Designing Rich, Evidence-Based Learning Experiences in STEM Higher Education
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) higher education offers unique challenges and opportunities to develop effective blended learning practice. Scholarly research by STEM practitioners in designing evidence-based blended learning designs and practice is essential in its educative capacity of supporting STEM academics to reflect upon and develop their learning and teaching practices. The Griffith Sciences Blended Learning Model provided a “grass-roots” approach to developing evidence-based practice within STEM. Educational design-based research along with interviews of key innovators has provided Griffith Sciences with valuable lessons and insights which have enabled the group to progress and expand its blended learning design practices now and into the future. Informed by the range of learner-centred designs and practices explored in previous chapters, this final chapter provides nine evidence-based principles and guidelines for developing blended learning designs in STEM higher education. Although these principles have been derived from one implementation of blended learning technology and in one university for STEM higher education courses, it is tentatively proposed that these principles can support other university implementations particularly in developing ePortfolios or personal learning environments.
KeywordsDesign-based research Design principles STEM Technology implementation Blended learning
The Griffith Sciences Blended Learning team would like to acknowledge all of the exceptional learning and teaching staff who participated in the Griffith Sciences Blended Learning Model in 2017 and 2018 including all of the authors in this book. Their dedication and hard work have resulted in some excellent learning and teaching practices embedded across STEM disciplines.
- Allan, C. N., Campbell, C., & Green, D. M. (2018). Nurturing the budding ideas of STEM academics in a university-wide implementation of PebblePad. In Proceedings of International Conference on Information, Communication Technologies in Education (pp. 39–48). Crete, Greece.Google Scholar
- Allan, C. N. & Green, D. M. (2018). Griffith Sciences Blended Learning Model. Retrieved November 8, 2018, from https://app.secure.griffith.edu.au/exlnt/entry/6405/view.
- Beatty, B. (2006). Designing the HyFlex world. Paper presented at the 2006 Association for Educational Communication and Technology International Convention, Dallas, TX, USA.Google Scholar
- Brown, M., & Edelson, D. (2003). Teaching as design: Can we better understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support their changes in practice? (Design Brief). Evanston, IL: Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools.Google Scholar
- Cobb, P. (2000). Conducting teaching experiments in collaboration with teachers. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 307–333). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
- Downing, J. J. (2015). Applied learning design in an online teacher-education course. PhD Thesis.Google Scholar
- Eynon, B. & Gambino, L. M. (2017). High-impact ePorfolio practice: A catalyst for student, faculty, and institutional learning. Virginia, US: Stylus Publishing.Google Scholar
- Foote, K., Knaub, A., Henderson, C., Dancy, M., & Beichner, R. J. (2016). Enabling and challenging factors in institutional reform: The case of SCALE-UP. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.12.010103.
- Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2016). Teaching and learning STEM: A practical guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Guardia, Maina, & Sangra. (2013). MOOC design principles: A pedagogical approach from the learner’s perspective. eLearning Papers, 33, 1–6.Google Scholar
- Hains-Wesson, R., & Tytler, R. (2015). A perspective on supporting STEM academics with blended learning at an Australian university. Issues in Educational Research, 25(4), 460–479.Google Scholar
- Herrington, J. (2006). Authentic e-learning in higher education: Design principles for authentic learning environments and tasks. In Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, Vancouver, Canada,Google Scholar
- Herrington, J., Herrington, A., & Mantei, J. (2009). Design principles for mobile learning. In J. Herrington, A. Herrington, J. Mantei, I. Olney, & B. Ferry (Eds.), New technologies, new pedagogies: Mobile learning in higher education (pp. 129–138). Wollongong, Australia: University of Wollongong.Google Scholar
- Herrington, J., Mantei, J., Herrington, A., Olney, I., & Ferry, B. (2008). New technologies, new pedagogies: Mobile technologies and new ways of teaching and learning. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings ASCILITE Melbourne 2008. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/herrington-j.pdf.
- Khatri, R., Henderson, C., Cole, R., Froyd, J. E., Friedrichsen, D., & Stanford, C. (2016). Designing for sustained adoption: A model of developing educational innovations for successful propagation. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), 10112. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kober, N. (2015). Reaching students: What research says about effective instruction in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Landrum, R. E., Viskupic, K., Shadle, S. E., & Bullock, D. (2017). Assessing the STEM landscape: The current instructional climate survey and the evidence-based instructional practices adoption scale. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(25), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0092-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- McGee, P., & Reis, A. (2012). Blended course design: A synthesis of best practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 7–22.Google Scholar
- National Academies of Sciences. (2018). How people learn II: Learners, contexts and cultures. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Overton, T., & Johnson, L. (2016). Evidence based practice in learning and teaching for STEM disciplines. Melbourne: Australian Council of Deans of Science.Google Scholar
- Reeves, T. C. (2000). Enhancing the worth of instructional technology research through “design experiments” and other development research strategies. International Perspectives on Instructional Technology Research for the 21st Century, 27, 1–15.Google Scholar
- Reeves, T. C. (2006). Design research from a technology perspective. Educational Design Research, 1(3), 52–66.Google Scholar
- Rich, J. (2016). Employability: Degrees of value. I worked hard to get where I am today (An unemployed graduate with £50,000 of debt). HEPI Occasional Paper 12.Google Scholar
- Roberts, P., Maor, D., & Herrington, J. (2016). ePortfolio-based learning environments: Recommendations for effective scaffolding of reflective thinking in Higher Education. Educational Technology & Society, 19(4), 22–33.Google Scholar
- Rodgers, C. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230–253. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.72.2.5631743606m15751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sutherland, S., Brotchie, J., & Chesney, S. (2011). Pebblegogy: Ideas and activities to inspire and engage learners. Pebble Learning Limited, e-Innovative Centre: University of Wolverhampton, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Massachusetts, United States: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
- Yorke, M., & Knight, P. T. (2006). Embedding employability into the curriculum. Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar