Designing for learning: A case study in rethinking teaching and learning for a large first year class

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Feb 15, 2013
Keywords:
case study, curriculum design, large class teaching, computer-based learning, team teaching

Main Article Content

Lisa Goldacre
Curtin University
Susan Bolt
Michael Lambiris

Abstract

This paper presents a case study in which the principles of scholarship were applied to designing an approach to learning suitable for large classes. While this case study describes an Australian first year Business Law unit, the findings presented in this paper would be relevant to a wide range of teachers faced with large enrollments in first year higher education courses. In the present case, the teacher had the challenge of teaching very large first year classes comprising students from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, many of whom were enrolled in the course not from choice but because it was compulsory for their degree. In this paper the authors describe how the teaching of the course was designed to enhance and encourage student learning. The authors’ focus is on implementation of first year curriculum design principles; use of computer-based tutorials and audience response systems; and a team approach to teaching. The teaching practices discussed in this paper are underpinned by references to relevant literature and contextualized within an ethics approved research project. The findings presented in this paper are likely to be of interest to teachers of law, teachers of large classes, and to curriculum and academic developers.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Goldacre, L., Bolt, S., & Lambiris, M. (2013). Designing for learning: A case study in rethinking teaching and learning for a large first year class. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(1), 24–44. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/josotl/article/view/3267
Issue
Volume 13, Number 1
Section
Articles
  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
     
  2. Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

  3. In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoSoTL publications, JoSoTL encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoSoTL, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

References

Altbach, P.G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L.E. (2009). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. Executive Summary: A report prepared for the UNESCO 2009 World Conference on Higher Education. Paris: UNESCO.

Atkinson, D., & Bolt, S. (2010). Using teaching observations to reflect upon and improve teaching practice in Higher Education. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10 (3), 1–19.

Australian Universities Teaching Committee & Teaching and Educational Development Institute (“ALTC & TEDI”) (2003). Teaching Large Classes Project 2001 Final Report. Canberra: ALTC.

Baillie, C., & Percoco, G. (2000). A study of present use and usefulness of computer-based learning at a technical university. European Journal of Engineering Education, 25(1), 33–43.

Bligh, D.A. (2000). What’s the use of Lectures? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bolt, S., Kerr, R., & Wauchope, V. (2011). Using video analysis software to create innovative teacher professional development. ICICTE 2011 Conference, Rhodes, July 7–9. http://www.icicte.org/ICICTE11Proceedings.htm

Butler, D.A. (2011). Closing the loop 21st century style: Providing feedback on written assessment via MP3 recordings. Journal of Australasian Law Teachers Association, 4(1&2), 99-107.

Cannon, R., & Knapper, C. (2011). HERDSA Guide: Lecturing for better learning. Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia.

Chickering, A., & Ehrmann, S. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as a lever. The American Association for Higher Education Bulletin. Retrieved November 15, 2011, from http://www.tltgroup.org/prgrams/seven.html

Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. The American Association for Higher Education Bulletin. Retrieved November 15, 2011, from http://www.2honolulu.jawaii.edu/facdev/guidebk/teachtip/7princip.htm

CBS Teaching and Learning Role Statement (2011). Retrieved from http://blogs.curtin.edu.au/cbs-staff/files/2010/07/Role-Statement-Unit-Coordinator_FINALv12.pdf

Curtin University. (2011). Future Students. Retrieved November 3, 2011, from http://futurestudents.curtin.edu.au/school-leavers/

Curtin University. (2009). Retrieved August 16, 2009, from http://c2010.curtin.edu.au/local/docs/courserenewalprocess.doc

Cook, D.A. (2005). The research we still are not doing: An agenda for the study of computerbased learning. Academic Medicine, 80(6), 541–548.

Costin, F. (1972). Lecturing versus other methods of teaching: A review of research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 3(1), 4–30.

Easton, C. (2009). An examination of clicker technology use in legal education. Journal of Information, Law & Technology (JILT), 3, retrieved 3 November 2011 http://go.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/2009_3/easton

Educause Learning Initiative. (2012). 7 things you should know about … flipped classrooms. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7081.pdf

Fetherston, T. (2010). Artichoke video analysis software. T.fetherston@ecu.edu.au

Fitzpatrick, S. (2009). The challenge of teaching law subjects with large and diverse student cohorts. Journal of the Australasian Law Teachers Association (JALTA), 2, 113–119.

Glassick, C.E. (2000). Boyer’s expanded definitions of scholarship, the standards for assessing scholarship, and the elusiveness of the scholarship of teaching. Academic Medicine, 75(9), 877– 880.

Good, T., & Brophy, J. (2003). Looking in Classrooms (9th ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Harvey, L., Drew, S., & Smith, M. (2006). The First Year Experience: A Review of Literature for the Higher Education Academy. Centre for Research and Evaluation: Sheffield Hallam University.

Herreid, C.F. (2006). “Clicker" cases: Introducing case study teaching into large classrooms. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(2), 43-7.

International Education Association of Australia. (2006). Outcomes of universities transnational education good practice projects (Final report). Commissioned by the Australian Education International & Department of Education, Science and Training, Commonwealth of Australia.

Johnstone, R., Patterson, J., & Rubenstein, K. (1998). Improving Criteria and Feedback. Australia: Cavendish Publishing.

Karp, D.A., & Yoels, W.C. (1976). The college classroom: Some observations on the meaning of student participation. Sociology and Social Research, 60, 421–439.

Keyes, M., & Johnstone, R. (2004). Changing legal education: Rhetoric, reality, and prospects for the future. Sydney Law Review, 26, 537–564.

Kift, S. (2008). 21st century climate for change: Curriculum design for quality learning engagement in law. Legal Education Review, 18, 1–30.

Kift, S. (2009). Articulating a transition pedagogy to scaffold and to enhance the first year student learning experience in Australian higher education. Final Report: Australian Learning and Teaching Council Senior Fellowship Program, 1–58.

Lambiris, M. (2009). First Principles of Business Law Interactive Tutorials and Sources Book. Australia: CCH Australia.

Lambiris, M., & Royall, B. (2000). Evaluating computer-assisted teaching materials: The Australian law courseware project. ALTA 2000 Conference, Australia.

Leuthold, J.H. (1999). Is computer-based learning right for everyone? Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1015–1022. Retrieved 12 April, 2012, from http://www.computer.org/portal/web/search/simple?action=simplesearch&yearTo=2010&yearFrom=1960&monthTo=12&monthFrom=01&sortField=DocWeight&sortOrder=descending&checkAbstract=yes&searchDatabases=proceedings&queryText1=Is+computerbased+learning+right+for+everyone%3F++&queryOption1=DC_TITLE

Louden, B., Rohl, M., Barrett Pugh, C., Brown, C., Cairney, T., Elderfield, J., House, H., Meiers, M., Rivalland, J., & Rowe, K. (2005). In Teachers’ Hands: Effective Literacy Teaching Practices in the Early Years of Schooling. Mount Lawley: Edith Cowan University.

Louden, B., Rohl, M., & Hopkins, S. (2008). Teaching for Growth: Effective Teaching of Literacy and Numeracy. Nedlands: University of Western Australia.

Lunt, T., & Curran, J. (2010) ‘Are you listening please?' The advantages of electronic audio feedback compared to written feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35 (7), 759 — 769.

Mahmud, S., & Sanderson, G. (2011). Moderation for fair assessment in transnational learning and teaching. Final Report, Australian Teaching and Learning Council.

Masikunas, G., Panayiotidis, A., & Burke, L. (2007). The use of electronic voting systems in lectures within business and marketing: A case study of their impact on student learning. ALT-J, 15(1), 3-20.

Millheim, W.D. (1996). Interactivity and computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 24(3). Retrieved April 12, 2012, from http://www.metapress.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/content/9v8j48tx461cdxvg/?p=252aeaf6431f4e21bc012e6a6ec02756&pi=2

Mulryan-Kyne, C. (2010). Teaching large classes at college and university level: Challenges and opportunities. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(2), 175–185.

O’Donnell, A., & Johnstone, R. (1997). Developing a Cross-Cultural Law Curriculum. Australia: Cavendish Publishing.

Owens, A., & Wex, I. (2010). What are the challenges involved and the strategies employed in teaching Australian law to non-law students from non-English speaking backgrounds and cultures? Journal of the Australasian Law Teachers Association (“JALTA”), 3, 89–98.

Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R.K. (2002). Learning from examples: Fostering self-explanations in computer-based learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 10(2), 105–119. Retrieved April 12, 2012, from http://www.tandfonline.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1076/ilee.10.2.105.7441

Taylor, G. (2006). Structured problem-solving: Against the ‘step-by-step’ method. Deakin Law Review, 11(1), 89–101.

Tight, M. (2003). Researching Higher Education. England: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2003). Qualitative difference in university teaching. Access and Exclusion, 2, 185–216.

Yin, R.K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design Methods, (4th ed. Vol. 5) USA: Sage Publications Inc.

Young, L.D. (2003). Bridging theory and practice: Developing guidelines to facilitate the design of computer-based learning environments. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 29(3). Retrieved April 12, 2012, from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/90/84