Abstract
Differences in practice and culture between distance and face to face universities are examined in the light of course design and production. This paper then proposes that a team approach which has been developed and refined for the production of distance teaching courses, and more particularly for the management of the production process, be used as a starting point for the development of a systematic scheme capable of being used in a conventional university setting not only by teams but also by individuals. Examples of ways in which this scheme might be used are given, and the benefits pointed out; these include improvements in the efficacy of course production and in the integration and cohesiveness of the resulting courses. There are also indirect gains to be made, in educational development and in increased professionalism, as well as in the enrichment of academic life.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brooks, Frederick P. (1979). The Mythical Man-Month. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Elton, Lewis (1989). ‘Educational development as a profession’, in Parer, Michael S. (ed.), Development, Design and Distance Education, Centre for Distance Learning, Victoria: Gippsland Institute.
Melton, R. F. (1990). ‘Transforming text for distance learning’, British Journal of Educational Technology 21 (3), 183–195.
Nicodemus, R. (1984). ‘Lessons from a course team’, Teaching at a Distance. No. 25, pp. 33–39.
Open University (1988). Course Production Handbook. Courses Office, The Open University, Milton Keynes.
Parer, Michael S. (ed.) (1989). Development, Design and Distance Education. Centre for Distance Learning, Victoria: Gippsland Institute.
Riley, J. (1984). ‘The problems of drafting distance education materials’, British Journal of Educational Technology 15 (3), 192–204.
Samuelowicz, K. (1991). Private communication.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Foster, G. Lessons from team work: towards a systematic scheme for course development. High Educ 24, 193–211 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00129441
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00129441