Learning Inquiry

, 3:131 | Cite as

Transforming learning infrastructures in the social sciences through flexible and interactive technology-enhanced learning

Article

Abstract

The changing higher educational landscape in Europe creates new learning infrastructures and transforms existing ones. Students are thus provided with new possibilities and challenges. Through the case study of a newly developed common curriculum for the social sciences of a public university in Austria, this article discusses the interacting social agents, elements, and tools of a flexible and interactive technology-enhanced learning model. In doing so, the transnational, national, and local infrastructural conditions and challenges are critically examined from a socio-technological perspective. Selected evaluation and survey results highlight students’ learning practices, usage behavior, and suggestions to improve their learning situation. The article concludes that student-centered learning models focusing on flexibility and interactivity can support the stable implementation of a common curriculum and its technology-enhanced learning infrastructure for the social sciences at public universities with high student numbers.

Keywords

Higher education Learning Infrastructure Social sciences Austria 

References

  1. Anderson, T., & Garrison, D. R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance learners in higher education (pp. 97–112). Madison: Atwood Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Bang, J. (2005). eBOLOGNA—creating a European learning space. A step toward the knowledge society. UNESCO between two phases of the world summit on the information society, 2005. Moscow: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  3. Baumgartner, P., & Payr, S. (1994). Lernen mit Software. Innsbruck: Österreichischer StudienVerlag.Google Scholar
  4. Commission of the European Communities. (2000). Communication from the Commission: e-Learning—Designing tomorrow’s education. COM(2000) 318 final. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  5. Commission of the European Communities. (2001). Communication from the Commission: eLearning Action Plan–Designing tomorrow’s education. COM(2001) 172 final. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  6. Cottrell, S. (2001). Teaching study skills and supporting learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  7. Dittler, U., Kahler, H., Kindt, M., & Schwarz, C. (2005). Preface: E-Learning in Europe—learning Europe: How have new media contributed to the development of higher education? In U. Dittler, H. Kahler, M. Kindt, & C. Schwarz (Eds.), E-Learning in Europe—learning Europe: How have new media contributed to the development of higher education? (pp. 18–28). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  8. Dondi, C., Szücs, A., & Wagner, E. (2005). European e-learning from supranational perspectives. In U. Dittler, H. Kahler, M. Kindt, & C. Schwarz (Eds.), E-Learning in Europe—learning Europe: How have new media contributed to the development of higher education? (pp. 295–317). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  9. Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1987). Künstliche Intelligenz. Von den Grenzen der Denkmaschine und dem Wert der Intuition. Reinbeck bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
  10. EADTU. (2003). Communication of Madrid about virtual higher education and the Bologna process. Document prepared at the EADTU Conference “e-Bologna”, Madrid, 8 November 2003. http://www.eadtu.nl/e-bologna/files/CommunicationMadrid_def.pdf. Accessed 25 September 2009.
  11. Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P., Prosser, M., & O’Hara, A. (2006). How and what university students learn through online and face-to-face discussions: Conceptions, intentions and approaches. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 244–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellis, R. A., Marcus, G., & Taylor, R. (2005). Learning through inquiry: Student difficulties with online course-based material. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Friedrich, H. F., & Mandl, H. (1997). Analyse und Förderung selbstgesteuerten Lernens. In F. Weinert & H. Mandl (Eds.), Enzyklopädie der Psychologie: Pädagogische Psychologie - Band 4 (pp. 237–293). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  14. Gilmartin, M., & Moore, N. (2008). Making it different: a blended learning pilot project with first year geography undergraduates. Universitas 21 teaching and learning conference: Does teaching and learning translate? Glasgow 21–22 February 2008. http://www.universitas21.com/TandL/Papers/Fri2.pdf. Accessed 25 September 2009.
  15. Ginns, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Quality in blended learning: Exploring the relationships between on-line and face-to-face teaching and learning. Internet and Higher Education, 10(2007), 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hill, J. (2006). Flexible learning environments: Leveraging the affordances of flexible delivery and flexible learning. Innov High Educ, 31, 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hintermayer, M. (2009). eLearning am Studienbeginn. Eine Evaluation des eLearning—Einsatzes in der Studieneingangsphase der Fakultät für Sozialwissenschaften. Unpublished Diploma Thesis at the University of Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  18. Lorenz, A., Zens, B., & Bociurko, M. (2004). WebCT Vista: Schöne Aussichten. COMMENT 04 (02) 2004. http://www.univie.ac.at/comment/. Accessed 10 March 2007.
  19. Mader, E., Budka, P., Anderl, E., Stockinger, J., & Halbmayer, E. (2008). Blended learning strategies for methodology education in an Austrian social science setting. In J. Luca & E. R. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2008: World conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications (pp. 730–738). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  20. Mittermeir, R. T. (2005). Sharing while competing: Austria’s e-learning initiatives. In U. Dittler, H. Kahler, M. Kindt, & C. Schwarz (Eds.), E-Learning in Europe—learning Europe: How have new media contributed to the development of higher education? (pp. 51–70). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  21. Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can “blended learning” be redeemed? E-Learning, 2(1), 17–26.Google Scholar
  22. Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5/2. http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/192/274. Accessed 25 September 2009.
  23. Schallert, C., Budka, P., & Payrhuber, A. (2008). Die interaktive Vorlesung: Ein Blended Learning Modell für Massenvorlesungen im Rahmen der gemeinsamen Studieneingangsphase der Fakultät für Sozialwissenschaften. In S. Zauchner, P. Baumgartner, E. Blaschitz, & A. Weissenbäck (Eds.), Offener Bildungsraum Hochschule. Freiheiten und Notwendigkeiten (pp. 275–286). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  24. Stockmann, R. (2004). Wirkungsorientierte Programm Evaluation: Konzepte und Methoden für die Evaluation von E-learning. In D. M. Meister, S.-O. Tergan, & P. Zentel (Eds.), Evaluation von E-learning: Zielrichtungen, methodologische Aspekte, Zukunftsperspektiven (pp. 23–42). Waxmann: Münster.Google Scholar
  25. The World Fact Book. (2009). European Union. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ee.html. Accessed 18 May 2009.
  26. Van den Branden, J. (2004). Bologna and the challenges of e-learning and distance education: the contribution of non-classical learning and teaching forms to the emerging European Higher Education Area. Background paper. Bologna follow-up seminar, Ghent 4–5 June 2004.Google Scholar
  27. Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 81–94.Google Scholar
  28. Warschauer, M. (2007). The paradoxical future of digital learning. Learning Inquiry, 2007(1), 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.eLearning Center of the Faculty of Social SciencesUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations