), 3. New Delhi: Planning Commission. Hénard, F. (2010). Learning our lesson: Review of quality teaching in higher education. Paris: OECD Institutional Management in Higher Education. Hénard, F., & Roseveare, D. (2012). Fostering quality teaching in higher education: Policies and practices: An IMHE guide for higher education institutions. Paris: OECD Institutional Management in Higher Education. Henard, F., & Leprince-Ringuet, S. (2008). The path to quality teaching in higher education. Paris: OECD. Mandal, S. (2018). ‘Teaching-learning in higher education, evolution of concepts and an attempt towards developing a new tool of analysis, CPRHE Research Paper 9. New Delhi: CPRHE/NIEPA. Markwell, D. (2003). The urgent challenge of world class university teaching and learning. B-HERT News, Issue 18. Melbourne, Retrieved from: https://www.bhert.com/publications/newsletter/BHERTNEWS18.pdf Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge. Snehi, N. (2008). Quality Improvement at tertiary level: Constructivist learning design. University News, Vol. 46, No. 4, (Jan 28– Feb 3, 2008) Snehi, N. (2009). ICT in Indian universities and colleges: Opportunities an challenges. Management and change (Vol. 13, No. 2). New Delhi: IILM, Institute for Higher Education. Snehi, N. (2014). Improving teaching learning in higher education institutions—Focused subject based networks. Management and Change (Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 49–70). New Delhi: IILM, Institute for Higher Education. Snehi, N. (forthcoming). Autonomy in Indian Higher Education Institutions. NIEPA Research Report. New Delhi: NIEPA. Varghese, N. V. (2015). A note on national higher education qualification framework (NHEQF). Draft on Discussion. New Delhi: CPRHE/NIEPA.

Neeru Snehi Ph.D. (Education) from Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi; M.Sc. in Chemistry and M.Ed. from University of Delhi, New Delhi. Currently working as an Associate Professor in Department of Higher and Professional Education, NIEPA. She is engaged in educational research, teaching, guidance and training activities of the Institute. Her research interests lie in governance of higher education, internationalisation–student and faculty mobility, teaching– learning in higher education areas. She has published books and articles, has presented papers in the areas of higher education, school education and science education at national and international conferences.

Chapter 8

Blending Learning Provision for Higher Education: Planning Future Professional Development Don Passey and Angela Siew-Hoong Lee

Abstract A contemporary challenge for education is to develop sustained, longterm, effective enactment of teacher practices with current and future digital technologies. Some people, throughout their lives, adapt to technological change; they apply technologies not just for social or leisure purposes, but also to their learning, training, or employment needs. This study explored this issue, gathering evidence from interviewees who have sustained uses of digital technologies for teaching, learning, and training for many years. Findings highlight how individuals in the UK and Malaysia maintain and apply uses of technologies for teaching and learning, in spite of continuous technological change. An approach to innovation was found to be essential. From these findings, recommendations for future support of teacher professional practice and a radical model for future development are offered.

Introduction Evidence, replicated from studies undertaken over the past 20 years or more [e.g., (Gao et al. 2011; OECD 2015; Tatnall and Davey 2014)], shows a lack of longterm uses of digital technologies by teachers to support effective enactment, for their teaching and for student learning. While studies have identified drivers and barriers [e.g., (Conole 2016; Porter and Graham 2016)], studies exploring the reasons for long-term sustained uses have been sparser [e.g., (Mumtaz 2000)]. Developing effective teacher enactment (Heitink et al. 2016; Khan et al. 2016) requires detailed knowledge about relationships of factors and features that enable teachers to understand how and why they can use technologies in classrooms. Features and factors enabling use not only concern professional attitudes and understanding, but also attitudes and understanding towards technologies and, importantly, innovation. If D. Passey (B) Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK e-mail: [email protected] A. S.-H. Lee Sunway University, Bandar Sunway, Malaysia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 N. V. Varghese and S. Mandal (eds.), Teaching Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4847-5_8

101

102

D. Passey and A. S.-H. Lee

uses are to develop over time, to accommodate rapid technological changes, then enactment should be concerned not just with short-term and project-based uses, but with long-term uses where adaptation and change facility are inherent to professional practice. The rationale for the study reported here, therefore, was the need to address a contemporary challenge that many countries face—developing teachers’ sustained future enactment, in terms of effective uses of technologies. Some people, throughout their lives, are able to adapt to technological change and to apply technologies not just for social or leisure purposes, but also to their learning, training, or employment needs. This quality of applying continued innovative approaches is signaled to become an increasing requirement for individuals (including teachers) in the future. This study gathered evidence of key features enabling individuals to do this, so that recommendations for future professional practice might be offered, to better support current and future development. From those factors and features identified, recommendations for a radical approach to teacher development and enactment are offered. The study gathered qualitative in-depth evidence both in the United Kingdom (UK) and in Malaysia, from a selected sample of long-term users in different current occupations: students; parents; teachers; employers; policymakers; and managers. Structured interviews were used, to identify key factors or reasons for how these individuals established and maintained their long-term uses, based on an existing theoretical framework (Passey et al. 2016). Individuals selected for participation in the study had been using technologies for learning, teaching, training, or employment purposes for at least 5 years, in many cases up to 20 or 30 years, and in some even more.

A Background from the Literature Some national education systems (e.g., the UK, Denmark, the United States of America, Australia, and Canada) have implemented information and communication technologies (ICT) into schools, colleges, and universities over a period of 25 or more years [see (Tatnall and Davey 2014)]. In spite of such a long period through which to develop continued integration of ICT into educational practices, concerns about levels of use and forms of use by teachers continue to be raised. Studies indicate that teachers have neither enacted ICTs on a wide scale [e.g., (OECD 2015)], nor have they brought about benefits expected from the investment [e.g., (Selwyn 2010)]. However, research has shown that ICT can bring about educational benefits [e.g., (Passey 2014; Tamim et al. 2011)]. A key difference that distinguishes these apparently contrasting findings is the difference in approaches and roles taken by teachers, tutors, counsellors, policymakers, or parents. As those authors state, ICT does not necessarily bring about change or benefit without appropriate enactment, intervention, and support. The absence of sustained classroom-based enactment with digital technologies in both developed and developing countries (Attewell 2001) highlights

8 Blending Learning Provision for Higher Education …

103

a common concern. Limitations to such innovatory practice have been stated to arise when digital tools and resources are, because of pressures of curricular demands in developed countries, underused (Cuban 2015). Having said this about the wider picture, many innovative and implementation practices exist in education and are enacted by teachers, both inside and outside classrooms (Steyn et al. 2011; Voogt et al. 2015). Potential users of innovation must themselves be innovatory; to be able to accurately determine how to adapt and implement that innovation (and its affordances) to their setting and whether sufficient conditions for success might exist (Looi and Teh 2015). However, studies demonstrate that initial successes in the adoption of digital technologies are not enough in themselves to lead to long-term enactment (Ahmad 2015; Labonté-Hubert 2013). Long-term implementation studies reveal that conditions change, that new challenges arise, and that more continuous adaptation is a requirement for continued enactment (Laferrière et al. 2013; Passey 2011; Sandholtz et al. 1997). For such continued enactment, users need to review their challenges in the context of technology adaptation over time; long-term adaptability from technological, pedagogical, cultural, social, and learning perspectives all need to be considered and in place. Fundamentally, introducing an element such as ICT into practice, to support both teaching and learning, is effectively concerned with innovation change and its management. Conceptualizing that change is clearly important, as the form of conception that is chosen or developed can determine the nature of processes that might be needed to support it, both in the shorter- and longer-term. Weick and Quinn (1999) distinguished between two types of change, “episodic” and “continuous”. In education, if digital technology enactment is considered an “episodic” change, then support and development would perhaps be more appropriately focused on identified “episodes” that occur at intervals. On the other hand, if enactment is considered a “continuous” change, then support and development might need to be more consistently focused. Even taking these two different patterns into account, there are clear implications for education and for teachers, since the pattern of change is then distinguished or determined by the perceptions or approaches of those implementing ICT into practice. Similarly, Pennington (Pennington 2003) distinguished between change that could be considered “radical” (perhaps implying more shorter-term focus) or “incremental” (implying longer-term focus) versus “core” or “peripheral”; again, there are implications for development and successful sustainability. Changes in ICT need to be considered within a wider change management context. Major hardware changes occur about every 5 years, while software changes occur about every 18 months (Passey 1999). The latter changes not only include software updates and upgrades, but the emergence of new software. Additional factors that affect change concern enactment more directly; for example, initial teacher enactment of ICT into practice can lead to an initial downturn in performance. Mevarech (1997) described this as a U-curve, while Leung, Watters, and Ginns’s (Leung et al. 2005) case study of younger teachers also reported that their perceptions of ICT abilities and self-efficacy decreased during the first year of a project, with a subsequent lowering of uses of ICT during the second year. There are clear implications arising; if teachers are identifying innovative outcomes in terms of learning benefits arising within that

104

D. Passey and A. S.-H. Lee

same period of downturn from their early enactment of ICT, and if benefits accrue only after a certain period of time once the downturn has been overcome, then persistence in use is an important factor. Even so, the identification of forms of benefits needs to match the forms of technologies and their uses (Passey 2014; Higgins et al. 2012), matching applications of technological affordances, uses, and outcomes for teaching and learning when identifying benefits and impacts. Such factors imply the need for appropriate reviewing, monitoring, regular updating, and potentially support for professional development. Long-term change requires a concern for the many factors affecting sustainable enactment. However, sustainability in this sense should not be considered as a move to stability or lack of change; it should be considered as a way to manage and handle ongoing and successive change. Long-term sustainable enactment requires adaptability on the part of teachers and students. With technologies changing over time, teachers require periods of adaptation to those changes, developing attitudes to becoming familiar with differences, identifying additional benefits or disadvantages, or innovative practices that enable effective outcomes. Traditionally, models of technology integration (or adaptation) have focused on implementation and enactment in a number of ways. One is through stages or phases [such as the model developed by Hooper and Rieber (1995)], an approach also suggested when considering pedagogical enactment or change [e.g., (Puentedura 2013)]. A second way focuses on conceptual approaches, on the context of the change through which it is developed [e.g., (Corbett and Rossman 1989)]. This approach has identified important factors beyond the technologies themselves (including political and cultural factors), and indeed, some authors [e.g., (Oliver 2011; Pannabecker 1991)] have argued that implementation models need to move away from concerns with technological determinism. A third way focuses more on factors that influence individual take-up of technology uses, such as the widely recognized Everett Rogers’s Diffusion of Innovations Model (Rogers 2003), and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) of Davis (1989). While these models consider an individual user and their initial acceptance, other models have been more concerned with ongoing adoption and enactment, such as the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) of Hall et al. (1973) and the post-acceptance model of Bhattacherjee (2001). In contrast to models based on the elicitation of factors or features, Todnem By (2005) discusses the crucial importance of conceptualizing change when considering its management. Factors such as technological change, teacher practice, stakeholder influence, and contextual factors affecting long-term enactment and sustainability suggest that approaches for professional change with ICT should consider a management of continuous and incremental change. Coupled with the findings of Mevarech (1997) and Leung et al. (2005), this suggests a visualization of the conception of change as one having periods of downturn followed by benefit, with perhaps short periods of time where performance again dips prior to successive cycles arising [see (Passey et al. 2016)].

8 Blending Learning Provision for Higher Education …

105

The Research Study Approach To enable sustainable and innovative enactment by professionals, Rogers (2014) identified the feature of adaptability as being more critical than intrinsic motivation itself. Continued enactment clearly needs to take account of previous experience in building new knowledge, focused on content, pedagogical and technological features for teaching and learning (Mishra and Koehler 2006). Many studies have looked at new knowledge development, uses and outcomes of ICT in the short-term, perhaps over a period of 1 year, or 2 years at the most [e.g., see the many highlighted in this category (Passey 2014)]. Studies that look to explore experiences and factors that lead to enactment over long periods are clearly worthy of exploration. To undertake such a study, while design-based implementation research is especially suited to longer study periods (Penuel et al. 2011), the study reported here elicited self-reported experiences from selected individuals. Evidence was gathered in two countries (the UK and Malaysia), and experiences of users were identified and analyzed. Interviewees were asked about: hardware changes in education (since about 1995); software changes (since about 1995); their perceived performance following ICT introductions; benefits they had experienced from particular uses; how their uses had been updated; the systemic actors within their contexts that were considered important, and the roles they played; contextual factors that had been present, and those felt to favor or hinder changes with ICT; how sustainable enactment had been and still is being considered; and how adaptability had been and is being introduced.

Methodological Design and Techniques The study took an existing theoretical framework (Passey et al. 2016) as its base. It gathered qualitative evidence, interviewing representative long-term users about technologies for their learning, teaching, and training. The data-gathering instrument was developed from the theoretical framework, and the framework was also used to structure some of the subsequent analyses (all data within a specific question was subject to a grounded analysis approach). The outcomes of this analysis were then used to inform recommendations and a model for future professional enactment development. In the UK, 14 participants were involved, two from each of the following seven categories: teachers; learners in university; parents; school managers; third-party organization managers; national policymakers; and employers. In Malaysia, 10 participants were involved, two from each of the following five categories: policymakers; school managers; parents; teachers; and third-party organization managers. The sampling involved was purposive, to match the focus of the research on sustained enactment (5 years or more of use). Data collection relied on an interview, which was audio-recorded. Potential participants were contacted through email invitation,

106

D. Passey and A. S.-H. Lee

and if they indicated interest in being involved, they were sent a participant information sheet to inform them about the study, with a consent form to complete. After completion, they were sent a follow-up email of instructions; interview questions were attached if these were requested in advance. For interviewees, anonymity was assured. Participants were able to read the transcripts of their interviews before those data were used, and could at that point delete any points they considered confidential. No data from the interviews were used without participants’ agreements. Pseudonyms were used in interview transcripts to ensure that individual participants could not be identified. The analysis of individual questions from the interviews adopted a grounded approach (which provided thematic categories). Charmaz (2006) and Bryant and Charmaz (2007) reviewed relevant practices using a grounded approach, and this was the approach taken for this study. The grounded theory approach used different subsequent coding methods: open coding, to identify specific elements of the interview texts that offered insights or details; axial coding, where relationships between the open coding elements were considered; and selective coding, where core categories were identified. Axial and selective coding outcomes are provided in this paper. Overall, coding was approached using a process of constant comparison (Glaser and Strauss 1967). Subsequently, axial and selective coding outcomes were subject to a further analysis, that placed these outcomes within a thematic grouping, to identify the focus of the participants in terms of the elements of enactment (Passey 2014): affordances (identifying the features of technologies that could be used and support their teaching or learning); uses (the ways they were concerned with developing activities for them or for their learners to use); outcomes (their focus on what arose from the uses, both for them as teachers and for their learners); and impact (how the outcomes were of value and subsequently used by them, or by learners).

Results of the Study In total, 24 participants provided evidence. About half were women (6 from the UK and 5 from Malaysia) and half were men (8 from the UK and 5 from Malaysia). Most participants were aged between 41 and 60 years (11 from the UK and 4 from Malaysia). Some were younger (2 from the UK and 4 from Malaysia) and one was older (1 from the UK). Many of the interviewees had been using technologies for learning, teaching, training, or employment for more than twenty years (6 from the UK and 5 from Malaysia between 21 and 30 years, and 4 from the UK and 1 from Malaysia for 31 years or more). Some had used technologies for between 5 and 20 years (1 from the UK and 3 from Malaysia for up to 10 years, and 3 from the UK and 1 from Malaysia for between 11 and 20 years). Hardware changes can affect sustained uses in quite profound ways. Respondents from the UK tended to recall only one or two specific forms of past hardware change (even though they had clearly experienced more than this number across their periods

8 Blending Learning Provision for Higher Education …

107

of use). They related these forms of hardware to periods of their life (childhood, first job, etc.) rather than associating them with specific dates or times. The hardware forms identified were in some instances reasonably early forms of devices (Compact Discs Read-Only Memory (CD-ROMs), computers with internal memory, toys with internal programming), while others were concerned with increased accessibility (networked computers (3 respondents), interactive whiteboards (2 respondents), Internet (2 respondents), broadband, video streaming, virtual learning environments (VLEs) and the intranet). It was noted that some reported changes were concerned more with software than they were with hardware per se. Respondents from Malaysia tended to report mobile device changes—6 reported mobile telephones, 5 reported iPads, and 5 reported laptops. The only other changes reported by interviewees from Malaysia were interactive whiteboards, the Internet, and CD-ROMs/floppy disks (each in 1 case only). When asked about software changes, and when these were first used, some respondents from the UK indicated general software changes or features, while others identified specific software changes. Respondents did not, however, relate these changes to specific years, or even periods or times when they were used. General forms of software identified were interactive technologies, more intuitive software, software becoming available on devices and online, connecting with work from home, and shared work. Generic software identified as the Internet, cloud storage and access (2 respondents), email (2 respondents), Microsoft (2 respondents), and social networking. More specific software was also mentioned, such as Microsoft (MS) Excel (2 respondents), MS Word, Net Learn, Moodle, Google Hangouts, Dropbox, and Box. Respondents from Malaysia reported more MS-related software changes— 5 reported MS as a whole, 2 MS Word, and 1 MS Excel. Additionally, they mentioned storage in the cloud (2 respondents), shared work (2 respondents), and Dropbox (1 respondent). Performance with new hardware or software can be affected when change occurs. Responses from UK interviewees fell within four main categories: increased efficiency; enhanced access; improved performance; and enhanced ease of use. Examples of increased efficiency were reacting to things much faster, saving lots of time, increasing productivity, getting the information in real-time very quickly, and putting a presentation together in a very short space of time. In terms of enhanced access, examples reported were accessing documents anywhere on any device, being able to work anywhere at any time, and being able to post to students online. Reported examples of improved performance were the quality of documents being far better, and customers appreciating increased visibility. For enhanced ease of use, reported examples were making life easier and delivering content very easily. Only two respondents indicated that they recognized a change in their performance over a short period of time, saying: there is always a drop in performance when they start; they make mistakes initially; learning improves the more it is used; it depends on complexity of the program, and how often it is applied and used; and, more than performance, it is about the expectation. Respondents from Malaysia reported largely on their recognition of changes in productivity and efficiency arising. They stated that productivity increases (in 5 cases), performance increases significantly (in 2 cases), it is far more

108

D. Passey and A. S.-H. Lee

efficient and effective (in 1 case), and learning improved the more it was used (in 1 case). However, they also indicated challenges in terms of low productivity and it being time-consuming (in 1 case), and the need to provide training and having to re-train people (in 1 case). In terms of benefits that they had experienced, responses from the UK interviewees fell within six main categories. The first was information access: convenient not to search in books; and can access free books online and do revisions). The second was access at a more general level: enhanced accessibility and usability; connectivity; and ease of not having to carry ‘stuff’ around. The third was collaboration: staff can come together; and work can be shared with others. The fourth was self- empowerment: liberating and empowering; can monitor everything; simple to review policy just by deleting or changing the wording, and the reach is different. The fifth was greater levels of understanding: use a much broader variety of multimedia, audio, video clips, discussion forums, and other types of information; and send video clips to watch and comment. Lastly, the sixth was communication: the customer has the possibility to give feedback; communicate with people very quickly; finding shortcuts to make things easier; can communicate and reach people all over the world; and can communicate and work more easily. Responses from Malaysia indicated a narrower range of benefits, but focusing also on productivity and communication. These ranged from improving productivity (in 4 cases), saving time (in 3 cases), facilitating relationships (in 1 case), and connectivity, access, and collaboration (in 1 case). Interviewees were asked how they had managed to maintain uses and address challenges of technologies when software or hardware changed, and what they did so that they could use the new or updated software or hardware. The responses from the UK fell within four main categories. The first was exploring uses themselves and practicing as needed: starting by using it; teaching yourself to use them; and confidence coming through practice, the more you use, the more confident you become. The second was using advice and guidance provided with the updates: it normally comes with some sort of advice. The third was going on training courses: go on training courses when the programs are very sophisticated; and went on a lot of courses, and read books. Lastly, the fourth was using help from those around them: pioneers and ambassadors; looking at what others do; a spouse’s use of technology; finding out what other people are using, and asking somebody or just trying it out. The only respondent from the UK who commented on how often updating happened said that they “update on the basis that we need”. Respondents from Malaysia indicated that they went on training courses when the programs were very sophisticated (in 2 cases), went on a lot of courses and read books (in 2 cases), or updated on the basis that they needed (in 1 case). When asked about the people consulted who made a difference to their abilities to accommodate these changes, responses from the UK fell within four main categories. The first was individuals within their area of employment: another teacher in school; a headteacher in the school; a savvy and very knowledgeable colleague; and being surrounded by people who talk about technology and its developments in the future. The second was family members or friends: children helping on the iPad; friends;

8 Blending Learning Provision for Higher Education …

109

a spouse is the technology lead; friends considered to be geeks; and a family keen on home automation systems. The third was units supporting employment areas: the IT (information technology) support; a couple of organizations working with them on IT; and two people in an IT team very experienced in programming and in computer networking. Lastly, the fourth was the more general work environment: people around using it; surrounded by people who are interested in technology; and seeing it and practicing it. Respondents from Malaysia mentioned specifically somebody who already had new technology (in 2 cases), another teacher in school (in 1 case), their IT support (in 1 case), and organizations they worked with on IT (in 1 case). Additionally, they mentioned that they were surrounded by people who talked about technology and its developments in the future (in 1 case), they embraced new technologies (in 1 case), and worked with entrepreneurs (in 1 case). In terms of responses about contextual factors, it is interesting to note that the factors not felt to be particularly influential were technical support (in the cases of the UK and Malaysia), equitable access, and the ability to choose when to use the technologies (in the case of the UK), and assessment and evaluation of practices (in the case of Malaysia). When asked about factors that hindered the ability to adapt to technology changes over time, respondents from the UK highlighted time to learn and to adapt as the main issue (in 4 cases), but interestingly, not lack of technical support. Other hindering factors were the need to be convinced that using technology is worthwhile (in 2 cases), and funding (in 2 cases). Additional factors mentioned were colleagues or superiors not understanding what technologies did, not having adequate resources, not being able to use the same device for all aspects of work, and the fear factor. The difficult language often used around technology, anxiety when contacting technical services, lack of funding to send staff to learn, the need to sometimes have to create things from scratch, and technical failure in the system, were also reported. The cost of replacing specific hardware, time to upload new versions of applications (apps), and time to try out and learn by playing, were also mentioned. Respondents from Malaysia highlighted funding (in 4 cases), the fear factor (in 2 cases), the time it takes to learn and to adapt (in 1 case), technical failure in the system (in 1 case), and management decisions (in 1 case) as hindering factors. How interviewees from the UK considered technology overall was largely very positive: essential or necessary to work (in 5 cases); ‘phenomenally’ useful, ‘amazing’ (in 3 cases); and a very important complement (in 2 cases). Other positive views expressed were that it was ‘phenomenally’ transforming, it drives most processes in the business, it makes life easier (‘which was easy to say after spending four days without it’), and part of life and not only a working tool. Some respondents indicated more neutral views, saying being IT literate is important to fully participate in modern society, not being dependent upon it, and expecting everybody coming into the workforce to do it naturally. Some, however, expressed concerns and more negative views, saying it could be deeply problematic, intrusive when you are not allowed to switch off from the job, losing connectivity throwing everything into chaos, both being an enabler and a poison chalice, that expectations of access and immediacy can be potentially stressful, and empowering and potentially disempowering at the same time. Respondents from Malaysia were perhaps more neutral

110

D. Passey and A. S.-H. Lee

in their responses. They stated that they felt there was a requirement to adapt to new technology (in 3 cases), it was both an enabler and a poison chalice (in 1 case), it supported competitiveness and collaboration (in 1 case), and it led to the ability to multitask (in 1 case). The importance of needing to understand concerns as well as taking a positive attitude is clear here and suggests that training and development in this field need to accommodate both of these needs. Crucially, when asked about the main personal factors or characteristics that they felt enabled them to adapt to technology changes over time, the most commonly arising factors stated by respondents from the UK were: seeing its value, its use, and having a positive attitude to technology (in 7 cases); being very inquisitive (in 5 cases); liking to learn new things (in 4 cases); being very adaptable (in 3 cases); and always looking for short cuts, for easier ways to do things (in 2 cases). Other factors stated were: being flexible in approach; regarding it as a necessity; being interested in what it can do in all fields of work; some determination; it is just about trying to keep up-to-date with it; and liking to play with new technology. Respondents from Malaysia identified similar personal factors or characteristics. They indicated the need to be humble and a willingness to learn things (in 5 cases), to be openminded (in 3 cases), to be very adaptable (in 2 cases), and to have a curiosity for new technology (in 2 cases). Additionally, they mentioned seeing its value, its use, and to have a positive attitude to technology (in 1 case), like to play with new technology (in 1 case), and patience (in 1 case).

Discussion of the Findings Considering the findings from the perspective of the interviewees’ focus on affordances, uses, outcomes, or impact, an interesting pattern emerges. When asked about hardware changes, participants did not give a highly detailed account of the changes, and these tended to be hardware changes that had been fairly recent or those that were linked to major benefits that they reported. This was also the case with software; software changes were not identified as being problematic or causing challenges but were related to benefits arising. Performance was related much more to outcomes and impact than it was to affordances or uses. Increased efficiency and improved performance related to impact; enhanced access related to uses; and enhanced ease of use related to affordances. Even though some respondents reported that there was a lowering of their performance after changes had occurred, nevertheless this was placed in the context of longer-term positive outcomes and impact. When asked about benefits, although affordances such as information access were identified, these were nevertheless linked to outcomes and impact (e.g., interviewees stated how technologies enabled access to free books online and enabled revisions, as well as the ease of not having to carry ‘stuff’ around). Collaboration and self-empowerment were certainly related to uses and outcomes, as were greater levels of understanding and communication. But again, links were made to impact (such as how technologies

8 Blending Learning Provision for Higher Education …

111

were helping in terms of feeling reassured about where children were, the speed with which work could be done and being able to communicate and work more easily). In terms of maintaining enactment, respondents identified a range of ways in which they did this, but they did not focus on affordances when discussing these mechanisms. The importance of other individuals and the immediate work environment was also clear. It is an environment of uses, outcomes, and impacts that comes to bear, rather than an environment that focuses on affordances. Factors that hinder also did not relate to affordances; they were concerned with funding and time, and not the technologies or technology support per se. How these respondents considered technologies overall was also focused largely on impact, outcomes, and uses, and not on affordances. Statements such as it made life easier (which was stated as being ‘easy to say after spending four days without it’), and necessary to work, highlighted this point. However, some respondents were clear that there was a need to consider the negative potential those technologies could bring, and that it was necessary to accommodate these. This did not mean that their focus on impact, outcomes, and uses had been diminished; it meant that individuals had recognized where impact and outcomes were important, and to call for technology development to help them address these negative concerns. Some respondents highlighted the importance of maintaining contact with others or with sources of advice in order to sustain enactment. However, the importance of personal factors or characteristics was strongly related to many respondents. They highlighted the need for a positive attitude to technology, inquisitiveness, liking to learn new things, liking to play with new technology, being humble and a willingness to learn things, being open-minded, adaptable, looking for short cuts and for easier ways to do things, being flexible in approach, having determination, but being impatient as well as having patience. These are qualities of innovative approaches. Key points arising from the findings and the analyses are: • Major hardware changes were seen as providing advantages rather than obstacles. • Software changes were seen as offering increased ease of use rather than creating increased complexity. • Using technologies to move to a position of advantage was generally recognized as a given. • Enhanced efficiency and productivity were regular outcomes or impacts identified. • Enhanced communication and cloud access were focal contemporary outcomes highlighted. • The work environment was important in terms of engagement and was a driving factor. • Others around who could offer support were important, but they might be in different environments—in the home, office, at work, or online. • Time to learn and adapt and funding to support technologies and training were important factors that could hinder. • Having a positive attitude was very important, but also the need to be aware of concerns about intrusiveness that new technologies could bring, and how to address these.

112

D. Passey and A. S.-H. Lee

• Maintaining contact with developing technologies was considered important, but doing this online seemed to be overtaking doing this through personal contact. In terms of innovative approaches, the personal characteristics that could drive sustained enactment commonly reported were positive attitudes to technology, being inquisitive, liking to learn new things, being adaptable, and looking for short cuts and easier ways to do things.

Conclusions and Recommendations New technologies are enabling a range of innovations in education. Online provision, asynchronous discussion, virtual realities, and game-based learning are all examples that highlight this. Innovation can happen in different ways, but the important and crucial roles of teachers are clear; however, gaining teachers’ positive involvement and enactment in educational practices using technologies appears from the current study findings to suggest a range of recommended approaches that focus on empowering personal innovation. If sustained and effective uses of technologies are to be developed, then institutions concerned with developing and supporting teachers and learners, whether they be initial teacher training institutions, schools, colleges, universities, or local or regional centers, should consider a focus on: • Developing positive personal characteristics to drive sustained enactment—positive attitudes to technology, being inquisitive about learning new things, being adaptable, and looking for short cuts and easier ways to do things. • Enabling the maintaining of contact with developing technologies—and increasingly online more than personal contact. • Supporting a balanced view of technologies—a positive attitude is very important, but the need to be aware of concerns about intrusiveness that new technologies can bring is similarly important. • Managing and budgeting for time to learn and adapt, and funding to support technologies and training. • Encouraging others around to offer support—in the home, as well as in the office, at work, or online. • Focusing on enhanced communication and cloud access, enhanced efficiency, and productivity—on identifiable outcomes or impacts. • Using technologies to enable individuals to move to a position of advantage. • Considering software changes as offering increased ease of use rather than creating increased complexity, and major hardware changes as providing advantages rather than obstacles. A proposed model for the future development of sustained effective and innovative uses of technologies is offered in Fig. 8.1. Interestingly, features of this model relate to factors for successful professional development identified by Joyce and Showers

8 Blending Learning Provision for Higher Education …

113

Fig. 8.1 Proposed model for future development of sustained effective uses of technologies

(2002): persistence; acknowledgment of the transfer problem; teaching new behaviors to students; understanding the importance of the underlying theory; proactive and productive use of peers; and flexibility. Evidence from the current study confirms a continued need to focus on affective as well as technological, content, and pedagogic factors. These research findings suggest that institutions that have focused on providing technical support alone should rethink their positions. Rather than a single focus on technical support and affordances, the evidence here indicates that institutions should focus on developing personal characteristics concerned with enquiry and inquisitiveness, highlighting outcome and impact support. Fundamentally, this suggests moving away from technical support that focuses on affordances to a focus on outcome and impacts support or developing units or individuals that have a different and complementary focus. While an essential technical maintenance and implementation unit to interface with the institutional foundations ensuring infrastructure and accessibility is needed, it is also important for outcome and impacts support personnel to interface with users from a developing personal characteristics perspective. It can be argued that some support is now provided in this way; a distinction between infrastructure and network support, and user interface support. However, this paper argues for the focus of the user interface support being the development of creative and innovative personal characteristics that are applied to technologies.

114

D. Passey and A. S.-H. Lee

Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research This research gathered evidence from a limited range of participants, selected specifically to identify features of sustained and effective uses of technologies. While this approach might be considered as leading to limitations, it should be recognized that the focus of the research was not to produce a statistical view across a population but to identify features of a specific population. In this regard, a future study to substantiate the findings of this study would be valuable, but this should also seek to highlight features within more specific populations so that a more contextualized developmental model might focus on the requirements of an individual group. Additionally, a new avenue of research would be to explore whether current practices do enable distinction in support between technical needs and user interface needs, and to what extent. Acknowledgements The authors thank Dr. Joana Zozimo for recording and transcribing interviews for the UK element of the study, and Wong De-Yi and Yap Mun-Yee for recording and transcribing interviews for the Malaysian element of the study.

References Ahmad, A. K. (2015). A delphi study: Technology leadership network’s perceptions of ISTE essential conditions for technology integration in professional learning communities. Doctoral dissertation, Brandman University, Irvine, CA. Attewell, P. (2001). The first and second digital divides. Sociology of Education, 74(3), 252–259. Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectationconfirmation model. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 25(3), 351–370. Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007). The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Conole, G. (2016). MOOCs as disruptive technologies: strategies for enhancing the learner experience and quality of MOOCs. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 50(2). http://dx.doi.org/10. 6018/red/50/2. Corbett, H., & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Three paths to implementing change: A research note. Curriculum Inquiry, 19(2), 164–179. Cuban, L. (2015). The lack of evidence-based practice: The case of classroom technology. Retrieved on April 20, 2016 from: https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2015/02/05/the-lack-of-evi dence-based-practice-the-case-of-classroom-technology-part-1/. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. Gao, P., Wong, A. F., Choy, D., & Wu, J. (2011). Beginning teachers’ understanding performances of technology integration. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 31, 211–223. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company. Hall, G., Wallace, R., & Dossett, W. (1973). A developmental conceptualization of the adoption process within educational institutions (Report No. 3006). Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas at Austin.

8 Blending Learning Provision for Higher Education …

115

Heitink, M., Voogt, J., Verplanken, L., Braak, J. V., & Fisser, P. (2016). Teachers’ professional reasoning about their pedagogical use of technology. Computers and Education, 101, 70–83. Higgins, S., Xiao, Z., & Katsipaki, M. (2012). The impact of digital technology on learning: A summary for the education endownment foundation. Retrieved on April 20, 2016 from: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/uploads/pdf/The_Impact_of_Digital_Tech nology_on_Learning_Executive_Summary_(2012).pdf. Hooper, S., & Rieber, L. P. (1995). Teaching with technology. In A. C. Ornstein (Ed.), Teaching: Theory into practice (pp. 154–170). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership. Khan, M. S. H., Bibi, S., & Hasan, M. (2016). Australian technical teachers’ experience of technology integration in teaching. SAGE Open, 6(3), 1–12. Labonté-Hubert, A. (2013). Les manifestations de transformation dans l’activité d’intégration du Knowledge Forum et de VIA dans la classe pléthorique burkinabè. Mémoire de maîtrise: Université Laval, QC, Canada. Laferrière, T., Hamel, C., & Searson, M. (2013). Barriers to successful implementation of technology integration in educational settings: A case study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(5), 463–473. Leung, K. P., Watters, J. J., & Ginns, I. S. (2005). Enhancing teachers’ incorporation of ICT in classroom teaching. Paper presented at the 9th Annual Global Chinese Conference on Computers in Education. Brigham Young University, Hawaii, USA. Looi, C.-K., & Teh, L.-W. (Eds.). (2015). Scaling educational innovations. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Mevarech, Z. R. (1997). The U-curve process that trainee teachers experience in integrating computers into the curriculum. In D. Passey & B. Samways (Eds.), Proceedings of the IFIP TC3 WG3.1/3.5 Joint Working Conference on Information Technology Supporting Change through Teacher Education. London: Chapman and Hall. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications technology: A review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), 319– 342. OECD. (2015). Students, computers, and learning: Making the connection. OECD: Paris, France. Oliver, M. (2011). Technological determinism in educational technology research: Some alternative ways of thinking about the relationship between learning and technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 373–384. Pannabecker, J. R. (1991). Technological impacts and determinism in technology education: Alternate metaphors from social constructivism. Journal of Technology Education, 3(1). Retrieved on April 20, 2016 from: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v3n1/html/pannabecker.html. Passey, D. (1999). Strategic evaluation of the impacts on learning of educational technologies: Exploring some of the issues for evaluators and future evaluation audiences. Education and Information Technologies, 4(3), 1–28. Passey, D. (2011). Implementing learning platforms into schools: An architecture for wider involvement in learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(4), 367–397. Passey, D. (2014). Inclusive technology enhanced learning: Overcoming cognitive, physical, emotional and geographic challenges. New York, NY: Routledge. Passey, D., Laferrière, T., Ahmad, M. Y. A., Bhowmik, M., Gross, D., Price, J., et al. (2016). Educational digital technologies in developing countries challenge third party providers. Educational Technology and Society, 19(3), 121–133. Pennington, G. (2003). Guidelines for promoting and facilitating change. Learning and teaching support network. Retrieved April 20, 2016 from: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/ id296_promoting_and_facilitating_change.pdf.

116

D. Passey and A. S.-H. Lee

Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Haugan Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337. Porter, W. W., & Graham, C. R. (2016). Institutional drivers and barriers to faculty adoption of blended learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 748–762. Puentedura, R. R. (2013). The SAMR ladder: Questions and transitions. Retrieved on April 20, 2016 from: http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2013/10/26/SAMRLadder_Questions.pdf. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Rogers, C. (2014). Digital skills and motivation in young people in transition. In D. Passey & A. Tatnall (Eds.), Key Competencies in ICT and Informatics: Implications and Issues for Educational Professionals and Management. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Sandholtz, J., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating studentcentered classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond bearning: Notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 65–73. Steyn, J., van Belle, J.-P., & Villanueva Mansilla, E. (2011). ICTs for global development and sustainability: Practice and applications. IGI Global: Hershey, NY. Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovsi, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4–28. Tatnall, A., & Davey, B. (Eds.). (2014). Reflections on the history of computers in education: Using computers and teaching about computing in schools from the late 1970s to the early 1990s. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Todnem By, R. (2005). Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 369–380. Voogt, J., Laferrière, T., Breuleux, A., Itow, R., Hickey, D. T., & McKenney, S. (2015). Collaborative (re-)design as a form of professional development: teacher learning by design. Instructional Science, 43(2), 259–282. Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organisational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361–386.

Don Passey Professor Don Passey is Director of International Strategy and Director of Studies of the international doctoral programme in e-research and technology enhanced learning in the Department of Educational Research at Lancaster University, UK, and an Honorary Professor of Amity University, Uttar Pradesh, India. His research investigates how digital technologies support learning and teaching. Recent studies have explored blended learning approaches, and innovative and inclusive practices, in and outside classrooms, in home and community settings. His findings have informed policy and practice, for government departments and agencies, regional and local authorities, companies and corporations. He is chair of the International Federation for Information Processing Technical Committee on Education. Angela Siew-Hoong Lee Dr. Angela Siew-Hoong Lee is an Associate Professor of data analytics in the School of Science and Technology, Sunway University, Malaysia. Her teaching and research interests cover sentiment analysis, social media analytics, predictive analytics, technology adoption, and education technology. She has published extensively in leading conferences and journals, including the Journal of Computer Information Systems and the Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, and serves as a reviewer for international journals including the International Journal of Web Information Systems. She serves on the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Big Data Technical Committee, is a member of the Association of Information Systems and IEEE, a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy UK, represents Malaysia in the International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP), and was one of the founding members of the SAS user group in Malaysia.

Chapter 9

Facilitating Active Learning Opportunities for Students Through the Use of Technology-Enhanced Learning Tools: The Case for Pedagogic Innovation and Change Richard Walker Abstract This chapter summarises findings from Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association (UCISA) case study and survey research on the pace of change in the institutional adoption of technology-enhanced learning tools across the UK higher education sector and will address the rise of student-controlled and creative technologies to promote information, knowledge-sharing, and networking in learning and teaching activities. Current generations of students are now arriving on campus with the expectation that their technologies will seamlessly interconnect with university services and support their learning experience. The chapter will discuss the impact these technological developments are having on the delivery of campus-based courses—specifically the scope that learning technologies now present for innovation in the delivery of the taught curriculum. Through a chapter of case examples from the University of York we consider how the affordances of mobile and online learning technologies are being applied to support active learning opportunities for students. This chapter addresses the rise of student-controlled and creative technologies to promote information, knowledge-sharing, and networking in learning and teaching activities.

Introduction The past decade has witnessed significant changes in the UK higher education sector. The demographic dip in the population of 18 to 24-year-old students (VincentLancrin 2008), coupled with the economic downturn and austerity cuts in government funding to higher education institutions, has led to a tougher climate for UK universities to operate in. The deregulation of the marketplace and entry of new private degree providers has further challenged public universities, leading to an increasingly congested and competitive undergraduate admissions marketplace where the R. Walker (B) University of York, York, UK e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 N. V. Varghese and S. Mandal (eds.), Teaching Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4847-5_9

117

118

R. Walker

quality of student services counts. In this context Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) services have become an important component of the student learning experience and a focus for investment by universities in student-facing services to match the new £9k annual tuition fees for home students which were introduced across the sector in 2012. Recent investment decisions in TEL provision reflect a continuing commitment to the enhancement of the quality of learning and teaching, which, no doubt, have been informed by student expectations. As reported in a recent national survey by the Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association (UCISA) of technologyenhanced learning developments across the UK higher education sector, the focus on student satisfaction is highlighted strongly in the list of drivers for institutional TEL development, with the need to meet student expectations and improve student satisfaction ratings through feedback channels such as the UK National Student Survey listed as among the top three concerns (Walker et al. 2016). Feedback from students is one of the leading factors encouraging the development of TEL services, with students increasingly being recognized as consumers and, in some cases, partners in educational development [1], with a greater voice on the scope and quality of services that universities should be providing for them (Reed and Watmough 2015; Wenstone 2013). We have observed at the University of York how TEL has been the subject of strong lobbying by student unions for new services, with an active campaign for lecture recording provision to be introduced across study programmes [2]. In this context, institutions are being strongly advised to clarify their ‘offer’ to students [3] and encouraged by organizations such as the UK Higher Education Academy to support a greater range of flexible learning opportunities, in line with the recommendations of the Higher Education Funding Council for England’s 2011 paper: Opportunity, Choice and Excellence (HEFCE 2011).

Supporting Flexible Learning Opportunities Through Technology Flexible provision may be interpreted in a number of ways, ranging from offering multiple entries points to HE programmes through to providing students with greater levels of choice within their learning experience (Barnett 2014). In terms of student choice, at its most basic level it has been associated with the enhancement of the learning experience on campus through ‘anywhere, anytime, and any device’ learner engagement. This relates to an expectation for instant access to learning resources and on-demand support, with students expecting their experience of higher education to involve the use of online and campus-based learning technologies. The Jisc Digital Student project (Jisc 2013) has highlighted the transactional and transformational expectations that students share towards technology adoption, with the

9 Facilitating Active Learning Opportunities for Students …

119

former addressed by universities through improved access to Wi-Fi for studentowned devices and by the optimization of online learning and teaching services for mobile access. On a pedagogic level, transformational (educational) expectations are being associated more with the ways in which digital technologies can be employed to support learning activities. At the heart of these developments, lies the opportunity for pedagogic change and innovation, enabled through creative uses of technology that support student-controlled online learning activities, engaging learners, and offering a challenge to their personal study. Through personalized online learning activities, we may also support students in the development of their skills in planning, organizing, self-teaching, and self-evaluating their own learning (Arenas 2008). In this respect we are now starting to see UK universities consider using cases for central support and student-owned technologies, which may be used to support both formal and informal learning activities; in so doing, universities may also address the digital skills and employability of their students. The University of Greenwich’s implementation plan for the embedding of mobile technologies in curriculum design across the institution (Kerrigan et al. 2014) represents a recent example of transformational change in this respect, empowering students to make use of their own iPad devices informal learning contexts such as lab work, supporting data collection/data entry for experiments, as well as, through the use of apps in a range of practical and informal study activities across the curriculum. Yet there has been slow progress to date in implementing and mainstreaming student-centered approaches through the use of technology. The 2012 UCISA report on institutional technology adoption for learning and teaching across the UK higher education sector (Walker, Voce & Ahmed, 2012) is insightful in this respect. The study shows a strong institutional focus on supplementary uses of the web as a supporting mechanism to module delivery, reflected in the provision of electronic copies of lecture notes and content resources to students (i.e. content delivery). This is a distance away from the promotion of active learning through the use of studentcontrolled mobile devices within the formal curriculum, such as the institutional plan for mobile usage that is being implemented at Greenwich. Indeed, there appears to have been little change in institutional approaches to the use of learning technologies from the picture recorded in the 2012 UCISA TEL Survey Report (Jenkins et al. 2014). Table 9.1 presents a longitudinal view of course delivery approaches using technology. Of the modes requiring student participation for an online component of a course, interaction with content remains the most common approach, with limited adoption of collaborative models of online engagement in course delivery which explicitly engage students in active learning and thinking online.

120

R. Walker

Table 9.1 Proportion of all modules or units of study in the TEL environment in use across the UK HE sector (longitudinal) Course delivery mode using TEL

2014 (%)

2012 (%)

2010 (%)

2008 (%)

2005 (%)

2003 (%)

(i) Web-supplemented (e.g. online provision of lecture notes)

39

39

46

48

54

57

(ii) Web-dependent, content focused

27

29

26

24

16

13

(iii) Web-dependent, communication focused

9

10

17

13

10

10

21

18

18

13

13

13

3

3

3

4

6

5

(iv) Web-dependent, combining content and communication tasks (v) Fully online

Source UCISA (2014), TEL Survey (Walker et al. 2014)

Institutional TEL Capacity Building and Pedagogic Innovation The slow pace of change in course delivery approaches prompts a discussion on how UK institutions have been making use of learning technologies in support of learning and teaching. We have observed over the past decade how the capacity building effort in the development of institutional TEL services has focused on the mainstreaming of TEL services to control and manage key learning processes (Walker et al. 2013). Table 9.2 presents a snapshot of the most recent UCISA survey data on the percentage of courses within UK higher education institutions using technologyenhanced learning tools, drawing on survey data from UK institutional e-learning managers, and heads of learning and teaching. The table displays the most commonly deployed tools across the sector and indicates the percentage of courses in which they are being used within universities, as estimated by institutional representatives. Unsurprisingly virtual learning environments (VLEs) top that list and are now ubiquitous, despite ongoing criticism of their pedagogic inflexibility [4]—responsible for the heavy lifting of course management activities and the conventional structuring of lecture and reading materials in a shared online space. There is heavy investment in e-assessment tools—specifically for the automated marking of tests and electronic submission of assignments and plagiarism detection to assist students with their academic writing.. What is missing though from this list is any provision for student-controlled learning activity through mobile apps, creative technologies such as document sharing applications and collaborative technologies such as wikis and blogs. This suggests that mainstream investment in TEL services for learning and teaching activities is still very much focused on course management activities and

9 Facilitating Active Learning Opportunities for Students …

121

Table 9.2 Percentage of institutional courses using TEL tools within the UK HE sector Top 5 tools

100% 75–99% 50–74% 25–49% 5–24% 1–4% 0% Don’t know

Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) (%)

42

50

1

0

0

1

0

5

e-Submission 20 tools (assignments) (%)

38

20

8

3

0

2

8

Text matching 16 tools (e.g. SafeAssign, Turnitin, Urkund) (%)

42

19

8

5

0

3

6

Content management systems (%)

11

9

2

8

12

15

14

29

Reading list management software (%)

9

21

12

13

7

7

11

20

Source 2016 UCISA Technology-Enhanced Learning Survey (Walker et al. 2016)

the delivery of resources to students, rather than on providing support for studentcontrolled activities which promote more active learner engagement within course delivery.

Enabling Change Through Institutional TEL Policies The UCISA survey research indicates that institutional investment in TEL infrastructure will not, by itself, bring about changes in pedagogic practice. However, there appear to be greater prospects for change when initiatives such as the development of ubiquitous Wi-Fi infrastructure on campus are supported by facilitating institutional policies towards the use of digital tools, encouraging academics to consider new course delivery approaches involving the use of technology. The University of South Wales has adopted a twin-track strategy, upgrading Wi-Fi access to support the use by students of their mobile devices on campus, while at the same time introducing a ‘switch-on’ policy affirming students’ use of mobile devices in classroom settings (UCISA 2014). The policy initiative has challenged lecturers in a positive sense to consider how best to engage students through the use of their devices, as part of the overall course design, rather than view personal devices as a barrier to learning. This has led to the active promotion of apps and third-party technologies to support student learning. Approaches such as the one adopted by the University of South Wales suggest that with the right combination of tool availability and support to academics, institutions

122

R. Walker

may be able to encourage lecturers to look beyond standard ‘broadcast-style’ lecture delivery and consider alternative course designs based on the use of technology, which work better in engaging students and encouraging them to progress as critical and independent learners. To this end, there is an opportunity to rebrand passive consumer technologies such as lecture recording and video and present them in a different way to students so that they are seen as tools that support a culture of active learning, increasing student engagement, and collaboration in learning activities. Commercial vendors have anticipated these changes with the launch of their own active learning platform, combining a lecture capture system with lecture tools to support ‘live’ quizzing and interaction, as a class session is being delivered. Pedagogical approaches are indeed evolving to take advantage of the new technologies available to academic staff. If we take lecture capture as an example, there are now a number of well-documented alternatives to the passive viewing of recordings after a lecture which include, for instance, encouraging students to view stimulus video content on key concepts before a class session, with a view to crowd sourcing questions for the lecturer to address in the class [5]. In this way, the video can be transformed for learning from a ‘sit back’ resource to a ‘sit forward’ device (Young 2013) and a medium which may actually help to move learners away from a ‘where are the answers’ mentality to greater engagement in discussion, debate, and reflection on the application and applicability of different course concepts.

Digital Strategy and ‘Top-Down’ Support as Drivers for Institutional Change Arguably many of the current ideas on pedagogic design under discussion are not particularly new. What has changed is that these ideas have gained wider currency beyond technology advocates, and are now accessible to academic and professional support staff across the sector. The prospects for changes taking root are further strengthened by the support that is now being conveyed by senior managers for technology adoption and pedagogic innovation. We have observed a number of Vice-Chancellors from leading UK universities seizing on the digital agenda—championing the investment in MOOC services to support outreach and on-campus support for teaching and learning. Notably, the number of institutions adopting the UK Open University’s Future Learn platform has trebled since 2014 as this open learning initiative has gathered pace, with elite Russell Group institutions accounting for the main community of users. Institutions such as the Universities of Edinburgh and Leeds have both looked to join up external-facing open learning initiatives with internal campus-based technology provision [6]. The establishment of institutional digital strategies for learning and teaching has provided both of these institutions with the space to consider the affordances of technology and how they may enhance the student learning experience. This discussion is not confined to looking at ways to enhance the digital brand

9 Facilitating Active Learning Opportunities for Students …

123

of the institution and the experience of fully online learners on fee-paying and open programmes, but also encompasses provision for campus-based teaching. A recent discussion on transferable digital strategies to campus-based teaching has ranged from approaches to maximize staff-student contact time on campus through flipped classroom pedagogies and the engagement of learners through the use of their own mobile devices (BYOD), to applying learning facilitation methods for large online cohorts to blended courses for the enrichment of campus-based students. In the latter case, with the emergence of pedagogic research on MOOC delivery (e.g. Laurillard 2014) we may yet see stronger evidence for online design and facilitation methods in support of the community as well as content-based models of learning. Evidence-based practice may, in turn, inform academic staff development, leading to the development and adoption of more flexible forms of learning and assessment within campus-based teaching, as some commentators have predicted (Yuan et al. 2014).

York Pedagogy: Curriculum Renewal Supported Through Learning Technology Senior management leadership appears to be a key factor in driving technology adoption and has certainly informed academic consideration of learning technologies and their role in supporting student learning at the University of York. As part of a wider review of programme design at the University, a new institutional pedagogy for the design of learning and teaching has been developed by the University’s senior teaching staff to help programme teams consider ways to support students in their learning (Robinson 2015). The York Pedagogy encourages academic staff to design into their courses meaningful study activities which offer active learning opportunities to students to help propel their learning across a study programme. The University’s vision for the use of learning technologies underpins this design approach [7]. Staff are being encouraged to become proficient in the use of technologies to facilitate learning and provide opportunities for students to rehearse and articulate their knowledge as part of their independent study. Staff engagement with this initiative is being supported in a number of ways through programme leaders’ workshops, peer support, and networking events to discuss programme design approaches. Dedicated resources such as the York Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) Handbook have also been introduced to provide lecturers with pedagogical guidance to develop their own practice through the use of centrally-supported learning technologies [8].

124

R. Walker

Enabling Student Engagement in Learning: Modes of Active Learning The embedding of technology-enhanced learning within a broader review of programme design at the University of York has been intentional. Rather than supporting technology for technology’s sake—a reactive stance to consumer expectations—the intention has been to position learning technologies as enabling tools, which support different modes of learner engagement and activity, increasing levels of student-led activity and control across a study programme. In this way, technology should be designed into programmes and individual modules to support pedagogically appropriate activities that are relevant to the stage of learning that a student has reached. Figure 9.1 presents a selection of the modes of learner engagement that may be supported through the use of technology. These modes vary in terms of the levels of responsibility and task ownership that are required of the student to engage with the proposed online activities. Another way of presenting these tasks to programme teams is on a spectrum of active learner engagement and autonomy in the performance of online activities, from scaffolded tasks such as completion of formative self-study quizzes, through to student-led teaching and the creation of course artifacts. The spectrum of learner engagement is illustrated in Fig. 9.2. Through a presentation of case examples from the University of York we may consider how these modes of student engagement can be supported through studentcentered task designs for online learning.

Enabling learning: interleaved pracƟce

Enhancing learning: insight through structured interacƟon Transforming learning: studentled teaching and discovery

retrieval of previously learned material; applicaƟon to new contexts

dialogical learning & collaboraƟve research & report wriƟng tasks

Student-led content creaƟon; problem-based learning

Fig. 9.1 Modes of student engagement using TEL tools

formaƟve quizzing; targeted onlline feedback & support

wiki /blog spaces online peer, assessment & review

resource hub wiki / blog problem solving space

9 Facilitating Active Learning Opportunities for Students …

125

Enabling learning

Enhancing learning

Transforming learning

increasing flexibility & access to learning

designing in structured interacƟon & collaboraƟon

extending the range of learning opportuniƟes through personalised & student-led acƟviƟes

Fig. 9.2 Spectrum of active student engagement using TEL tools

Enabling Learning: Interleaved Practice At one end of the learner engagement spectrum, technologies may be used to enable spaced and interleaved practice to take place, providing students with flexibility in the way that they wish to learn through easy ‘on-demand’ access to study resources and the retrieval of previously-learned material and its application to new contexts. The online space, whether it is a virtual learning environment or other web-based environments, can provide a locus for formative learning, supporting self-testing, and collaborative study activities.

Enhancing Learning: Insight Through Structured Interaction Going a step further along the spectrum of learner engagement, technology can also provide support for dialogical engagement between learners and the course instructor. At the University of York, we have considered how collaborative technologies such as wikis may help instructors to design socially engaged tasks such as collaborative editing of course resources and the generation of course glossaries, with the focus on interaction, collaboration, and community building for campus-based students (Britcliffe and Walker 2007). Indeed, through the conduct of collaborative writing tasks of this type, students may be encouraged to develop academic reading and writing which may, in turn, stimulate reflection, knowledge-sharing, and critical thinking skills (Hadjerrouit 2011).

126

R. Walker

Dialogical design has also been realized through the creation of feedback interactions between instructors and individual students, mediated through the use of assignment mark-up tools such as Google Docs. One such example has focused on the use of Google Docs to host a series of academic writing activities for a French language course, with the instructional team supporting students in an iterative drafting process in the target language (Dantec and Britcliffe 2015). These exercises were facilitated almost entirely using the cloud spaces, and that enabled teachers and associated staff to use ‘margin’ comments, in-line comments/mark-up, and global feedback for the students to act on and respond to. Students were also invited to create multiple drafts of their assignments based on the online comments and feedbacks received online and during the class sessions. This blend of face-to-face and online interactive model enabled teachers and associated staff to identify and manage problems areas as the course progresses, refine the pedagogic designs, and offer targeted lectures if required.

Transforming Learning: Student-Led Teaching and Discovery The affordances of technology may also support transformative course design approaches, in which students take direct control over their learning process through student-led teaching and discovery-based learning approaches. Examples include the use of shared blog and wiki spaces by postgraduate law students to perform unguided group research tasks, as part of a blended problem-based learning (PBL) design (Walker 2014). In this context, technology has underpinned the PBL cycle, enabling groups of students who are geographically dispersed to collaborate online in self-directed learning tasks, researching solutions to the targeted learning outcomes which have been agreed with their PBL tutor. The choice of task and technology is entirely aligned with the aims of the teaching programme in this respect, in fostering self- and group-management skills expected of students at this level [9]. Transformative learning designs can also offer the potential for students to engage in ‘user-led education’, collaborating with peers and communities within and beyond the classroom to create their own learning resources. Experimentation with user-led knowledge creation tasks has been a feature of blended course design at the University of York, as a way of engaging students in the mastery of key concepts and the evidence base underpinning it, as illustrated in the case study below. Case Illustration: Transforming Learning Through Student-Led Teaching and Discovery (Evolutionary Ecology)

9 Facilitating Active Learning Opportunities for Students …

127

The institutional VLE was used to host course materials including lecture notes and animations to explain key concepts. Students were allocated to small groups (4–5 students) and each group was provided with a blog and a wiki, with viewing and participation rights restricted to that group. Students were required to produce collaboratively a short summary of the research literature on each week’s topic. The blog was used to coordinate activities—allocate work, discuss ways of working, arrange to meet—and the collaborative writing was done in the wiki. Groups were required to present orally their findings in face-to-face sessions. The lecturer provided feedback on online work. At the end of the course, the best reports were collated by the lecturer in a course level wiki, presented as an ‘online textbook’. This provided students with a valuable revision resource. Full case study: http://tinyurl.com/student-led-teaching. Bruns et al. (2007) argue that user-led design reflects a paradigm shift in pedagogic practice, re-envisioning the role of students as producers rather than consumers of learning. Implicit in this design approach is an acknowledgment that students have the skills and capability to engage in collaborative knowledge creation activities and develop their learning as producers of “content” (Generation ‘C’). This philosophy is not particularly new—theories of learning such as social constructivism and collaborative models of teaching and learning have long been associated with educational transformation or paradigm shifts of this kind (Baets and Van der Linden 2003; Dziuban et al. 2004). As we have argued, what is new is the changing context of higher education, which now appears to be more open to the use of technology in learning and teaching activities, and receptive also to student-centered pedagogies and the engagement of students as partners in educational design and delivery. This latter theme has been strongly supported by Jisc in its current collaboration with the National Union of Students and The Student Engagement Partnership in promoting good practice in the use of digital tools across courses, academic departments, and institutional service areas (Jisc NUS 2016). This new student-centered outlook is starting to surface in institutional visions for learning and teaching as well: note the aspirational language of Edinburgh Napier University’s Academic Strategy 2020, which commits to the promotion of ‘student-centered approaches that provide intellectual challenge and

128

R. Walker

engage all students as co-creators of transformational learning experiences’ (Edinburgh Napier University 2014, p. 5). Such a vision is fully supportive of the need for broader adoption of user-led pedagogic design within institutions.

Supporting Pedagogic Innovation Through Technology: Challenges of Staff Engagement As we have discussed, establishing the right technical infrastructure with enabling strategy and policies for technology usage are key building blocks towards the implementation and adoption of TEL services across institutions. However, in the quest to promote digital tools and services and to standardize the student learning experience by, for example insisting on consistency in the use of TEL tools across study programmes [10], senior managers face a balancing act between providing academic staff with enabling support and guidance and offering directives which may potentially compromise academic freedoms and the pedagogic flexibility to determine the most appropriate teaching methods for their discipline. The reticence of staff to adopt digital technologies may stem from many factors, including lack of time, rewards, and recognition for course innovation (Walker et al. 2016), but might also reflect a healthy skepticism of the value of digital provision on student learning. In this respect, there is a need for a stronger evidence base to help academics evaluate the cost/benefits of investing time and resources in fundamental changes to course design and the likely impact of these changes on student satisfaction and learning outcomes. Loch and Borland (2014) have highlighted this problem very clearly in their own teaching and research in Australia, observing the dearth of evidence on the suitability of flipped learning for mathematics. They have questioned the suitability of these methods for undergraduate students as many of these students do not have the required academic skills and self-discipline to actively engaging with the front-loading conceptual learning through lecture recordings and pre-class activities. Clearly, we need better longitudinal studies on the effect of these methods to assess their true worth, an observation that has been made in previous studies of technology adoption across the UK HE sector (e.g. Kirkland and Price 2012). Another dimension to the challenge of staff engagement relates to digital capability and the perceived readiness of academic staff to embrace new pedagogic practices. Lack of academic staff knowledge has been frequently cited as a barrier to TEL adoption and development in UCISA surveys and has been a key focus for recent work by Jisc, not least through the development of a shared national digital capability framework to describe and support the skills needed by academic and administrative staff to thrive in a digital environment (Jisc 2015). There is a need to consider ways in which instructors can be encouraged to think about technology-mediated approaches which support active student learning and refrain from making simplistic and rather naïve claims of a new digital divide between net generation students and academic staff. It is not helpful. Research informs about

9 Facilitating Active Learning Opportunities for Students …

129

instructional support for online learning, which requires different strategies to facilitate effective group learning and participant-led activities (Harper and Nicolson 2013; Salmon 2004). It can also lead to academics assuming various roles in their online interactions with students, transitioning from subject expert to ‘process-oriented supervisor’ and ‘therapist’ (Danielsen and Nielsen 2010), addressing students’ working methods and approach to collaborative online activity. Academics need the space to reflect on pedagogic values and their approach to supporting student learning in this way, and require the opportunities to develop their digital craft with the freedom to experiment and learn from trial and error.

Conclusion This paper has attempted to capture the changing dynamics of the UK higher education system—particularly the shift towards greater flexibility in course delivery and pedagogic support and the focus on student-centered learning. UK higher education providers are competing to recruit and retain a new ‘consumer aware’ generation of learners, with clear expectations over the quality and value of an educational experience they are investing in. It is incumbent upon institutions to respond by providing high quality and flexible learning experience, which is designed to support the needs of individual learners. Technology-enabled learning has a central role to play in this new reality, supporting active and learner-centered pedagogies that may engage and propel student learning across their programme, as illustrated in the case studies of student-led activity at the University of York. The evidence on sector developments suggests that while there has been significant investment in TEL services with strong ‘top-down’ support for digital services from senior managers, the mainstreaming of technology-mediated pedagogies in support of the learner has yet to be realized. For this to be achieved, institutions will need to empower academics to embrace change by offering incentives in terms of time and support to develop their digital craft, combined with a stronger evidence base of pedagogic design approaches across the disciplines, to help inform a critical evaluation of the role of technology in course delivery. Notes [1]

[2]

Jisc has funded a range of institutional projects which have engaged students as partners in curriculum innovation through the use of learning technologies, with students adopting the role of change agents or digital pioneers to drive the development and embedding of digital literacies across taught programmes. https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/developing-successful-stu dent-staff-partnerships. The provision of lecture recordings for all taught modules was the leading campaign objective for the University of York’s Students Union Academic Officer over the past academic year (2015–16), and student lobbying has played a part in persuading departments such as Law and Philosophy to move to an

130

R. Walker

‘opt-out’ recording strategy, whereby lectures are automatically recorded and made available to students, with staff required to take action if they do not wish their lectures to be recorded. http://www.nouse.co.uk/2015/11/10/bothlaw-and-philosophy-adopt-opt-out-lecture-capture/. [3] The publication by the UK Competition and Markets Authority of consumer protection law advice for higher education providers has encouraged institutions to clarify their ‘offer’ to students and recognize them as consumers and/or partners in educational development, with a greater voice on the scope and quality of services that are provided. https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/con sumer-protection-review-of-higher-education. [4] The Association for Learning Technology’s conference in 2009 devoted a discussion session to the topic ‘The VLE is Dead’, and this continues to attract comments and debate: https://elearningstuff.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/thevle-is-dead-the-movie/. [5] Dr. Carl Gombrich at University College London represents one of the UK sector’s innovators in flipped learning design and course delivery, turning lecture slots into active learning sessions by using video to capture lecture content that students view in their own time before attending class. http://www.rec-all.info/profiles/blogs/ucl-case-study-dr-carl-gombrichprogramme-director-basc-talks-abo. [6] Universities such as Edinburgh and Leeds have outlined institutional visions for digital learning which are intended to shape the provision and use of digital technologies and services in support of the student learning experience (cf. University of Leeds’ Digital Strategy for Student Education). [7] The University of York’s vision for e-learning outlines the way in which staff and students will engage with learning technologies and develop their digital capabilities. https://vle.york.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/xid-4559545_3(pdf). [8] The York TEL Handbook outlines pedagogical advice in the use of learning technologies and is an open education resource. Further details on the Handbook are available here: https://elearningyork.wordpress.com/2015/12/10/sho wcasing-the-york-tel-handbook-at-the-alt-online-winter-conference/. [9] A video case study on the blended problem-based learning design for York Law School’s LLM programme is available at: https://elearningyork.wor dpress.com/learning-design-and-development/case-studies/blended-problembased-learning/. [10] Institutional policies on minimum expectations for staff to use centrally supported software such as the VLE in course delivery are now commonplace across the sector. The University of South Wales’ VLE minimum requirements policy is one such example: http://teach.southwales.ac.uk/policies/minimum/.

9 Facilitating Active Learning Opportunities for Students …

131

References Arenas, E. (2008). Personal learning environments: Implications and challenges. http://www.voced. edu.au/content/ngv19509. Baets, W., & Van der Linden, G. (2003). Virtual corporate universities: A matrix of knowledge and learning for the new digital dawn. Boston: Kluwer Academic. Barnett, R. (2014). Conditions of flexibility: Securing a more responsive higher education system. York: The Higher Education Academy. Britcliffe, W., & Walker, R. (2007). Making wikis work: How do we create the conditions for effective collaborative learning? In ALT-C 2007, Nottingham, UK, September 4–6 (pp. 91–92). Retrieved from: https://vle.york.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/xid-63082_4. Bruns, A., Cobcroft, R., Smith, J., & Towers, S. (2007). Mobile learning technologies and the move towards ‘user-led education’. In Proceedings Mobile Media, Sydney. Retrieved from: http://epr ints.qut.edu.au/6625/1/6625.pdf. Danielsen, O., & Nielsen, J. L. (2010). Problem-oriented project studies—The role of the teacher as supervising/facilitating the study group in its learning processes. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010 (pp. 558–565). Retrieved from: http:// www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2010/abstracts/PDFs/Danielsen.pdf. Dantec, C., & Britcliffe, W. (2015). Students in the feedback loop. In ALT-C Shaping the future of learning together, September 8th–10th, 2015. University of Manchester. Retrieved from: http:// slideplayer.com/slide/7458384/. Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., &Moskal, P. (2004). Blended Learning. In EDUCAUSE center for applied research, research bulletin (Vol. 7), March 30, 2004. Retrieved March 15, 2007 from http://www. educause.edu/LibraryDetailPage/666?ID=ERB0407. Edinburgh Napier University. (2014). Academic strategy 2020. Retrieved from: www.napier.ac.uk/ ~/media/documents/corporate-documents/academic-strategy.pdf. Hadjerrouit, S. (2011). A collaborative writing approach to wikis: Design, implementation and evaluation. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 8. Retrieved from: http:// iisit.org/Vol8/IISITv8p431-449Hadjerrouit224.pdf. Harper, F., & Nicolson, M. (2013). Online peer observation: Its value in teacher professional development, support and well-being. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(3). Available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2012.682159. HEFCE. (2011). Opportunity, Choice and excellence in higher education. Report 22. Bristol: HEFCE. Jenkins, M., Walker, R., & Voce, J. (2014). Achieving flexibility? The rhetoric and reality of the role of learning technologies in UK higher education. In B. Hegarty, J. McDonald, & S.-K. Loke (Eds.), Rhetoric and Reality: Critical perspectives on educational technology. Proceedings ascilite Dunedin 2014 (pp. 544–548). Retrieved from: http://www.ascilite.org/conferences/dun edin2014/files/concisepapers/161-Jenkins.pdf. Jisc. (2013). Jisc digital student: Investigating students’ expectations of the digital environment. Retrieved from: http://digitalstudent.jiscinvolve.org/wp/. Jisc. (2015). Building digital capability. Building capability for new digital leadership, pedagogy and efficiency. Retrieved from: https://www.jisc.ac.uk/rd/projects/building-digital-capability. Jisc NUS. (2016). Jisc NUS Benchmarking tool—The student digital experience. Retrieved from: https://digitalstudent.jiscinvolve.org/wp/files/2016/01/Jisc_NUS_student_experience_ben chmarking_tool.pdf. Kerrigan, M., Blackburn, R., Force, S., Amin, Z., James, K., Yorke, J., et al. (2014). The student experience of using iPads to enhance undergraduate laboratory teaching. In UCISA (2014) good practice guide. Mobile learning: How mobile technologies can enhance the learning experience (pp 31–38). Oxford, UK: Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association. Retrieved from: http://www.ucisa.ac.uk/bestpractice/Copy_of_publications/effective_use.aspx.

132

R. Walker

Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2012). Missing: Evidence of a scholarly approach to teaching and learning with technology in higher education. Milton Keynes, UK: Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University. Available online at http://www.lth.se/fileadmin/lth/genombrottet/ Missing_-_a_scholarly_approach-HO.pdf. Laurillard, D. (2014). Anatomy of a MOOC for teacher CPD. Institute of Education, UCL. Retrieved from: http://www.lkl.ac.uk/cms/files/jce/reports/anatomy_of_a_mooc_for_teacher_cpd_ucl-ioe. pdf. Loch, B., & Borland, R. (2014). The transition from traditional face-to-face teaching to blended learning—Implications and challenges from a mathematics discipline perspective. In B. Hegarty, J. McDonald, & S.-K. Loke (Eds.), Rhetoric and reality: Critical perspectives on educational technology. Proceedings ascilite Dunedin 2014 (pp. 708–712). Retrieved from: http://stan.cc. swin.edu.au/~lochb/download/278-Loch_ascilite2014.pdf. Reed, P., & Watmough, S. (2015). Hygiene factors: Using VLE minimum standards to avoid student dissatisfaction. E-Learning and Digital Media, 12(1), 68–89. Robinson, J. (2015). The york pedagogy: What and why, how and why. University of York. Retrieved from: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/staffhome/learningandteaching/documents/pro pel/28280-Forum%20issue%20supplement%20LR%20final.pdf. Salmon, G. (2004). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online (2nd ed.). London, New York: Routledge Falmer. UCISA. (2014). 2014 Survey of Technology Enhanced Learning: case studies. Good Practice Guide. Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association, Oxford, UK. Retrieved from: https://www.ucisa.ac.uk/~/media/groups/dsdg/asg/TEL%20Survey%202014_Case%20S tudies_12Nov14.ashx. Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2008). What is the impact of demography on higher education systems? A forward-looking approach for OECD countries. In Higher Education to 2030—Volume 1: Demography. OECD. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/41939423.pdf. Walker, R. (2014). Blended problem-based learning: Designing collaboration opportunities for unguided group research through the use of Web 2.0 tools. In V. Hodgson, D. McConnell, M. de Laat, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), The design, experience and practice of networked learning. New York: Springer International Publishing. Walker, R., Voce, J., & Ahmed, J. (2012). 2012 survey of technology enhanced learning for higher education in the UK. UCISA Report. Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association. Oxford, UK. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264309353_2012_S urvey_of_Technology_Enhanced_Learning_for_higher_education_in_the_UK Walker, R., Voce, J., & Jenkins, M. (2013). Charting the development of technology-enhanced learning developments across the UK higher education sector: A longitudinal perspective (2001– 2012). In Interactive learning environments. London; Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.tan dfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10494820.2013.867888. Walker, R., Voce, J., Nicholls, J, Swift, E., Ahmed, J., Horrigan, S., & Vincent, P. (2014). 2014 survey of technology enhanced learning for higher education in the UK. Oxford, UK: Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association. Retrieved from: http://www.ucisa.ac.uk/bestpr actice/surveys/tel/tel.aspx. Walker, R., Voce, J., Swift, E., Ahmed, J., Jenkins, M., & Vincent, P. (2016). 2016 survey of technology enhanced learning for higher education in the UK. Oxford, UK: Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association. Wenstone, R. (2013). It’s all about the learner. Keynote speech at ALT-C 2013, Nottingham, UK. September 10–12, 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjINstTYw9U. Young, C. (2013). Recording: From e-learning to active learning: Transforming the learning environment. Retrieved from: http://www.rec-all.info/profiles/blogs/recording-from-e-learningto-active-learning-transforming-the-lea. Yuan, L., Powell, S., & Olivier, B. (2014). Beyond MOOCs: Sustainable online learning in institutions. CETIS white paper. Retrieved from: http://publications.cetis.ac.uk/2014/898.

9 Facilitating Active Learning Opportunities for Students …

133

Dr. Richard Walker is head of E-Learning development at the University of York in the United Kingdom and project manager for the UCISA survey of Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL). He has over 20 years’ experience supporting learning technology developments within the higher education sector. Dr. Walker’s recent activities have focused on the establishment and embedding of lecture recording and e-assessment services across the institution, with the latter including a workflow for the electronic submission and management of student assignments, and the integration of a marking workflow with our student records system. Prior to this, he held research and teaching posts at Nyenrode Business University (Netherlands) and at the Euro-Arab Management School in Granada, Spain. He is a member of UCISA’s Digital Education Group, serving previously as Chair of the Group and as project manager for 2016, 2014, and 2012 UCISA Technology Enhanced Learning Survey Reports, and has contributed to previous TEL Survey Reports dating back to 2005.

Chapter 10

Improving the Power of Lecture Method in Higher Education Saemah Rahman

Abstract Lecture method is often used in teaching large classes and is the most popular teaching method in higher education institutions. However, the traditional lecture method of teaching is associated with inefficiency due to lack of opportunities for students to engage in the learning process. In this context, the use of interactive lectures that provide a learning environment that encourages students’ active participation has the potential to improve the quality of teaching and learning in large classrooms. The rapid development of ICT infrastructure and the existence of various web-based applications can be exploited to assist the implementation of interactive lectures in large classes. This chapter discusses the concept and benefits of interactive lecture method and the use of web-based applications to support the implementation of an interactive lecture method. Initiatives carried out in Malaysia under the Leadership Academy of Higher Education, Ministry of Education (AKEPT, MOE) in the development of Interactive Lecture training modules for the academic staff in higher education will also be discussed.

Introduction Generally, lecture method is the most common teaching method employed especially in the institutions of higher learning. This condition is due to the fact that a lecture is the most suitable method or strategy to handle large classes. The most common lecture method implemented in class is in the form of oral presentations delivered to a group of students. Most lectures today are delivered with slideshow presentation in the background, distributed printed documents, and through relevant videos or films. Some lecturers would utilize the white or blackboard available in the lecture room to highlight the gist of the lecture delivered. Lecture method is arguably one of the most convenient methods to be implemented to a large group of students. The advantage of this method is it allows lecturers to deliver intended contents to a large number of students at the same time. However, a S. Rahman (B) Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 N. V. Varghese and S. Mandal (eds.), Teaching Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4847-5_10

135

136

S. Rahman

few important questions need to be considered as to whether the traditional lecture method is able to fulfill the real purpose of education? Can traditional lecture methods help students achieve the intended learning outcomes? Can the occurring teaching and learning process produce meaningful learning for students? Therefore, what actually happens in the traditional lecture method needs to be examined. Usually, the lecturer delivers the ‘lecture’ and most students just ‘listen’ and jot down lecture notes. This traditional lecture method is obviously more teachercentered. Normally, lecturers deliver the lesson and students almost have no room to either voice their opinion on the lecture delivered or give input on the lecture content. Most of the time, students are expected to accept or be forced to accept whatever content is delivered by the lecturers. At the end of the lesson, normally there are some questions and answers session. However, this routine usually only invites minimal participation of students. This results in students not being motivated because they are not fully engaged in the learning process. In order to make a meaningful learning session, students need to be encouraged to adopt deep learning which needs them to be active, engaged, and involved in the learning process. Providing opportunities for interaction with peers in a cooperative and collaborative manner will provide them with a platform to discuss, reflect upon own ideas, and judge other people’s view. However, these types of activities are rarely being implemented in a traditional lecture method. Obviously, the traditional lecture method encourages students to be passive and their chances to process given information and making meanings from the information given almost do not exist. In other words, students are not actively involved in the learning process and thus the contents delivered by the lecturers may not be meaningful to them. Most of the time students are listening and it is only done to write notes on what is delivered. The term “active listening” is also questionable. The possibility of deep processing among students also is almost none. If this situation occurs, students will only get a superficial or shallow understanding of what is learned, and will certainly be difficult to apply it in other situations. This situation can lead to students becoming tired of not having the chance to experience how the material learned can be applied and thus fail to see the significance of the learning endeavor. Even worse, students might have a conclusion that attending a lecture does not help in their studies. It can be concluded that the general characteristics of the lecture method actually hinder an effective teaching and learning process from occurring. Reviews on past studies have demonstrated the weaknesses of lecture methods such as ineffective in promoting a deeper understanding of concepts learned (Nurulhuda and Azwani 2014, p. 159), in promoting thought and inability to capture continuous attention of the learners. In summary, students are unable to build meaningful understanding through the traditional lecture method. Consequently, it is imperative to review the use of traditional lecture method and how it can be improved so that it can help fulfill the requirement of learning condition that helps students’ in learning. Thus, an alternative method known as an interactive lecture method was introduced to improve the effectiveness of the lecture method. It was found that interactive lectures were

10 Improving the Power of Lecture Method in Higher Education

137

more accepted and considered to be more useful than a traditional lecture by majority (92%) of students (Srinivasan et al. 2013, p. 2246).

The Concept of Interactive Lectures The concept of interactive lectures refers to a classroom where the lecturer incorporates “engagement triggers” and breaks the lecture into several segments to allow students to participate in activities and give them an opportunity to work directly with the materials (Merlot Physic Pedagogic Collection 2011). Two basic characteristics of an interactive lecture are (i) the lecture is divided into segments and (ii) suitable activity/activities is/are selected to provide opportunities for students to get actively involved in the teaching and learning process. In other words, an interactive lecture method enables the students to contribute actively in their own learning process. This contribution could be in the form of verbal, written, immediate, or delayed responses. The implementation of “engagement triggers” is able to capture and sustain students’ interest in teaching and learning activities in class. Besides, the interactive lecture techniques conducted allow students to apply what has been learned in class and this gives them the contextual perspective on why they are required to learn. Clearly, the implementation of interactive lecture techniques helps to fulfill educational goals and objectives. One of the main benefits of an interactive lecture is, it can encourage in-depth learning among students (Nurulhuda and Azwani 2014, p. 158). In-depth learning should be the main agenda in the learning process for it leads to genuine knowledge construction. Furthermore, in-depth learning helps to encourage knowledge retention in the long-term memory which later helps students to recall the knowledge to be applied in other situations in the future. Moreover, an interactive lecture method helps encourage students’ active involvement in class and this helps to improve students’ interest towards the learning process besides what is learned in class (Gulpinar and Yegen 2005, p. 590). This situation will eventually help to change the students’ perceptions on their role in the learning process and the positive learning habit will be indirectly cultivated in them.

Techniques and Tools in Interactive Lectures There are many types of techniques that can help the implementation of interactive lectures. We could also make use of various teaching technologies to facilitate the student’s participation. The techniques for interactive lecture methods may require the use of information communication technology (ICT) or may work without ICT utilization at all. The decision on whether ICT is needed to aid teaching depends on the suitability of the teaching aid with the teaching steps implemented by the lecturers. The selected tools, with or without technology, are aimed to help encourage students to involve actively in the learning process and make the learning process

138

S. Rahman

more meaningful and interesting. These tools are referring to teaching techniques that are combined in the use of lecture methods that provide opportunities for students to involve actively in the learning process. Furthermore, by inserting these techniques in the lecture method, it will avoid the “one-way communication” that normally happens in the traditional lecture method. Thus, providing a more “lively” learning experience for students. Instances of interactive techniques which can be adapted in interactive lecture methods are as following: (i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

(vi)

Think-pair-share Through this technique, the lecturer poses questions to students and give them some time to provide individual responses. Then, students are required to discuss the given question with the person next to them. Next, answers from a few pairs will be discussed in class. This technique is the best way to motivate students and encourage them to practice higherorder thinking skills. Think-pair-share can be conducted in a short period of time like only three minutes are needed to get intended responses or it can be further extended to a longer duration depending on the questions or tasks given to students. One-minute-write In a one-minute-write, students are asked to pause for a while to give responses based on the only one-minute task. This technique can be used to get appropriate feedback on students’ understanding of the most difficult topic in the lecture delivered. Besides, it allows students to apply what has been learned in class. In other words, this technique lets students involve directly with the learning materials and content learned. Question of the day Refers to a short set induction activity to give students an opportunity to engage with lecture materials directly. Students are required to think actively about the lecture content delivered by the lecturer. Lecturer will give several questions that require short elaboration, calculation, or drawing that helps to develop students’ communication and higher-order thinking skills. Best summary asks students to prepare a summary of the main points at the end of a presentation. Teams of participants switch their summaries and select the best summary from each set. This technique is especially useful for informational or conceptual content. Brainstorming is the process whereby students generate ideas in response to a specific question or topic. Brainstorming can be used at different points in the lecture. In the beginning, it can be used to invite everyone to participate in the casual discussion to introduce students to the topic of the lesson. In the middle of the lecture, brainstorming can be used as a group activity in problem-solving tasks to generate alternatives. Skeleton Notes offers examples of skeleton or partial note handouts or power points slides that maintain intellectual engagement throughout the class period by forcing students to complete partials notes as the lecture progresses. These require an initial investment in terms of preparation but then are easily available for subsequent semesters.

10 Improving the Power of Lecture Method in Higher Education

139

(vii) Demonstration is a technique that can be used to complement a lecture especially if it involves an explanation about a step by step procedure. It can involve all students or part of students demonstrating a concept or procedure that has just been taught. The use of demonstration as a tool in a lecture can also break the monotonous lecture and invite students’ attention and motivation to be engaged in the learning process. Giving opportunities for students to experience the demonstration will provide more meaningful learning to students. (viii) Simulation and role play is another technique that can be used in interactive lecture method. This technique is an extension of the demonstration technique in which students are given the opportunity to play a role in the scenario created by the teacher to achieve the learning objectives. The use of simulation can stimulate the active involvement of students because through this technique, they not only read and analyze the role assigned in the simulation. The students are encouraged to make a synthesis and integrating what they read and make decisions based on facts or data presented in the case. It also allows students to experiment on their ideas and at the same time able to verify their common sense of thinking. The role-playing in the simulation puts students in the position of decision-maker forcing them to apply their knowledge and skills in solving the problem in the case. This exercise promotes the use of higherorder thinking skills. Furthermore, students can also practice their negotiation skills as the activities are done in a group setting. There are many other interactive techniques suggested for interactive lectures (IL). Thiagi (2003) has developed 36 IL techniques known as IL formats which can be applied in the context of IL. The elaboration and suggestion on how to apply each technique have been detailed out too. These techniques may act as the “engagement trigger” to open the path of active learning and in-depth learning among students.

The Use of Web-Based Applications in Interactive Lecture Methods The current learning environment actually can be exploited by educators to enhance the implementation of interactive lecture methods in teaching and learning process. In line with the rapid development of communication technology, many web-based applications are available around to be adapted in implementing interactive lectures. However, how can these web-based applications be exploited to improve the power of lectures? Young generations today are generally the new age internet generation who are very prone to collaborating, creating, recreating, connecting, and communicating using online technology. Tapscott (2008, pp. 6–7) described these net generation as the generation that uses online networks to ensure their voices are heard in the mass.

140

S. Rahman

Therefore, they prefer to be active learners not just the users of the received information. Thus, these unique characteristics of the present generation should be exploited appropriately and to make the learning process more effective and meaningful to the students. Among the web applications to be considered are the tools that provide opportunities for collaboration or to get feedback online is “Padlet”, “Todaysmeet”,“Kahoot”, “Etherpad”, to name a few. These four web-based applications and its features that can help us make the choice of what and how they can be used within the context of an interactive lecture are as described in the following paragraphs. (i) Padlet Previously known as Wallwisher, this application can be utilized as online interactive whiteboard, collaborative instrument, presentation, and various interesting teaching and learning activities. Through this application, students can post their thoughts or their response using the electronic sticky notes that can incorporate an image, audio, or video clips to the wall created by the instructor which can be accessed through the URL address. Thus, Padlet can be used to gather feedback, as a wall to showcase the work of individuals or groups and other collaborative activities. Through Padlet application, individually, each student is allowed to voice out his or her opinion in the discussion conducted. Another advantage of Padlet application is, to create the wall, no registration required, lecturers can simply log on to the Padlet website, create the wall and start using the wall for teaching and learning activities immediately. Besides, students to do not have to register online. They can just post on to the wall via URL established by the instructor. However, for the lecturers, it is better for them to create their accounts so that all the walls established can be saved and reuse in the future. In other words, anyone can create the wall and post whatever they want based on the desired activities objectives. Students can make a post anonymously if they choose not to be recognized by others. (ii) Todaysmeet Todaysmeet is a free web application available to be the platform for online discussions or online feedback gathering. Various teaching and learning activities can be implemented by using Todaysmeet including real-time discussion during the lecture. This application can also act as a tool to collect polling from the students as well as the forum platform for students to pose questions and discuss issues related to the topic presented. The main advantage of Todaysmeet application is the ability to track students’ progress and students’ learning process autonomously. In other words, this application provides a platform for formative assessment and enables lecturers to monitor the progress of the teaching and learning process conducted. In addition, Todaysmeet supports the application of “Bring your own device” (BYOD) pedagogy. Nowadays, most of the ILH students own at least a few modern gadgets such as smartphones, tablets, and other mobile devices. The study by Madden et al. (2013) reported that three out of four teenagers in the United States declared that they have access to the internet using cell phones, tablets, and other mobile devices.

10 Improving the Power of Lecture Method in Higher Education

141

This phenomenon is not foreign in other countries too whereby the widespread use of internet among consumers is undeniably happening rigorously. This condition can be exploited by lecturers to assess formative learning through these gadgets. Todaysmeet can be used with BYOD pedagogy because it is accessible through smartphones as long as they have an Internet connection. (iii) Etherpad Etherpad is a web-based real-time collaborative editor whereby students can be invited to simultaneously edit a text document, and see all the other students’edits in real-time. Students normally get excited to see their posts. Etherpad also has the ability to display each student’s text in their own color. These features help teachers identify who says who and at the same time motivate students to participate. There is also a chat box in the sidebar to allow communication also in real-time. As a whole, the features of Etherpad are very effective as collaborative tools and also very useful especially if we want to encourage students’ participation in the learning process. (iv) Kahoot-it Kahoot was introduced in 2013 as a game-based classroom response system. This application is easily accessible through any devices with web browser and an internet connection. Kahoot provides a platform for lecturers to use engaging methods in class to measure students’ knowledge besides encouraging full classroom participation. When the games are conducted in class, students are given the opportunity to learn and have fun in learning. The students will indirectly be motivated to do well as they are playing the games and excited to know whether they answer the questions correctly or not. This excitement and motivation experienced when engaging in a game are totally different from just sitting for a quiz using the conventional pen and pencil. Kahoot is far more entertaining than conventional quizzes. However, there are doubts about whether Kahoot is suitable to be implemented for students at tertiary level. Actually, game-based learning is suitable to be implemented for students at any level including the adult learner (Anderson et al. 2009, p. 5). Kahoot application is very entertaining and commonly adapted in training programs for adults too. Nowadays, university students carry their own mobile devices, so, the application of Kahoot is made easier and more fun. The rapid development in communication technology and increasing access to the internet will definitely change the way people teach and learn. In parallel to this, the use of web-based applications in teaching and learning process can no longer be avoided. The tools discussed above have several functions that allow it to benefit students’ learning process. Furthermore, it is consistent with the way students learn today. Generation of students today is exposed to the digital world and the use of social media gives them the opportunity not only as a spectator but also as a user. Therefore, the use of web-based applications in teaching and learning process is not alien to them and will give them an opportunity to be involved actively in the learning process. However, as an educator, we must also update ourselves with the new development. The examples of tools discussed might be obsolete one day and

142

S. Rahman

will be replaced with more innovative attributes which will be more effective in the context of interactive lecture. What is important is how educators can exploit the available tools to help students learn more effectively.

How Can Interactive Technique Help to Improve the Effectiveness of Lecture Method? Breaking the lecture up into a few segments using IL techniques helps student to participate actively and provide them the opportunity to apply the lecture content learned as well as helps to enable students to get the feedback on the students’ meaning building process. For instance, after a short lecture on a topic is delivered by the lecturer, the ThinkPair-Share technique can be used to encourage students’ participation by giving them tasks related to the topic. Students are encouraged to think of the answer individually first, then they are to discuss and compare the answers with the person next to them. After that, a few pairs will be selected at random to share their answers with the whole class. How can this method make the lecture technique more effective? Initially, the students can involve themselves directly with the content learned and materials used in class. This will help them to experience meaningful learning and enable them to process in-depth learning of the content exposed to them. Students will think individually and then discuss it with their classmates. The discussion process occurred will definitely involve valuable higher-order thinking skills such as defending one’s opinion, evaluating other’s points of view, and synthesizing and summarizing the gist of the discussion. These activities are also in parallel with Edgar Dale’s Cone of Experience which suggested that learning by doing these activities will help students remember more of what they learn (Davis andand Summers 2015, p. 2). These processes will definitely help to improve the effectiveness of teaching and learning process. Web-based application can be applied as the engagement triggers and can be incorporated in the implementation of other interactive lecture techniques. For example, if we conduct the Think-Pair-Share technique, modifications can take place whereby after the students figure out the answers individually, they can post their answers on Padlet. By doing this, the postings will be available for general viewing by other classmates. Then, the lecturer can ask the students to select one post to be commented on and shared with the whole class. This way, the lecture method will be more interactive and enable students to involve actively in the teaching and learning process. While working on one-minute activity or question of the day activity, “Today’s Meet” application can be implemented and students may be asked to express their opinion in a writing form on “Todaysmeet” and from there the lecturer can pick several students responses to be discussed in class. “TodaysMeet” main feature is that the discussion wall provides an interaction platform between students and the available sources, interaction between students, and interaction between students and

10 Improving the Power of Lecture Method in Higher Education

143

lecturers. These kinds of interactions support the recommendation of constructivism theory, which emphasizes the importance of social interaction in the process of knowledge construction for students. Furthermore, as students discuss and share their opinions on the collaborative tools, they actually use deep processing thus encouraging the application of higher-order thinking on the part of the learner. In this context, providing a platform for collaboration among students will also show them how knowledge can be seen and interpreted from various perspectives, thus promoting analytical and critical thinking in evaluating information and thinking from others. These processes are very valuable especially in developing graduates as aspires in the Twenty-first century skills which among others emphasized the importance four skills namely communication, collaboration, critical and creative thinking. Besides, game-based techniques can also be used as engagement triggers. ‘Gamification’ is an exciting method that is believed to be able to attract students’ interest to learn. The elements of learn and play are able to attract students’ attention and encourage them to involve actively. The key point of gamification is to allow students to spend more time learning and enjoying themselves doing it. Kahoot-it application is suitable for interactive lecture methods due to the entertaining factors involved and it is easy to be implemented. Kahoot-it can be used at the early part of the lesson as the set induction or to identify students’ background knowledge prior to the lesson, or to evaluate students’ understanding at the end of the class. If the lecture conducted consumes a long period of time, Kahoot-it may be implemented in the middle part of the class as a formative assessment method. In conducting quizzes using Kahoot-it, if the class size is too large, it can be implemented in groups to encourage students to discuss in groups before they come out with the intended answers. It can be concluded that the application of Interactive Lecture techniques and tools is a matter of imagination and creativity of the instructor. The implementation of an interactive lecture method is believed to help solve one-way communication between lecturer and students problems. This technique is also consistent with the constructivism and student-centered approach that demands active student engagement in the learning process. A more student-centered approach requires a lecturer to play his or her role as a facilitator in activating the knowledge construction process among the students. This is consistent with the constructivism theory that suggests individuals will develop their own meaning based on experience obtained. Hence the use of “engagement triggers” in an interactive lecture method is certainly able to support the learning process and make the teaching–learning process more effective. All in all, interactive lecture methods combine all the advantages of the lecture method for a large class with short activities acting as the engagement triggers to provide students the opportunity to process information in-depth while thinking and applying what they learn in class.

144

S. Rahman

Planning the Implementation of Interactive Lecture Teaching Method In an effort to implement an interactive lecture, the following points can be considered as a guideline: For a beginning, a teacher may start with one or two activities in one lesson. Then combining few suitable interactive lecture techniques may help to break lectures into suitable several segments. The aim of breaking the lecture into several segments is to encourage students to participate actively in the learning process, to provide opportunities to students to apply the materials learned, and to enable students to get feedback in their knowledge construction process. Implementing an interactive lecture method will be easier if we look at it from the structure of phases in the teaching and learning session. One teaching and learning session normally consist of three main parts namely: (i) introduction, (ii) development and (iii) closure. Based on Gagne’s nine events of instruction, the introduction can contain activities to get students’ attention and introduces students’ to the learning outcomes to be achieved. The development section consists of several parts including stimulating prior knowledge, presenting information, providing guidance, giving students an opportunity to elicit their performance, and to provide feedback, while the closing part contains activities to assess performance and to enhance learning retention and transfer. The events in each section can be used as the breakup session and any suitable tools or techniques that have been discussed as an engagement trigger can be used to make the teaching and learning more meaningful to students. It is clear that there are varieties of tools and techniques that can be used but it must be chosen carefully to ensure that it helps in achieving the intended or desired learning outcome.

The Development and Implementation of Interactive Lecture Methods Modules in Malaysia One aspect of the transformation of higher education in Malaysia is a transformation in teaching and learning. In this context, Higher Education Leadership Academy (AKEPT) was established in 2008 to support the transformation of higher education in Malaysia in line with the objectives of the National Higher Education Action Plan. There are three centers under AKEPT namely, the Leadership Training Center, Leadership Research and Innovation Center, and Teaching and Learning Center. All these centers are responsible for providing training to officers and lecturers in institutions of higher learning. The training modules developed are divided into three levels, namely, basic, intermediate, and advanced levels. One of the training modules developed is the interactive lecture training modules. Before the interactive lecture training modules were developed, a preliminary study on the use of interactive lectures method was carried out to gather early information to assist the development of the modules. The study was conducted in 2011–2012

10 Improving the Power of Lecture Method in Higher Education

145

using the survey method involving 1022 lecturers from 58 Malaysian Institute Higher Learning (IHL) comprising 20 public IHLs, 8 private IHLs, 25 polytechnic, and 5 community colleges. Data was collected using a set of questionnaire which was made online using an online survey. The objective of the study was to explore five main aspects namely: (i) Level of interactive lecture knowledge, (ii) level of interactive lecture competencies, (iii) level of interactive lecture usage, (iv) issues/challenges of implementing interactive lecture, and (v) current needs and future direction for training. Overall findings of the knowledge of lecturers on teaching concepts and methods of interactive lectures showed that the majority of lecturers are still using keywords such as ‘delivering knowledge’, ‘imparting knowledge’, and ‘giving knowledge’ illustrating that they still use traditional teaching methods instead of interactive lecture methods. At the same time, the keywords used on the concept of an interactive lecture showed the majority use of keywords such as ‘interactive’, ‘two-way communication’, and ‘active’. Many respondents have not mentioned about engaging students in the learning process. Besides, the majority of the respondents listed questioning and studying methods as a means of ordinary method implemented during the lecture. When asked on what method they use in a lecture, analysis showed that “discussion, questioning and answering (Q&A) and Powerpoint presentation” emerged as the most common methods used. Result of the study revealed that respondents’ knowledge of online interactive tools were very limited. Most of the respondents are familiar with PowerPoint (92.5%), Facebook (72.5%), and YouTube (69%). Almost 50% of the respondents are familiar with google docs (48.3%), Skype (45%), Blogger (43.1%). However, it was also revealed that almost 2/3 of the respondents are not familiar with web 2.0 tools. In terms of obstacles, majority of the respondents reported that “lack of time to prepare interactive lessons” (70.7%), “lack of time to implement interactive strategies” (59.6%), “poor infrastructure” (62.6%), and “lack of training” (58.8%) were the main problems they faced in efforts to integrate interactive lectures in their lesson. The issue of lack of time to prepare and implement an interactive lecture method was already expected, especially in the introduction of new methods. This finding is consistent with the findings by Lammer and Murphy (2002) who reported that there are opinions that claim that the interactive lecture method takes a lot of time, and may cause reduction in course content. Therefore, the training modules are developed in line with the findings of the study and aimed to improve the use of interactive lectures especially among lecturers in institutions of higher learning. Basic level training module aims to train academic staff to master knowledge and skills necessary to effectively implement interactive lectures and train the counterpart to implement an interactive lecture method. Among content covered at the basic level are theories of learning underlying the importance of active learning, Interactive Lecture tools and strategies, and knowledge and skills needed to conduct Interactive Lecture training. Academic personnel who have undergone training at the basic level can later continue training at intermediate level. The

146

S. Rahman

objective of the intermediate level module is to provide an opportunity for participants to explore in-depth about interactive lectures and so they are more prepared to train colleagues at the institutional level. Next, at advanced level, participants are expected to generate new knowledge about the interactive lecture method through action research. This is in line with the main agenda of AKEPT to transform academicians in institutions of higher learning in Malaysia into the “Reflective Practitioners” who constantly re-evaluate their teaching approaches and practices for improvement. Accordingly, AKEPT coaches are trained to become actively involved in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) and share their findings with others for the benefit of the entire related learning community. All efforts are necessary to exploit the latest discoveries and technologies that are useful for innovation in teaching and learning. Participants who successfully went through advanced levels are likely to be appointed as the master trainers in AKEPT.

Conclusion This paper discusses the benefits of interactive lecture methods and how these methods can be utilized to strengthen the power of lecture method in the teaching process in institutions of higher learning. In line with the development of communication technology around the world today, the landscape of learning environment also has to change to meet the needs and working methods of the present net generation. Given the potential benefits to be gained from its use, particularly in meeting the objectives of education, such as the ability to attract and encourage the active participation of students in the learning process, it is undeniable that the interactive lecture method is particularly suitable to be implemented in the 21st-century learning environment. Based on the experience in the development and implementation of training modules for interactive lecture in Malaysia, it is proposed that educators or lecturers at the university level are exposed to a variety of tools that can be used in their lectures to help improve the effectiveness of the lecture method in the teaching and learning process in institutions of higher learning.

References Abd Rahman, N., & Masuwai, A. (2014). Transforming the standard lecture into an interactive lecture: The CDEARA Model. International Journal for Innovation Education and Research, 2(10), 158–168. Anderson, B. O., Anderson, M.N., & Anderson, A. T. (2009). New territories in adult education: Game-based learning for adult learners. Retrieved online at: https://www.adulterc.org/Procee dings/2009/proceedings/anderson_etal.pdf. Davis, B., & Summers, M. (2015). Applying dale’s cone of experience to increase learning and retention: A study of student learning in an foundational leadership course. Paper presented at

10 Improving the Power of Lecture Method in Higher Education

147

Engineering Leaders Conference 2014. Retrieved at: https://www.qscience.com/doi/pdf/10.5339/ qproc.2015.elc2014.6. Embi, M. A., Alias, A. K., Sulaiman, A. H., Abd Majid, F., Rahman S. & Hussin S. (2012). Interactive Lecture Training of Trainers Module: Basic level. AKEPT, Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia. Gulpinar, M. A., & Yegen, B. C. (2005). Interactive lecture for meaningful learning in large groups.Medical Teacher, 27(7):590–594. Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Cortesi, S., & Gasser, U. (2013). Teens and Technology 2013. Retrieved online at:https://www.pewinternet.org/2013/03/13/teens-and-technology-2013/. Merlot Physic Pedagogic Collection. (2011). What is Interactive Lecture?Retreived online at: https:// serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/interactive/whatis.html. Srinivasan, R., Bagavad Geetha, M., Rani A., & Chacko, T. (2013). What type of lectures students wants?—A reaction evaluation of dental students. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, 7(10), 2244–2246. Retrieved online at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC3843470/. Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown up digital: How the Net generation is changing your world. New York: McGraw-Hill. Thiagi. (2003).Interactive Lectures: Summaries of 36 Formats. Retrieved online at: https://med icine.fiu.edu/_assets/docs/Content-specific.pdf.

Professor Saemah Rahman is a professor in Educational Psychology at Faculty of Education, University Kebangsaan Malaysia. She is a coordinator of Research Network 5 (Core Competences) under Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) Research Hub for Lifelong Learning based at the University of Aarhus, Copenhagen, Denmark. She is a master trainer for Higher Education Leadership Academy Program under the Ministry of Education, Malaysia.

Chapter 11

Triangular Model of Outcome-Based Higher Education Performance Mona Khare

Abstract Investment in education to develop human capital and its contribution to economic development and growth is now well established and evidenced. A country’s Comparative advantage is now neither measured by either classical or neo-classical versions of commodity prices as a Ricardian version of labor costs or Schumpeter’s opportunity costs, but by that of a modified value of human resource. In this context, higher education represents a critical factor in innovation and human capital development and plays a central role in the success and sustainability of the knowledge economy. The measurement of educational outcomes thus becomes a very important factor. However, it is a tedious task, and to comprehend the very meaning of wholesome education, multiple factors are to be (re)considered. The objective is to conceptualize a simple yet robust framework to measure Higher Education Performance (HEP) at the state and sub-state levels so as to take appropriate policy measures by way of public funding support for underlying factors and undertake decisions to reduce regional disparities in higher education learning outcomes. This chapter is, therefore, an attempt to develop a conceptual frame for preparing a multivariate index to assess the regional performance of HE made against the outcomes achieved seated in its quality in the Indian context.

Introduction Higher Education—The New Driver of Growth Investment in education to develop human capital and its contribution to economic development and growth is now well-established and evidenced. There is, in fact, widespread recognition that skills and human capital have become the backbone of economic prosperity and social well-being in the new century. The nineties saw a worldwide movement towards universalization of elementary education (UEE) by M. Khare (B) NIEPA, New Delhi, India e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 N. V. Varghese and S. Mandal (eds.), Teaching Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4847-5_11

149

150

M. Khare

including it in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Most States across the world, therefore, pledged themselves to increase funding to the sector in order to improve access, infrastructure, and outcomes by 2015. Turn of the millennium now shifts its focus to improving learning outcomes and quality as part of the Sustainable Development Goals for 2030. The United Nations emphasizing the importance of promotion of education paves the direction for aligning such efforts through its Sustainable Development Goals 2015. Out of the 17 goals laid out, the education goal brings forth the targets, expected to be focused on by each country to provide inclusive and quality education to all by the year 2030. In today’s Information Communication Technology-based contemporary knowledge-intensive economies and societies, it would not be wrong to say that the progress of both self and nation is increasingly driven by technological advances. A country’s competitive advantage is now measured by its pool of skilled workforce and high-quality research and development (R&D) activities. From this point of view, higher education represents a critical factor in innovation and human capital development and plays a central role in the success and sustainability of the knowledge economy (Dill and Van Vught 2010). Hence, higher education has become increasingly important on national agendas and has undergone profound mutations and reforms worldwide over the past decades, as portrayed in a recent OECD review of tertiary education policies (OECD 2008a, b).

Higher Education, Learning Outcomes and Skills The modern waves of associating ‘education to work’ resulting from emerging labor market needs, evidences of higher pays (income elasticity of higher education is higher than all other levels of education), and improved quality jobs with rising ‘skills hierarchy’, especially at the tertiary levels (World Bank 2002; Chadha 2004; Varghese 2012; Khare 2012). This has been quite prominent in international education discussions in the past decades. There are two major shifts that have taken shape in Post 2015 MDGs/EFAs on education, which aims to reflect the above ideology. They are (i) shift in global emphasis to higher and vocational education (18th CCEM) and (ii) from access, completion to ‘Learning outcomes’, or ‘Achievements’ post-2015. It was in the nineties that set the stage for several important changes in the world economy. As a consequence, a gradual withdrawal of the state financing was witnessed private participation increased and expenditure escalated many folds with a move towards a more dynamic post-industrial knowledge-driven economy. This set of new demands caused by the newly formed aspirations in the society and the resultant demands from the HE system. Both the society, higher education system, and labor market have appeared more segmented in recent years. While the HE systems have become more specialized and expensive thereby generating greater concerns over the ‘value for money of a University degree’ as against the social goals and prestige attached to it traditionally, the labor market, overall, has become more flexible

11 Triangular Model of Outcome-Based Higher Education Performance

151

and limited with clear signs of jobless growth. The relative disconnect in the relationship between labor market and HE of the yesteryears has thus got disrupted and a set of new questions are being asked on the “specific role of HE in regulating skilled labor, and the overall matching of the supply of graduates leaving HE to their actual economic demand and utility” (Bowers-Brown and Harvey 2004). Contemporary higher education institutions thus have wider missions than creating and disseminating ‘knowledge for its own purpose’ or ‘create good citizens’ as celebrated in the Humboldt’s concept of Bildung. They are expected to participate in development of knowledge, build expertise, and ensure that both the knowledge created and the experts educated contribute to society. In the context of above-stated developments, the emphasis on assessing performance of educational institutions by way of student learning and outcomes gained consensus of the education system as a whole. The World Bank had defined them to be important for progress of self and nation as back as 1990. The Dearing Report that underlines the important role that HE plays in the globally modern competitive economy that requires “Education and training [should] enable people in an advanced society to compete with the best in the world (Dearing 1997).” This is consistent with the views of Reich (1991, 2002) who argues that advanced economies need two sorts of high-level expertise: one emphasizing discovery and the other focusing on exploiting the discoveries of others through market-related intelligence and the application of interpersonal skills. He describes such professionals as ‘symbolic analysts’, who according to him are “imaginative and creative, has at their fingertips relevant disciplinary understanding and skills and the ‘soft’ or generic skills that enable the disciplinary base to be deployed to optimal effect. Higher education’s key contribution to national prosperity lies in development of graduates with such achievement at their disposal.”

Building the Case for Measuring Outcomes and Accountability in Higher Education The public benefit of higher education is now being increasingly questioned as State funding gives way to private financing and costs of education rise. As corporate culture makes inroads into campus governance with political consensus as to its bedrock the returns attached to a college degree are becoming a case of discussion globally. Investment in HE is no longer weighed by means of its Social cost– benefit analysis but purely financial cost–benefit analysis—the value to degree being assigned by the value it brings to the learner in the labor market by way of pay and perks. The priority has shifted from mere access to degree attainment and even to job placement not just in professional and technical and vocational fields such as nursing, teaching, and the high-tech sciences but also in social sciences and languages. Although it is difficult to trace the origin of learning outcome in education, the concept has existed for long as student learning has always been evaluated to assess

152

M. Khare

their learning. Only the forms of the evaluation and its processes kept changing. Literature says that the concept of learning outcomes might have emerged from the Mastery learning movements (Block 1971; Bloom 1981; Carroll 1963) which said that learners must achieve (Master) specific learning outcomes before they are permitted to proceed to the next stage. The mastery movement further consolidated into Outcome Based Education [OBE] movement of the 1980 so much so that over the past decade, state legislatures have increased the pressure on colleges and universities to become more accountable for student learning. The Spellings Commission Report 2006 of the U.S. Department of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education is often quoted as the loudest call for greater accountability for HE. The report has identified four core areas, these being: access, affordability, quality, and accountability. To quote, “We believe that improved accountability is vital to ensuring the success of all the other reforms we propose.” In Europe it was the Bologna Process that can be termed as the Turning point for the development of learning outcomes. In the United Kingdom, the demand was driven especially by the growth of league tables and rankings published by media groups based on publicly available data. While in Australia it is said that especially the development of an education export industry led to the importance attached to learning outcomes, in China, it was the demand from consumers and those advising them for reliable information about the quality of programmes offered globally. There is thus a loud and clear call that colleges and universities must become more transparent about cost, price, and student success outcomes (OECD 2012a,b)

In Japan and Korea too, the concern about the quality and relevance of higher education became strong in a difficult demographic situation. Thus, a concern that took shape in the western and developed part of the world soon made inroads in the other parts of a globalized order. As a result in recent years, it is the student learning that has become the core factor in determining rankings/grades for university/college accrediting agencies (NAAC, in India); National and International Rankings, social prestige, industry alliance and acceptance and above all public funding ( performance-based budgeting). The market-driven prestige of a college is directly a measure of an institution’s performance. Directly, this resonates into teacher accountability for student learning—a voice reverberating strong and clear in both the west and the east, the developed and the developing. The learning outcome has become the bed rock of the infrastructure that determines quality assurance processes in higher education in the UK and elsewhere (Scott 2011). This led to an array of discussions on how to measure learning outcomes as well as their validity and needs. As expected, there have been both sides of the coin with reluctance and also annoyance as reported in the literature over the whole idea of linking learning assessment to teacher/higher education performance (Forum for the Future of Higher Education 2007; OECD 2008a, b). Despite skepticism and reluctance on part of higher education insiders to initiate efforts to assess student outcomes, outside pressures of a concerned and receding State, high tuition-paying parent/student community, a skill deficient labor economy, and a distraught industry cannot be ignored. As rightly put by Sharp in 1997, the demand for greater accountability cannot be turned aside even by the most eloquent

11 Triangular Model of Outcome-Based Higher Education Performance

153

proponents of the intangible benefits of higher education. As a result, shift from input to output and outcome-based approach, from access to quality, equity and learning became evident from all global debates on education post-2015.UNESCO Sustainable education Goals 2030 emphasize not so on universal access but universal learning.

Measuring Outcomes in Higher Education The measurement of educational outcomes is a very tedious task, for the very meaning of wholesome education, and has multiple factors to be considered. Good quality education is expected to prepare the best quality human resource, pupil empowered by knowledge, capacity to put their knowledge to best use for advancement of the society. Education that helps in developing both cognitive and non-cognitive dimensions of learning ability of every individual through scholastic, as well as non-scholastic activities, can certainly result in creating well-rounded personalities. Educational outcome is thus required to be viewed through multiple angles. Student achievement, in turn, is inextricably connected to institutional success. What can thus be an appropriate way to measure higher education performance covering several such dimensions so as to be able to compare performance of different states/regions in a comprehensive fashion with learning as a central theme is something that countries today are struggling with, India is no exception. Institutional performance becomes all the more important when transparency, accountability, performance-based funding formulas for teaching and learning activities, and public funding based on the number of students (OECD 2008a, b) is turning the tables in policy discourses. The objective, of this paper, is to conceptualize a simple yet robust framework to measure Higher Education Performance (HEP) at the state and sub-state levels so as to take appropriate policy measures by way of public funding support for underlying factors and undertake decisions to reduce regional disparities in HE learning outcomes. This paper is a modest attempt to develop a conceptual frame for preparing a multivariate index to assess the regional performance of HE made against the outcomes achieved, seated in its quality in the Indian context.

Triangular Model of Assessing Outcome-Based Higher Education Performance Let us begin by saying that the performance of a college/university is unconditionally determined by the learning/educational outcomes of its students’ which in turn is directly or indirectly affected by the quality of teaching–learning environment in school. Student learning in university/college can thus be seen as a function of the performance/efficiency/quality of its other two major stakeholders—the

154

M. Khare

teachers and the administrators to be supported by quality infrastructure and active industry/community participation. The role of a good quality teaching faculty adept with skills to exploit the much wanted financial and functional autonomy to the academic community as well as competitive infrastructure cannot be undermined in adding ‘prestige’ and promoting ‘learning’.

Three Dimensional Pillars of Higher Educational Performance Given the above background, a triangular model as depicted below can be taken as a beginning ground to develop such an index.

QUALITY FACILITIES & FUNCTIONING

EFFECTIVE LEARNING FACILITATORS

YOUTH PARTICIPATION & LEARNING

The Higher Education Performance Index (HEPI) can thus be seen as a function of three pillars (P1, P2 and P3) namely, YouthParticipation and Learning (YPL); Effective Teaching (ET), and Quality Facilities and Functioning (QFF). Thus, HEPI = f (P1, P2, P3) Where P1 = YouthParticipation and Learning (YPL). P2 = Effective Learning Facilitators (ELF). P3 = Quality Facilities and Functioning (QFF). Each of these pillars may further be seen as a function of three/four sub-dimensions depicted in the following paragraphs.

11 Triangular Model of Outcome-Based Higher Education Performance

155

Pillar I: Youth Participation and Learning Although, in the developed parts of the world access to Higher Education is not so much of a concern now, as a very large proportion of the youth is in the system as reflected in their high GER in HE. As put by Burke in his book, “The Many Faces of Accountability” (Burke 2005) “Higher education remained, until the late 1990, a growth industry driven by the access goal of enrolling an ever-increasing percentage of high-school graduates.” Similar observations have been recorded by Levine (1997) for the US HE when he says that that governors, legislators, and opinion leaders may have privately abandoned that goal of continued expansion. “More than 60% of all high-school graduates now go on to some form of post-secondary education, and many state officials see that rate as sufficient or even too high.” However, the case in other parts of the developing world including India is not the same. Although India is said to be poised towards the massification of HE, the GER still remains low. The figures are much lower for the social and marginalized groups like women, SC/ST/OBC, religious minorities, etc. massification in terms of both number of institutes and enrolments, (Varghese 2014; Khare 2012, 2014) professionalization and privatization (Khare 2012, 2014) have been three prominent trends in Indian higher education in the last few years. Under the 12th Five-Year plan (2012–2017), the proposition was to expand the higher education sector in order to increase the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in HE to 21% by the end of XII Plan and 30% by the year 2020. Hence, access continues to remain an important leg of this pillar in the Indian context. The second dimension that needs to be captured under this pillar is completion or transition from one stage to the other (UG to PG to Research) and lastly of course the Learning skills assessment. Traditionally, usual ways of certifying learning (written exams, oral presentations, performances, semester, and term-end examinations, etc.) have been used to measure learning skills. However, of late, the very definition of learning skills has widened to add employability skills to domain-specific knowledge and technical/disciplinary skills. The long list of such qualities that higher education is expected to cultivate in students includes creativity, intellectual integrity, wisdom, tolerance, esthetic sensibility, personal self-discovery, psychological wellbeing, and refinement of taste, conduct, and manners. In Howard Bowen’s brilliant book, Investment in Learning (1977). Cognitive outcomes in higher education range from domain-specific knowledge acquisition to the most general of reasoning and problem-solving abilities, to what Spearman called general ability or simply “G.” The realization of wide gaps in ‘learning’ further extended to ‘Employability Skills’ in the last decade. Whether or not expanded educational opportunities will translate into meaningful development—for an individual or for society—depends ultimately on whether people actually learn as a result of those opportunities, i.e., whether they incorporate useful knowledge, reasoning ability, skills and values. (UNESCO WCEFA Declaration 1990)

According to the World Bank, Learning outcomes is not limited to the “3R’s” alone, but too soft skills such as critical thinking, teamwork, and solving problems

156

M. Khare

among many. and to ‘specific technical or vocational skills related to an occupation’. The major catalysts to this rising consensus can be stated as the first thematic consultation on the post-2015 development agenda on structural change, productive capacities, and employment organized by the ILO and UNDP suggesting that there might even be a post-2015 goal related to ‘technical, vocational and entrepreneurial skills’ (UNDP-ILO 2012), as well as a series of UNESCO documents making a case for skills revolution a part of education quality. To quote, “a new and broadened conceptualization of learning is required, which encompasses learning of generic skills and meta-cognitive skills (including creativity, flexibility, and adaptability), learning for living together and learning for a world in which sustainability is becoming increasingly vital” (UNESCO Bangkok 2012). Needless to say, these qualities are not easily measured via standardized tests. So much so that many of the outcomes we seek in our students today actually are impossible to quantify (Schapiro 2007). There may be nonetheless a few ways of assessing these. Direct indicators of student learning include scores from achievement and ability tests. The most frequent direct indicators are scores on the Graduate Record Examination (GRE), licensure examination pass rates, and infrequently, value-added measures (VSA 2008; Lydia 2009) based on published tests such as CAAP (COLLEGIATE ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC PROFICIENCY) in the US. Indirect indicators are proxies for learning. They typically include graduation rates, degrees awarded, self-reports of learning (such as obtained through the National Student Survey of Engagement), and employer surveys. Administering direct tests to assess non-cognitive intelligence or some standard aptitude tests (Psychology) to assess personal qualities/skills. This, however, would be very difficult to carry out on a large scale (large student population in India). The National Employability Report of India uses some such measures based on Aspiring Minds’ intelligent adaptive assessments spanning across Language, Cognitive skills, Domain knowledge, and Personality (Aspiring Minds 2014). The second way may be to generate some indirect measures based on industry/employers’ perspective on students preparedness for the world of work—a measure of their employability skills. It has been found that data on indirect measures are generally much easier and less expensive to gather than data on direct measures. Consequently, 80% of the learning indicators reported by 26 of the 27 states in Naughton et al.’s study (2003) are focused on indirect indicators. But, policy debates have increasingly focused on direct assessment of student learning (e.g., Callen and Finney 2002; Klein et al. 2003, 2005; Shavelson and Huang 2003). The third way is to use final degree year GPAs as a proxy to learn a broad category of generic skills inclusive of domain knowledge. Especially where the GPAs are based on a cumulative assessment over the entire period of the degree course based on mixed evaluation methods—(written tests, oral presentations, classroom behavior and participation, ex-curricular involvement, etc.) Studies have shown that strong correspondence between customized tests based on several open-ended questions and college GPAs, the two being highly correlated, especially when the college is the unit of analysis (Flowers et al. 2001).

11 Triangular Model of Outcome-Based Higher Education Performance

157

Pillar II: Effective Learning Facilitator I.E. Teacher Student performance has been always linked to teaching quality. Many researches use Learning Outcome Measures as indirect indicators for teaching performance. As Berk (2005) points that “Teaching performance is being inferred from students’ performance—what they learned in the course”. Theall and Franklin (2001) noted consistently high correlations between student ratings of “amount learned” and overall ratings. Cohen (1981) found significant correlations between student ratings of teachers and their own performance in final exams. Although learning outcome measures is a sticky source because it is indirect (Berk 2005), they have often been used by researchers. Few sources of evidence involve direct ratings of teaching behaviors. Quality of teachers and teaching has often been blamed for poor learning and lack of desired employability skills among Indian HE graduates (Khare 2012, 2014). A paradigm shift in HE teaching unfolded additional dimensions to the role of a teacher in higher education globally. Higher education is swiftly changing from an instruction based paradigm—towards a “learning paradigm”. In other words, it is shifting from a paradigm that emphasizes delivering lectures and providing students with the means to learn to a new one which focuses not on the means but on the end, i.e. supporting the learning process of students. We now witness that the goal is not instruction but rather that of producing learning with every student by whatever means work best (Barr and Tagg 1995). This shift changed the very role and responsibilities of a teacher from an instructor to a facilitator in a learner-centric mode. Greater emphasis on practical/field/industry exposure linked to domain study, use of advanced teaching– learning aid, a more tech-savvy ICT supported teaching methodology, MOOCs have all added on to the qualities that a teacher should have along with many art of the day modern technology-based teaching skills, negotiating skills for industry engagement, innovation, and creativity to keep their courses up-to-date and live for student and industry demand. In light of the above discussion, teacher as an effective learning facilitator becomes an important pillar of assessing HE performance.

Pillar III: Quality Facilities and Functioning (QFF) There can be a little debate on the choice of the third pillar i.e. quality of institutional infrastructure and its functioning as an important determinant of HEP. Traditionally, institutional quality has been measured by inputs, largely in terms of financial resources. In fact, the development of quality assurance systems is one of the prime developments of higher education since the early 1980. Quality assurance expanded in response to the massification of participation, the growing diversity of educational offerings, and the expansion of private provision (El-Khawas et al. 1998; Dill and Beerkens 2010). Even though a few authors are more confident about a more

158

M. Khare

tangible impact of evaluations on teaching practices (Brennan 1997; Silva et al. 1997). Similarly, a group of countries who participated in the OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary Education presented some documentation of the positive footprint of quality assurance mechanisms on the quality of teaching and learning (OECD 2005). In India, the NAAC grades universities and colleges on multiple scores based on the self-assessment reports submitted by their IQACs—now made mandatory. Two legs of this pillar may thus be seen to get reflected in NAAC Grading and some measure of financial resource generation and utilization.

Sub-Dimensions of Pillars of EPI (HE) The three dimensions/pillars of evaluating HEP can further be seen as a function of three sub-dimensions. S. no

YPL ( P1)

ELF (P2)

QFF (P3)

1

Attendance or participation rates (C1)

Teacher availability (T1)

Quality accreditation (Basic infrastructure/Facilities (F1)

2

Degree completion Teacher quality (T2) Practical Exposure while or level transition and Qualification learning/co-scholastic/ex-curricular (C2) (T3) activities (F2)

3

Learning skills assessment (C3)

Teacher assessment (T4)

Community Perception or participation (F3)

Each of the three pillars of the triangular model rests on three legs/sub-dimensions as depicted in the table above. Each of these may be measured by way of some of the other indicator—directly or indirectly. The following section is devoted to identifying few such indicators.

Enlisting Prospective Indicators for Each Sub-Dimension Keeping in mind the current availability of data in India (although much of the information may be available in raw form and have to be refined), the following indicators may be used to measure each of the sub-dimensions along with their definitions in the table below. Also, a note is attached depicting a better alternative indicator that can be used in the future subject to additional data availability.

11 Triangular Model of Outcome-Based Higher Education Performance

159

(P1) Youth Participation and Learning (YPL) List of Proposed Indicators and Their Description

S. no

P1 (CPL) sub-dimensions

Indicator name

Definition of selected indicators

1

Attendance or participation rates (C1)

Gross enrolment ratio (GER)*

GER = 100 × [Tertiary enrolment/Five-year age cohort following theoretical age of secondary education completion]* UNESCO (2010)

2

Degree completion or graduation rates (C2)

Gross graduation ratio (1st Degree) (UNESCO 2010)

Gross tertiary graduation ratio = 100 × [Number of graduates in a given level or programme (first degree), regardless of age]/[Population at the theoretical graduation age for that level or programme during the same academic year]#

3

Learning skills assessment (C3)

Attainment (% individuals with tertiary education UNESCO (2010) OR Av. student performance at Graduation OR Employability score (independent Assessment) OR Student placement ratios

100 × [Number of persons aged 25 years and above who attain tertiary education level]/[Total population of the same age group] OR % students passing with min specified Average percentile score at degree completion. OR Employability Score ( National Employability Report, India) OR % placement to Total College-Educated Live Register in Employment Exchange$

Note * Other possible indicators that can be used in place are: (i) Grade-wise Av Daily Student Attendance; (ii) Ratio of actual years of schooling to Potential years of schooling; (iii) NER. (iv) % colleges with a minimum threshold Size @ (or Av college size) (V)Tertiary students per 100,000 pop (vi) Students by broad fields of education (vi) Graduation rate is the percentage of a school’s firsttime, first-year undergraduate students who complete their program within 150% of the published time for the program. For example, for a four-year degree program, entering students who complete within six years are counted as graduates @Number of Schools with an average minimum enrolment per school divided by total number of schools and multiplied by 100 $ Source in India employment exchange statistics, DGET (GOI), # A high ratio indicates a high degree of current tertiary education outputs

160

M. Khare

(P2) Effective Learning Facilitator (ELF): List of Proposed Indicators and Their Description

S. no Effective teaching P2 -ET Sub-dimension

Indicator name

Definition of selected indicators

1

Teacher availability (T1)

Pupil teacher ratio (PTR)

Average PTR across all colleges and universities in a region

2

Teacher qualification (T2) % teachers with higher than minimum required qualification

Number of teachers with minimum eligible and above qualification as per UGC/State norms divided by total number of teachers and multiplied by 100

3

Teacher quality (T3)

Percentage of Highly qualified Regular Teachers OR % Teachers with above a threshold API score. (UGC)

Ratio of number of regular and teachers with doctoral degrees to total teachers (Regulars + contract) and multiplied by 100

4

Teacher attendance (T4)

% of days teachers are involved in teaching assignments to average instructional days*

To arrive at this, the no. of days teachers involved in non-teaching assignments has been subtracted from average instructional days. Then the percentage of average instructional days has been taken

Note * Other possible indicators that can be used are: (i) Average number of Hrs of teaching/week; (ii) average number of Hrs of daily teaching (iii) % of Female Tertiary teachers (UNESCO 2010) @ Minimum required qualification to mean teachers who qualify the norms prescribed by University Grants Commission at different levels

(P3)Quality Facilities and Functioning (QFF): List of Proposed Indicators and Their Description

S. no

P3—SFF sub-dimensions

Indicators used

Definition of selected indicators

1

Institutional quality ( F1)

% colleges and University teaching departments with A Grade by NAAC*

100 × number of institutions accredited with A Grade by the NAAC/total accredited institutions (continued)

11 Triangular Model of Outcome-Based Higher Education Performance

161

(continued) S. no

P3—SFF sub-dimensions

Indicators used

Definition of selected indicators

2

Public expenditure Per capita Public in HE (F2) expenditure in HE

Total public expenditure in tertiary/[total number of student]

3

Exposure to ex-curricular activities (F3)

Students’ participation in ex-curricular programmes OR Exposure to industry-oriented courses

Av Number students participation in ex-curricular programmes organized/year OR % of industry-oriented courses OR % student enrolment in industry oriented/professional/technical courses

4

Community perception or participation (F4)

% institutions having formal MOUs with industry for research and training OR Net Flow Ratio (UNESCO 2010)

Ratio of colleges/UTDs having functional industry MOUs to total and multiplied by 100 OR Net flow ratio = 100 × [Total number of tertiary students from Abroad studying in a given country (inbound students)]—[Number of students at the same level of education from that country studying abroad (outbound students)]/[Total tertiary enrolment in that country]

Note As a large number of quality indicators are included in NAAC Assessment, indicator 3 may be dropped from the above table

Methodology for Constructing Education Performance Index (EPI) Making a choice of a minimum of 12–14 indicators enlisted in the above section, a composite index may be developed to reflect each of the dimensions through a SubIndex and an overall Higher Education Performance Index (HEPI) based on the three sub-indices. The three sub-indices need to be combined statistically in order to arrive at a composite Index of Higher Education Performance (HEPI). The Linear Weighted Aggregation Method is proposed to be used as it suits the purpose of temporal as well as cross-sectional comparability, which is easy to construct and comprehend. Such indices may be used to assess the education performance of colleges/universities in any region/state/district on an average. Steps in Linear Weighted Aggregation Method: To construct HEPI index, the following three steps need to be followed:

162

M. Khare

STEP I: Data Normalization: In order to make all the indicators scale-free, the division by mean (DM) method may be used i.e. each indicator is divided by its own mean.1  Cs1 = C1/N. Where Cs1 is standardized value of C1 i.e.Gross Enrolment Ratio for Higher education; N being total number of states/regions under consideration. All indicators to be standardized likewise so as to arrive at standardized matrix of chosen indicators. STEP II: Calculation of Sub-Indices: Each sub-index is the geometric mean of its scale-free component indicators/variables. Thus we get three sub-indices—(1) Youth Participation and Learning Index (YPLI) as cube root of its three component indicators; (2) Effective Learning Facilitator Index (ELFI) as fourth root of its four component variables; and (3) Quality Facility and Functioning Index (QFFI) as fourth root of its four component indicators. Symbolically, YPLI = (Cs1*Cs2*Cs3) 1/3 . ELFI = (Ts1*Ts2*Ts3*Ts4) 1/4 . QFFI = (Fs1*Fs2*Fs3*Fs4) 1/4 . STEP III: Arriving at Composite Index: Combining the three sub-indices into a single composite index to stand as the HEPI may be done by taking the weighted average of the three pillars. Here W represents the different weights assigned to each sub-index CPLI, ETI, and SFI. Symbolically, Epi = w1p1 + w2p2 + w3p3 / (W1 + w2 + w3)

where W1 is Average college size, W2 is Average number of teachers per college, and W3 is college density per 100 square kilometers, respectively. PI is YPLI, P2is ELFI and P3 is QFFI, respectively. We thus, finally arrive at the composite HEPI as a linear weighted average of its three pillars as measured by its three sub-indices viz YPLI, ELFI, and QFFI.

1 This

method saves the variability in the data set as the coefficients of variation of the original indicators, thus, become the standard deviations of the scale-free indicators, which then are carried into the composite indices. The mean for each selected indicator to be calculated by adding up the values of all the states and dividing by the total by the number of states under consideration. The new or scale-free value of each state, obtained through the division by mean, shows its relative position vis-a-visthe average of all the states, on that indicator.

11 Triangular Model of Outcome-Based Higher Education Performance

163

Concluding Observations There are an increasing consensus and pressure on measuring student learning outcomes across the globe. A paradigm shift in expectations from HE brought by a market economy. An increasing number of studies over the past decade and a half have analyzed the implications of this shift towards learning outcomes at both international and national levels by way of defining desired learning outcomes (the “Tuning” process); intertwining learning outcomes with quality assurance processes; and measuring learning outcomes, first at national level (Nusche 2007) and then across borders. This certainly is a tedious task and comes with its own limitations and challenges. But, with increasingly interconnecting higher education systems it is operating on a global scale, such a need always comprises of with obvious consequences for student mobility, transferability of credentials, and degree recognition. The usual practice of measuring learning outcomes too has undergone a paradigm shift to become more broad-based and practice-oriented. The traditional model of assessing learning against set predetermined standardized desired outcomes is now being increasingly questioned. As argued by Scott regarding the measurement of “achievement” that the learning outcome is a false god, to whom too much attention is paid and probably by the wrong people. In this paper, a comprehensive yet simple triangular model is proposed by taking account of multiple dimensions of learning and their facilitating environment in order to provide for a single value to measure HEP in a country/region just like the Human Development Index of UNDP. However, one has to remember that each such index comes with its own caveats and challenges and should be used and comprehended carefully.

References Aspiring Minds. (2014). National Employability Report-Engineers. Available at https://www.aspiri ngminds.in/docs/national_employabilityReport_engineers_annual_report_2014.pdf. Barr, R., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning—a new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change Magazine, 27(6), 12–25. Berk, R. A. (2005). Survey of 12 Strategies to measure teaching effectiveness journal of teaching and learning in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 48–62. Block, J. H. (1971). Mastery Learning: Theory and Practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Bloom, B. S. (1981). All Our Children Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bowen Howard, R. (1977). Investment in Learning, the Individual and Social Value in American Higher Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bowers-Brown, T., & Harvey, L. (2004). Are there too many graduates in the UK? Industry and Higher Education, 18(4), 243–254. Brennan, J. (1997). Authority, legitimacy and change: The rise of quality assessment in higher education. Higher Education Management, 9(1), 7–29.

164

M. Khare

Burke, J. C. (2005). The many faces of accountability. In Joseph C. Burke (ed.), Achieving Accountability in Higher Education Balancing Public, Academic, and Market Demands, Joseph C. Burke and Associates. John Wiley & Sons. Callan, P. M., & Finney, J. E. (2002). Assessing educational capital: an imperative for policy. Change (34): 24–31. (It is found but check spelling in content is “Callen” and Reference is “Callan”). Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723–733. Chadha, G. K. (2004). Human capital base of the Indian labour market: Identifying worry spots. the Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 47(1), 3–38. Cohen, P. A. (1981). Student ratings of instruction and student achievement: A meta-analysis of multisection validity studies. Review of Educational Research, 51(3), 281–309. Dearing, R. (1997). Higher Education in the learning society: Report of the national committee of inquiry into higher education, London: London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. DGET, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Directorate General of Employment and Training various Employment Exchange Statistics various years. Available at https://www.dget.nic.in/con tent/innerpage/employment-exchange-statistics.php. Dill, D., & Beerkens, M. (2010). Public Policy for Academic Quality: Analyses of Innovative Policy Instruments. New York: Springer. Dill, D., & Van Vught, F. (2010). National Innovation and the Academic Research Enterprise. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore: Public Policy in Global Perspective. El Khawas, E., et al. (1998). Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Recent Progress. World Bank, Washington, DC: Challenges Ahead. Flowers, L., Osterlind, S. J., Pascarella, E. T., & Pierson, C. T. (2001). How much dostudents learn in colleges? The Journal of Higher Education, 72(5), 565–583. Forum for the Future of Higher Education. (2007). Assessment and Accountability in Higher Education. Cambridge, Mass: Forum for the Future of Higher Education. Khare, M. (2012). Aligning India’s Higher Education to the Employability needs of a Global Economy. Paper presented at the 18th (CCEM) Commonwealth Education Ministers Conference (August27–30), Mauritius: Mauritius University. Khare, M. (2014). Employment, employability and higher education in India: The missing links. Higher Education for the Future, 1(1), 39–62. Klein, S., Kuh, G., Chun, M., Hamilton, L., & Shavelson, R. (2003). The search for “Value-Added”: Assessing and validating selected higher education outcomes. Chicago, Illinois: Paper presented at the meetings of the American Educational Research Association. Klein, S., Kuh, G., Chun, M., Hamilton, L., & Shavelson, R. (2005). An approach to measuring cognitive outcomes across higher education institutions. Research in Higher Education, 46(3), 251–276. Levine (1997). The Many Faces of Accountability. In J. C. Burke (Ed.). Available at https://www.rockinst.org/pdf/education/2004-10-achieving_accountability_in_higher_educat ion_balancing_public_academic_and_market_demands_chapter_one.pdf. Lydia L. (2009). Measuring Learning outcomes in higher education, R & D Connections No.10 Aug, 2009. Naughton, B. A., Suen, A. Y., & Shavelson, R. J. (2003). Accountability for what? Understanding the learning objectives in state higher education accountability programs, Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Nusche, D. (2007). Approaches to Learning Outcomes Assessment in Higher Education, Working Paper No. 15, OECD, Paris. OECD. (2005). Quality Assurance in Tertiary Education: Current Practices in OECD Countries and a Literature Review on Potential Effects Viktoria Kis* August available at https://www.oecd. org/education/skills-beyond-school/38006910.pdf. OECD (2008a). Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society, OECD Publishing, Paris. Available at: www.oecd.org/edu/tertiary/review.

11 Triangular Model of Outcome-Based Higher Education Performance

165

OECD. (2008b). Assessment of learning outcomes in higher education: a comparative review of selected practices, OECD Education Working Paper No. 15. OECD. (2012a). Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes Feasibility Study Report Volume 1 – Design and Implementation Karine Tremblay Diane Lalancette Deborah Roseveare OECD (2012b).OECD feasibility study for the international assessment of higher education learning outcomes, OECD, Paris. Reich, R. B. (1991). The work of nations. London: Simon and Schuster. Reich, R. B. (2002). The future of success. London: Vintage Books. Schapiro Morton Owen (2007). Assessment and Accountability in Higher Education, Forum for the Future of Higher Education. Excerpted from Forum Futures. (2007). Forum for the Future of Higher Education. Cambridge: Mass. Scott, I. (2011). The learning outcome in higher education: Time to think again? Worcester Journal of Learning and Teaching, 5. Shavelson, R. J., & Huang, L. (2003). Responding responsibly to the frenzy to assess learning in higher education. Change, 35(1), 10–19. Silva, M., et al. (1997). Effects of external quality evaluation in chile: A preliminary study. Quality in Higher Education, 3(1), 27–35. Theall, M., & Franklin, J. L. (2001). Looking for Bias in all the Wrong Places: A search for truth or a witch hunt in student ratings of instruction? In M. Theall, P. C., Abrami, & L. A. Mets (Eds.), The student ratings debate: are they valid? How can we best use them? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 109, pp. 45–56. UNDP-ILO. (2012). Growth, Structural Change and Employment Report of the first Thematic Consultation on the Post-2015 Framework for Development. Tokyo, Japan, 15–16 May. Available at: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---integration/documents/meetingdo cument/wcms_185832.pdf. UNESCO. (1990). World Declaration on Education for All, Thailand WCEFA/Declaration/Prov. Jomtien. Available at https://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0008/000862/086291eb.pdf UNESCO. (2010). Key Indicators on Tertiary Education: Calculation and Interpretation. Olivier LABE UIS Workshop on education statistics Windhoek, pp. 17–21. UNESCO Bangkok. (2012). Towards EFA 2015 and Beyond—Shaping a New Vision of Education. Summary Outcomes. Available at https://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/epr/ Images/Summary_OutcomesPost_2015_FINAL.pdf. Varghese, N. V. (2012). “Society for Educational and Economic Development”, Foundation Day Lecture-Seminar on Higher Education Reforms: Global Initiatives (August 09). New Delhi: National University of Educational Planning and Administration. Varghese, N. V. (2014). Diversification of Post-Secondary Education. Paris: IIEP/UNESCO. VSA. (2008).Voluntary System of Accountability (VSA): Information on Learning outcomes Measures. Available at https://www.voluntarysystem.org/docs/cp/LearningOutcomesInfo.pdf. World Bank. (2002). Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Tertiary Education. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Mona Khare Head of Educational Finance/CPRHE and acts as consultant /expert with UNESCO, APO, British Council. World Bank, Government bodies and universities. She specialized in Regional Planning and Economic Growth and has been twice conferred with the ‘Young Economist Award’ by the Indian Economic Association. With teaching, training, consultancy, and administrative experience of more than 25 years, Dr. Khare has been Associate Editor for the Indian Economic Journal and on the editorial board/reviewer of several international journals/books published by Oxford, Sage, Emerald, Springer etc.

Chapter 12

Collaboration for the E-learning Space in ASEAN Nopraenue S. Dhirathiti and Supachai Yavaprabhas

Abstract At the height of technological revolution and the transformation of economic and social needs in the knowledge-based society, the significant step for both policymakers and educators is to consider joining the force in creating common spaces in higher education. At the inter-governmental level, the attempt to collaborate for new learning, teaching, and research spaces is in progress in many regions, especially in Europe, Central and Latin America as well as Africa. Besides the needs to use education, especially higher education, to be the driving force in the globalized world for economic growth and to increase regional competitiveness and social cohesion, these common spaces and higher education areas are also designed to meet the needs of the students and to accommodate the new paradigm of education. Politically and economically speaking, a higher education space or area certainly provides some answers to the challenges of higher education development in the globalized world. It directly tackles common problems faced by many countries and HEIs around the world, that is, the problems of access/equity, quality, and participation of key stakeholders in higher education sector. Through the creation of a common space in higher education, an ‘area’ in which higher education systems in the region share common features could be formed. It is also an area where educational, research, and training activities could be conducted with the same standards or guidelines of assessment, recognition, and quality. It is essentially a ‘loosely-coordinated and voluntary policy process’ that facilitates far better cooperation in higher education within the region. In a way, it is a search for a common answer to common problems in higher education sector in each region.

N. S. Dhirathiti (B) Mahidol University, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand e-mail: [email protected] S. Yavaprabhas Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 N. V. Varghese and S. Mandal (eds.), Teaching Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4847-5_12

167

168

N. S. Dhirathiti and S. Yavaprabhas

Towards the Establishment of Higher Education Areas At the height of technological revolution and the transformation of economic and social needs in the knowledge-based society, the significant step for both policymakers and educators is to consider joining the force in creating common spaces in higher education. At the inter-governmental level, the attempt to collaborate for new learning, teaching, and research spaces is in progress in many regions, especially in Europe, Central and Latin America as well as Africa. Besides the needs to use education, especially higher education, to be the driving force in the globalized world for economic growth and to increase regional competitiveness and social cohesion, these common spaces and higher education areas are also designed to meet the needs of the students and to accommodate the new paradigm of education. Politically and economically speaking, a higher education space or area certainly provides some answers to the challenges of higher education development in the globalized world. It directly tackles common problems faced by many countries and HEIs around the world, that is, the problems of access/equity, quality, and participation of key stakeholders in the higher education sector. Through the creation of a common space in higher education, an ‘area’ in which higher education systems in the region share common features could be formed. It is also an area where educational, research, and training activities could be conducted with the same standards or guidelines of assessment, recognition, and quality. It is essentially a ‘looselycoordinated and voluntary policy process’ that facilitates far better cooperation in higher education within the region. In a way, it is a search for a common answer to common problems in the higher education sector in each region. The attempt to establish the overarching frameworks for future higher education reforms in these regions share several similar characteristics. For example, in Europe, this initiative could be seen through the Bologna Process, which is the move to harmonize higher education across the region. The main objective is to create what is now called ‘European Higher Education Area’, which has been realized since 2010. The Bologna Process has been seen as fundamental to the creation of the so-called ‘European of Knowledge’ and a platform for regional economic growth. Central and Latin America have also moved towards greater policy cooperation among themselves in many areas, including the promotion of mobility and quality assurance framework. Another important move in Africa is through the establishment of the ‘African Higher Education Area (AHEA)’ which is in progress. The focus of higher education harmonization in the AHEA resembles those in Europe, including, mobility programme, overall regulatory framework and higher education policy, curricula reforms, and attractiveness as well as competitiveness of the African HEIs. In Europe, Central and Latin America as well as in Africa, the areas of collaboration generally include the development of reference frameworks or guidelines for, (a) the same cycle of degree system; (b) the development of credit transfer system; (c) the promotion of student and staff mobility; (d) the system of quality assurance; (e) the comparability of study programmes; (f) the promotion of regional dimension in higher education; (g) the attractiveness of regional higher education systems.

12 Collaboration for the E-learning Space in ASEAN

169

These inter-governmental initiatives to establish an overarching framework for higher education reforms might not directly address the way in which a common learning space through e-learning should be tackled. However, it has clearly indicated that the same approach in reforming higher education sector to meet the changing evolution of technology, the need to re-orient the education approach to ‘studentcentered’, and the need to strengthen collaborative efforts through regional and global networks in facilitating higher education activities. E-learning and the development of virtual spaces will certainly be another important issue for inter-governmental support.

New Approach to Learning: Constructivist Paradigm There has been a general consensus among educators that learning, traditional way or online, is a ‘social process.’ Learning process nowadays involves more participation and interaction from students more than ever. The role of students has also changed from ‘consumers’ to ‘constructors’ of information and knowledge. Therefore, current educational designs, both physical and content, are to provide opportunities for students to participate freely in classroom, laboratory or non-classroom activities. The ‘student-centered’ or ‘learner-centric’ approach to both basic and higher education is the result of the shift from ‘transmission paradigm’ to ‘constructivist paradigm’ in the 1990s. In the past few decades, the essence of ‘constructing knowledge’ or ‘knowing’ is not much of memorizing and repeating facts as understanding critical and complex scientific and organizational sets of facts in order to be able to solve problems (Brown and Lippincott 2003, pp. 14–15). In this sense, education is not the process highlighting the importance of ‘transmission’ of content to passive students, but the process in which students or learners are active agents who are entering HEIs or higher education sector to construct their own sets of knowledge. These new trends of teaching and learning methods have important implications for the current management of higher education. Irrespective of the programmes on e-learning offered at different stages around the world, the common goal of these non-traditional learning sites through virtual campuses and learning spaces is to offer the students alternative landscapes and venues for learning and teaching. Towards the development of the new learning space which is less focused on classroom methods, the common points of concerns shared by many are the increasing importance of ICT in teaching and learning, the support for content-based courseware and new learning materials, and structural support of inter-governmental structure to promote higher education virtual and e-learning spaces.

170

N. S. Dhirathiti and S. Yavaprabhas

The Increasing Importance of ICT in Traditional Classroom ICT has played an important part in contemporary teaching and learning process, especially when more learning is taking place outside traditional face-to-face classrooms. Many HEIs have invested a large sum of money to renovate technologyenabled classrooms with up-to-date equipment and network connectivity. With the increasing technological maturity, costs for devices such as laptops, handhelds, PDAs, and other computing infrastructure have declined, it simultaneously allows educators and students to think and interact in ‘virtual’ spaces. In these virtual spaces, students are allowed to have learning experiences that are digital, connected, mobile, independent, immediate and social. Many HEIs have clearly adopted the blended approach in the new method of teaching and learning through the convergence of several types of learning space, be it formal, virtual, online or classroom, into a more integrated one.

New Support for Content-Based Courseware for E-learning Space According to the OECD, e-learning usually refers to the use of ICT to enhance and support learning in higher education and could cover a range of systems, from students using email and accessing information about course contents online to programmes offered entirely on the web. It is undeniable that learning spaces are being redefined as the use of ICT is brought in to a wide range of teaching and learning contexts, from classroom learning to distance education, to open and independent learning, online, computer-assisted and multimedia education. In a way, the new approach in learning spaces with ICT-based education through e-learning or open and distant learning is basically to address the problem of access and flexibility of teaching and learning methods. E-learning, at the moment, could be divided into several types (OECD 2005, p.2): Web-supplemented courses: focus on classroom-based teaching but include elements such as a course outline and lecture notes online, use of email, and links to online resources. Web-dependent courses: require students to use the Internet for key elements of the programme such as online discussions, assessment, or online project/collaborative work, but without significant reduction in classroom time. Mixed-mode courses: indicates the situation in which e-learning element begins to replace classroom time. Online discussions, assessment, orproject/collaborative work replace some face-to-face teaching and learning. But significant campus attendance remains part of the mix. Fully online courses: allow students to follow courses offered by a university in one city from another town, country, or time zone.

12 Collaboration for the E-learning Space in ASEAN

171

These e-learning programmes may be varied in terms of the activities, total time required from students to spend online, course contents available online, and so on. However, they are inclined to share some common elements which characterize current development of new learning spaces and the development of courseware contents.

Contextual The new learning space must be contextual in nature, that is, it should be taking into account the student’s understanding. As the new teaching and learning approach develops, the engagement of learners or students is the core part of educational activities. The new learning theory is based on the attempt to encourage students to develop their own existing systems of knowledge or current understanding of knowledge via new information with the aim to solve intellectual problems and not only memorize or repeat it. Unlike the traditional method of knowledge delivery through normal teaching paradigm which emphasizes ‘teacher/instructor-centric approach’, the paradigm of new learning space encourages students to interact through debates and direct engagement with peers and experts both online and in face-to-face interactions.

Active and Interactive Student-centric approach to construct new learning spaces also lays emphasis on active participation of students in the learning process. Design principles should stress the terms such as ‘analyze, create, criticize, debate, present, and classify’ to open learning spaces for students to exercise their skills (Brown and Lippincott 2003). Active participants go hand in hand with interactive learning environment in which students are allowed to use learning materials and displays for other participants. In Brown’s word, ‘learning space needs to provide participants—instructors and students alike—with interactive tools that enable exploration, probing, and examination.’ The active and interactive nature of new learning space must be expanded beyond traditional classroom learning. Virtual and informal learning spaces will play critical part in supporting continuous learning process. For example, cooperation with different HEIs through virtual learning technology during normal classes will stimulate more interactive discussions among students and between students and experts outside the traditional classroom. Informal learning spaces such as in the libraries, study halls, or media centers with well-equipped learning technology would also be another venue to promote an integrated learning space for future generations.

172

N. S. Dhirathiti and S. Yavaprabhas

Social In connection with the active and interactive mode of learning process, another important characteristic of the new learning space is its social function. The new learning space must enable more discussion, direct interaction with experts and peers as well as allow students and faculty to create intra- and inter-institution team-based project. This extra function of social character in learning space is applied to both traditional classroom learning and modern e-learn solutions. New learning spaces must be able to offer possibilities for future collaboration with other learners and for stimulating interaction with the learning courseware and for guidance from teachers and instructors. Another e-learning solution is the creation of virtual community where students could build their working group and share their experiences outside traditional classroom learning.

Multicultural Whether the learning content is developed for traditional classroom learning or new learning spaces using e-learning solutions, another important aspect of the learning content and process must be multicultural. The courseware and contents being used in the new learning spaces must account for materials, concepts and values from vast arrays of cultures. As the new learning approach revolves around knowledge construction by students’ own existing worldviews and knowledge, the new information given in the form of courseware and contents must accommodate various cultural differences to stimulate diverse cultural tolerance and understanding. Given the increasing interaction and active participation of learners, knowledge that is socially constructed through the learning process must introduce students to the experience and ideas that form other human beings. Multicultural perspective in developing e-learning solutions and courseware is a crucial part of the constructivist process of learning and knowledge construction. Students’ ideas and awareness re-shape and re-define their knowledge about society and the world at large. By integrating materials, dimensions an approach to multicultural aspects of society and education, academic and social stimulation will most likely be the result of the new learning space.

12 Collaboration for the E-learning Space in ASEAN

173

The Role of Inter-governmental Support for New Learning Spaces Failures, Success, and Sustainability It is widely accepted that e-learning, with its constructivist nature and approach to education, will increase its prominence in tertiary education in most parts of the world. Although many policy researches have pointed out the decline of e-learning enrolments and the inconsistencies of take-up rate and the growth of e-learning programmes, the level of institutions offering partial e-learning and online courses is on the increase. In retrospect, many national projects for e-learning were launched in Europe, for example, the UK e-University, the Digital University in the Netherlands, the Bavarian Virtual University, and the Virtual University in Finland or the NetUniversity in Sweden. According to the OECD, only 5 percent of students in campus-based institutions enroll for the web-dependent or fully online courses. However, in some other institutions, the number of students enrolled for courses with partial online presence ranges between 30 and 50% of the total enrolments (OECD 2005, p. 2). Several institutions have demonstrated that the failure of e-learning in securing the prominent position in university strategic plans could be seen as a result of its inefficiency in promoting on-campus learning, on-campus flexibility, competition among HEIs, access and to create a new international market, corporate clients or new forms of collaboration (Garrett and Vincent-Lancrin n.d.). Despite the numbers of reasons indicating the trends of the slow growth of elearning programmes, it might be misleading to conclude that the methods of teaching and learning in tertiary education would go back to rely solely on classroom-based courses. The emerging trend is that many HEIs are gradually bringing e-learning back into the mainstream of their educational programmes and existing classroom education. The current situation shows that HEIs prefer to use e-learning as supplementary to on-campus teaching and learning methods, especially at undergraduate level. Although the fully web-dependent or online courses have reached the limits in attracting more enrolments and fully online provision at campus-based institution will still be the minority in the short or medium terms, the OBHE survey of 122 Commonwealth institutions in 2002 and 2004 indicates that only 9 percent of these institutions do not have online learning strategy integrated into their central institutional planning. The rest does provide at least partial forms of e-learning in their campus-based education. A new learning space at postgraduate level, with fully online-based and distant learning courses, seems to emerge as a more promising activity in the long run. For the fact that the programmes with fully integrated online presence might be in favor of experienced learners who have to combine their work, study, and family life together, such learning method, especially in the IT and business/management

174

N. S. Dhirathiti and S. Yavaprabhas

disciplines, seems to offer an alternative for adult learners to traditional campus-based learning.1 Furthermore, there are still reasons to believe that there are interests among HEIs to use e-learning and other online-based courses to provide wider access to disabled and adult learners. Also, e-learning and the promotion of a new learning space facilitating the process of internationalization of existing international markets and corporate clients is also another alternative to traditional learning methods. Most importantly, as the era of new and ICT-driven economy continues, online courses and the promotion of e-learning spaces would be the important parts in stimulating economic development and cutting costs in national higher education provision. As long as the new e-learning space could provide alternatives of delivering methods in teaching and learning, flexibility for learning for students and adults/disabled learners as well as the seamless integration of ICT enhancement for the knowledge and technologybased society, the future prospects of new e-learning or virtual learning spaces would not disappear.

New E-learning Space: A More Sustainable Paradigm As mentioned above, the future of e-learning and online learning spaces which are supplement to the existing campus-based education seems to be very promising. Many HEIs around the world are now taking steps towards promoting ‘blended learning’ which integrates ICT solution to provide wider online access and more flexible learning spaces to traditional classroom-based teaching and learning. In the ICT era and the new liberal economic regime, the competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy suggests that ICT and e-learning should play an important part in increasing participation, access, and quality in education provision. However, the progress of ICT solutions and the sustainability of online and e-learning are not automatic. For fully online programmes or the new virtual or learning spaces to be successful in the present stage of dominating campus-based education, initiatives and coordination from various sectors and actors are indeed necessary. A successful e-learning space does not rely only on financial or ICT investment. The prominence of ICT in education is not indicated through the increasing number of students who could do their essays on computers or send their work assignments through emails. It is important to understand the way in which HEIs and students expose themselves through ICT solutions and enhance their education maturity through unlimited and borderless intellectual interactions, construction, and collaboration via these technologies. As mentioned previously, many e-learning networks have collapsed while some are still functioning without promising sustainability. The main reason is that, in many countries, there is no clear indicator suggesting that 1 One

of the successful examples is the e-learning courses provided by the University of Phoenix in the US but the success is the result of its limited and specialised focus on business and health education.

12 Collaboration for the E-learning Space in ASEAN

175

ICT investments have resulted in credible improved performance of both teachers and learners. The lack of prolonged interest in e-learning is therefore the outcome of the unexciting result of ICT solutions in e-learning and online integrated courses and spaces. However, this should not be read as the decline of e-learning. In fact, in many countries, especially in Europe, e-learning is mentioned as the key strategy for growth and development. The Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Employment clearly states that: In order to ensure future economic growth, the EU needs a comprehensive and holistic strategy to spur on the growth of the ICT sector and the diffusion of ICTs in all parts of the economy. The top priority is to implement eEurope action plan, which calls for measures to promote e-commerce, e-government and e-learning (European Commission 2001, p. 22)

Nevertheless, the most important thing is to use these e-learning spaces to accommodate new learning activities which emphasize the process of social learning and the developing of teaching methods that induce learning experiences of students. ICT solutions in the new e-learning spaces must allow students to embrace virtual mobility and learning activities that enhance cultural and linguistic aspects of educational experience. In other words, the essence of the constructivist approach to learning and teaching must be observed in the new learning spaces. A Report of European Commission also mentioned the significance of the qualitative development of e-learning spaces (European Commission 2005, pp. 7–8). The following steps are proposed to; firstly, align the e-learning space with other key objectives of HEIs. The instructional design at the institutional level will help strengthen a more coherent development of a blending approach to teaching and learning in the case of campus-based e-learning programmes. In the case of fully online learning space, the instructional design must also be developed to augment the realities of learning process. Secondly, the focus on content development and management is to enrich the learning process (interaction, collaboration, and construction) through courseware sharing and development among networks of HEIs, experts, and technological advisors. In this way, the level of investment in courseware development and management could be lowered among HEIs collaborating to create the e-learning space. Thirdly, another important step is to create high-quality services and learning platforms by promoting value-added teaching and learning services, including large group tutoring, computer-supported collaborative learning, assessment, student portfolios or virtual learning communities. This also includes the development of quality assurance and international accreditation in the field of e-learning. Examples of the Use of ICT in Tertiary EducationEurope and ‘e-Bologna’. As pointed out by the European Association of Distance Teaching Universities (EADTU), the stagnation of the existing e-learning networks rests squarely with the lack of coordination from the inter-governmental side. One of the problems is that funding is usually gone to increase flexibility in the higher education area through short-term online courses but not for sustainable and extended interinstitutional collaboration for the promotion of e-learning or e-learning spaces. An

176

N. S. Dhirathiti and S. Yavaprabhas

inter-governmental effort which will provide an overarching framework to channel the funding for e-learning collaborations is therefore perceived as utterly important. In 2003, EADTU launched the so-called ‘e-Bologna’ to address the lack of an inter-governmental framework to promote e-learning spaces. Basically, the proposal suggests the creation of a European ‘e-environment’ to facilitate the creation of parallel learning and educational areas, along with the EHEA. The focuses include: (Ubachs 2018). (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

new pedagogical models for competence development; flexibility in a LLL context; e-assessment, individualized study support, and collaborative learning; e-learning and blended learning in an international context; e-learning and blended learning to increase access to European HEIs; virtual mobility that facilitates the creation of international learning community, courses for foreign HEIs, and joint courses/programmes/degrees development.

Asia and AeU Under the framework of Asia Cooperation Dialogue (ACD), the premise of cooperation is to promote interdependence among Asian countries as well as to enhance and empower people in order to transform Asia into a knowledge-based society. Increasing access to tertiary education is one of the priorities that call for mutual cooperation among ACD member countries. With the agreement of member countries to form the e-learning hub to spearheading e-Education efforts through mass education and lifelong learning as well as to complementing existing HEIs in deploying educational programmes using online infrastructure, Asia has taken one step ahead of Europe in creating an inter-governmental dialogue to discuss the concept and the establishment of Asia e-University (AeU). The formation of the AeU, which will be an instrument for greater cooperation, wider and flexible access to trans-border e-Education activities, would timely address the interest among countries especially in Southeast Asia on the use of ICT in providing better service in higher education. Although there has been slowness in e-learning activities in some parts of the world, there are reasons to believe that the development of a new e-learning space still has its future in Asia, as shown in the existing enthusiasm among countries in Southeast Asia for the investment on ICT infrastructure and the provision of e-learning services for their students. The prospect of the collaboration for a new e-learning space is especially promising when taking into account the interests among Southeast Asian countries in ICT and higher education. As demonstrated in Table 12.1, most of the countries agreed on the importance of the incorporation of ‘e-aspect’ of teaching and learning methods into HEIs in their respective countries. In more advanced countries such as Singapore, Thailand, Brunei Darussalam, Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia, the establishment of reliable and scaleable technology infrastructure appears to be

12 Collaboration for the E-learning Space in ASEAN

177

Table 12.1 Examples of the use of ICT in tertiary education in Southeast Asia Countries

Infrastructure

Core services in higher education

Key technical infrastructure and development

Brunei Darussalam

EDUNET

e-learning

Education information system

Digital library Human capacity building and training

Indonesia

INHERENT

Distant learning, E-learning, and remote laboratory work

Video conferencing to coordinate workshops, seminars, and training

Digital library MIS for university academic and resource management system

Malaysia

Multimedia Super Corridor (initiative to create ICT hub)

AeU (e-learning)

ICT-based learning programmes in HEIs

Input from industries

Philippines

Centers of Excellence (COEs) and Centers of Development (CODs) in ICT-based universities and colleges

ICT-based learning programmes in 1044 universities and colleges

Higher Education MIS

Singapore

ICT networks

E-learning

Centers to drive e-learning initiatives

Thailand

UniNet IT Infrastructure

E-learning, Distant learning (122 public, private and Rajabhat universities)

Research

E-library

CHED Office MIS, CHED Knowledge creation infrastructure

E-community and learning resource sharing centers

Source Author’s Table (Adapted from SEAMEO RIHED’s Information Gathered from the Proceeding of the Conference on Making a Difference: ICT in University Teaching/Learning and Research in Southeast Asian Countries)

in place. Most of these countries have already established national ICT infrastructure for education in their respective countries, for example, EDUNET in Brunei Darussalam, INHERENT in Indonesia, an ICT hub through the MSC Malaysia, and UniNet IT in Thailand. The services provided by HEIs in these countries are basically e-learning, ICT-based classroom supplementary learning programmes, and distant and open learning programmes. Both infrastructure and e-programme development are also developed in tandem with the programmes to advance ICT skills of users, provide a flexible environment for e-learning and improve better interaction

178

N. S. Dhirathiti and S. Yavaprabhas

and collaborations among users especially through the establishment of e-learning communities. Many developing countries are still at the early stage of using ICT to broaden access and improve the quality of tertiary education. In Cambodia, for example, with the hope that ICT would become a crucial factor in providing successful distance learning technology in education, especially for secondary and tertiary level. These countries share similarities in terms of challenges associated with the development of ICT infrastructure and courseware resource development. The ICT and internet coverage in these countries is still limited and considered the most significant impediment to the development of e-learning activities. However, in order for these countries to stay relevant in the globalized higher education environment, plans for investment in ICT in higher education sector both in terms of hardware, software and peopleware, are inevitable. The network such as the AeU as well as other inter-governmental processes that develop frameworks for virtual mobility, e-assessment, and accreditation would help to facilitate seamless collaboration for the sustainable learning space among advanced ACD members and also lowering the gap of ICT disparity and learning opportunity in some other areas. Furthermore, by engaging themselves in the collaboration of the new e-learning space, this would be the opportunity for students and young generation in these areas to assimilate themselves with the culture of lifelong and self-learning as alternatives for the digital age.

Conclusion The contending approach to teaching and learning in tertiary education clearly suggests the emerging constructivist approach which emphasizes education as a social process of interaction, construction, and collaboration among teachers, students, and experts. Whether the institutions of higher learning are campus-based or online based, they do share the same sentiment to provide the new generation with active and interactive, social as well as constructive learning environment. ICT and new learning technologies have become a major part of stimulating these social transformations to form new knowledge. E-learning, either fully or partial online based courses, is providing a new space in which the future choices of learning could be pursued by learners. The e-learning space or the collaboration among HEIs to establish one is undeniably a necessary step of higher education reform and development. Regardless of the trend indicating the slowness of e-learning programmes in some regions, e-learning is indisputably a new delivery learning method that will be used in HEIs as supplementary to classroom teaching and learning. A new e-learning space must take into account, along with the high investment in ICT infrastructure, the development of the pedagogic method, the institutional arrangements, and the involvement of inter-governmental efforts in creating frameworks for e-learning cooperation.

12 Collaboration for the E-learning Space in ASEAN

179

Reference Brown, M. B., & Lippincott, J. K. (2003). Learning spaces: more than meets the eye. EDUCAUSE quarterly, 26(1), 14–17. Garrett, R. (2015): E-learning in Tertiary Education: Where Do We Stand? (powerpoint presentation), www.education.gov.ab.ca/oecd2005/Presentations/Stephan% 20Vincent-Lancrin.ppt, Accessed 7 Jan 2016. Commission, E. (2005). Report on the Consultation Workshop: The ‘e’ for Our Universities—Virtual Campus. Brussels: European Commission. European Commission. (2001). E-learning: The Partnership Challenge. https://www.oecd.org/Lon gAbstract/0,2546,en_2649_33723_1898362_1_1_1_1,00.html. Accessed 8 Jul 2015. OECD. (2005). E-learning in Tertiary Education., OECD Observer, December 2005. Ubachs, G. (2018). EADTU-ENQA Peer Learning Activity : Quality Assurance of blended and online Programmes. Retrieved 11 Feb 2018, from https://calidad6.org: https://calidad6.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/06/George-Ubachs.pdf.

Nopraenue S. Dhirathiti is Vice President for International Relations and Corporate Communication and Associate Professor in Public Policy and Public Administration at Mahidol University, Thailand. Before joining Mahidol University, she was a senior specialist in higher education research at the ASEAN University Network (AUN), SEAMEO Regional Centre for Higher Education and Development (SEAMEO RIHED), and an international consultant for the Asian Development Bank and UNESCO in several higher education research projects. Supachai Yavaprabhas was formerly Professor in Public Administration at the Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. He has been assiged many posts in the government in the past decade relating to public governance and is now teaching public administration in many universities in Thailand.