Improving Higher Education Student Learning through a Table of Learning

Richard Lai, Nurazlina Sanusi

Department of Computer Science and Computer Engineering, La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia.

DOI: 10.4236/ce.2013.47A2019                

Abstract

Web-based or “online” learning commonly known as e-Learning which makes use of internet technologies has been widely used by many education institutions around the globe. Higher education institutions have been using Learning Management system (LMS) as a part of their campus-based and distance teaching. To date, very little research has been carried out to investigate whether the uses of LMS actually contribute to student learning. In this paper, we present a higher education blended teaching method for improving student learning. By blended teaching, we mean the combination of face-to-face teaching and the uses of a LMS for learning, teaching and assessment activities. Student’s learning progress is guided and gauged by Shulman’s (2002) table of learning. The LMS that we use at La Trobe University is Moodle. To demonstrate the usefulness of our method, we also present in this paper the results of applying it to teaching a third year software engineering subject, CSE3MQR (Metrics, Quality and Reliability).

Keywords

Constructive Progressive Alignment; Taxonomy of Learning; Blended Learning; e-Learning;Learning Management System; Student Engagement

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
[2]	Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment, Higher education, 32, 347-364. doi:10.1007/BF00138871
[3]	Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learn ing. Higher Education Research & Development, 18, 57-75. doi:10.1080/0729436990180105
[4]	Biggs, J. (2003). Aligning teaching and assessing to course objectives. Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: New Trends and Inno vations.
[5]	Bloom, B. S., & Collaborators (1956). The taxonomy of educational objectives: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
[6]	Derntl, M., & Pitrik, R. M. (2005). The role of structure, patterns and people in blended learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 8, 111-130. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.03.002
[7]	Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95-105. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
[8]	Krause, K.-L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 493-505. doi:10.1080/02602930701698892
[9]	Pears, A. N. (2010). Enhancing student engagement in an introductory programming course. Proceedings of the 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.
[10]	Reaburn, P., Muldoon, N., & Bookallil, C. (2009). Blended spaces, work based learning and constructive alignment: Impacts on student engagement. Proceedings ASCILITE (pp. 820-830), Auckland, 6-9 December 2009.
[11]	Sheard, J., Carbone, J., & Hurst, A. J. (2010). Student engagement in first year of an ICT degree: Staff and student perceptions. Computer Science Education, 20, 1-16. doi:10.1080/08993400903484396
[12]	Shulman, L. S. (2002). Making differences: A table of learning. Change, 34, 36-44.
[13]	Wang, A. Y., & Newlin, M. H. (2002). Predictors of web-student per formance: The role of self-efficacy and reasons for taking an on-line class. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 151-163. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00042-5