You are here:

STREAM: a Flexible Model for Transforming Higher Science Education into Blended and Online Learning
PROCEEDINGS

, Centre for Science Education, Aarhus University, Denmark

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Las Vegas, NV, USA ISBN 978-1-939797-05-6 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Full Text

Abstract

This paper presents a flexible model, ‘STREAM’, for transforming higher science education into blended and online learning. The model is inspired by ideas of active and collaborative learning and builds on feedback strategies well-known from Just-in-Time Teaching, Flipped Classroom, and Peer Instruction. The aim of the model is to provide both a concrete and comprehensible design toolkit for adopting and implementing educational technologies in higher science teaching practice and at the same time comply with diverse ambitions. As opposed to the above-mentioned feedback strategies, the STREAM model supports a relatively diverse use of educational technologies and may also be used to transform teaching into completely online learning. So far both teachers and educational developers have positively received the model and the initial design experiences show promise.

Citation

Godsk, M. (2013). STREAM: a Flexible Model for Transforming Higher Science Education into Blended and Online Learning. In T. Bastiaens & G. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2013--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 722-728). Las Vegas, NV, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved October 25, 2020 from .

© 2013 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Bonwell, C.C., & Eison, J.A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. Washington, DC: School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University.
  2. Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
  3. Conole, G., & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the affordances of information and communication technologies?. Association for Learning Technology Journal,12(2), 113-124.
  4. Conole, G., Dyke, M., Oliver, M., & Seale, J. (2004). Mapping pedagogy and tools for effective learning design. Computers& Education, 43(1), 17-33.
  5. Conole, G. & Fill, K. (2005). A learning design toolkit to create pedagogically effective learning activities. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2005(08).
  6. Crouch, C.H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69, 970.
  7. Hill, Y., Lomas, L., & MacGregor, J. (2003). Students’ perceptions of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(1), 15-20.
  8. Kember, D., & Wong, A. (2000). Implications for evaluation from a study of students' perceptions of good and poor teaching. Higher Education, 40(1), 69-97.
  9. Khan Academy (2013). Https://www.khanacademy.org/ (last accessed 30 July 2013).
  10. Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential Learning, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
  11. Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218.
  12. Laurillard, D. (2009). The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 5-20.
  13. Marrs, K.A., & Novak, G. (2004). Just-in-time teaching in biology: creating an active learner classroom using the Internet. Cell Biology Education, 3(1), 49-61.
  14. Mazur, E., & Hilborn, R.C. (1997). Peer instruction: A user's manual. Physics Today, 50(4), 68-69.
  15. Moravec, M., Williams, A., Aguilar-Roca, N., & O'Dowd, D.K. (2010). Learn before lecture: a strategy that improves learning outcomes in a large introductory biology class. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 9(4), 473-481.
  16. Murray, J. (2012). Pencasts for Introductory Macroeconomics. The Journal of Economic Education, 43(3), 348348.
  17. Novak, G.M., Patterson, E.T., Gavrin, A.D., & Christian, W. (1999). Just-in-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning with Web Technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  18. Novak, G., & Patterson, E.T. (2010). An Introduction to Just-in-Time Teaching (JiTT). Just-in-Time Teaching: Across the Disciplines, and Across the Academy. Simkins, S.P., & Maier, M.H. (Eds.). Stylus Publishing, LLC.
  19. Oliver, M., MacBean, J., Conole, G., & Harvey, J. (2002). Using a toolkit to support the evaluation of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,18(2), 199-208.
  20. PeerWise (2013). PeerWise. Http://peerwise.cs.auckland.ac.nz/. Price, L., & Kirkwood, A. (2011). Enhancing professional learning and teaching through technology: a synthesis of evidence-based practice among teachers in higher education.
  21. Puentedura, R. (2010). SAMR and TPCK: Intro to Advanced Practice. Http://hippasus.com/resources/sweden2010/SAMR_TPCK_IntroToAdvancedPractice.pdf (last accessed 30 July
  22. 2013).Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. Psychology Press.
  23. Salmon, G. (2003). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. Psychology Press.
  24. Simkins, S.P., & Maier, M.H. (2010). Just-in-Time Teaching: Across the Disciplines, and Across the Academy. (Eds.). Stylus Publishing, LLC.
  25. Turpen, C., Dancy, M., & Henderson, C. (2010). Faculty Perspectives On Using Peer Instruction: A National Study. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1289, P. 325).
  26. Aarhus Universitet (2011). Den Faglige Udviklingsproces. Øvrige bilag. Universitetsledelsen den. 9. Marts; also available online at http://medarbejdere.au.dk/fileadmin/res/fau/dok/fau_bilag_oevrige_bilag_090311.pdf (last

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read