Mapping Innovative Teaching Methods and Tools in European Studies: Results from a Comprehensive Study

  • Stefania Baroncelli
  • Fabio Fonti
  • Gordana Stevancevic
Chapter
Part of the Innovation and Change in Professional Education book series (ICPE, volume 9)

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the results of a research on European Studies aimed at identifying which teaching methodologies and tools are used in such disciplines. In the first part, it discusses the educational policy of the European Union (EU) and its implementation with reference to the Bologna Process and the Lisbon Strategy, highlighting the skills required of students in the new knowledge society. We argue that innovative pedagogical methods and tools would best serve the development of these skills. In the second part, we introduce and discuss the results of a large-scale survey – with data coming from lecturers active in the 27 EU member states, plus Iceland, Turkey and Norway – aimed at evaluating the extent to which such innovative pedagogy is used in teaching European Studies. Results provide an enlightening view of the current use of innovative teaching methods and tools in the context of European Studies, especially with regard to areas which can be improved.

Keywords

European Union Teaching Method European Study Distance Learning Teaching Tool 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Backer, W. E. (2000). Teaching economics in 21st century. Journal of Economics Perspectives, 14(1), 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Backer, W. E., & Watts, M. (1998). Teaching economics to undergraduates: Alternatives to chalk and talk. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Backer, W. E., & Watts, M. (2001). Teaching methods in U.S. undergraduate courses. Journal of Economic Education, 32(3): 269–280.Google Scholar
  4. Ball, S. J. (1998). Big policies/small world: An introduction to international perspectives in education policy. Comparative Education, 34(2), 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baroncelli, S. (2013). Linguistic pluralism in European Union studies. In S. Baroncelli, R. Farneti, I. Horga, & S. Vanhoonacker (Eds.), Teaching and learning the European Union: Traditional and innovative methods. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Carter, D. S. G., & O’Neill, M. H. (Eds.). (1995). International perspectives on educational reform and policy implementation. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  7. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 39, 3–7.Google Scholar
  8. Cowan, J. (1999). On becoming an innovative university teacher: Reflection in action. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  9. European Commission. (1995, November). White paper on education and training. Teaching and learning: Towards the learning society. COM(95) 590. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. http://europa.eu/documents/comm/white_papers/pdf/com95_590_en.pdf. Accessed 4 Dec 2012.
  10. European Commission. (2007). Taking European knowledge society seriously. Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate, Directorate-General for Research, European Commission. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/european-knowledge-society_en.pdf. Accessed 4 Dec 2012.
  11. Fonti, F., & Stevancevic, G. (2014). Innovativeness in teaching European studies: An empirical investigation. In S. Baroncelli, R. Farneti, I. Horga, & S. Vanhoonacker (Eds.), Teaching and learning the European Union: Traditional and innovative methods. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Garben, S. (2011). EU higher education law. The Bologna Process and Harmonization by Stealth. Frederick: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  13. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: A theory of multiple intelligence. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  14. Halász, G., & Michel, A. (2011). Key competences in Europe: Interpretation, policy formulation and implementation. European Journal of Education, 46(3), 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hannan, A., & Silver, H. (2000). Innovating in higher education: Teaching, learning, and institutional cultures. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hattie, J. (2005). The paradox of reducing class size and improving learning outcomes. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 387–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keeling, R. (2006). The Bologna Process and the Lisbon research agenda: The European Commission’s expanding role in higher education discourse. European Journal of Education, 41(2), 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kilimci, S. (2009). Teacher training in some EU countries and Turkey: How similar are they? Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1975–1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Mazzucelli, C. (2009, April). “Swords into words: Preventive education for human development. Using constructivist principles to design multimedia pedagogy for active learning. Paper presented at the biennial Conference of the European Union Studies Association (EUSA), Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  21. Michel, A., & Tiana, A. (2011). Editorial. European Journal of Education, 46(3), 285–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Papatsiba, V. (2006). Making higher education more European through student mobility? Revisiting EU initiatives in the context of the Bologna process. Comparative Education, 42(1), 93–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pépin, L. (2011). Education in the Lisbon strategy: Assessment and prospects. European Journal of Education, 46(1), 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Savvides, N. (2006). Developing a European identity: A case study of the European School at Culham. Comparative Education, 42(1), 113–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sayer, J. (2006). European perspectives of teacher education and training. Comparative Education, 42(1), 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shapiro, H., Lauritzen, J. R. K., & Irving, P. (2011). Emerging skills and competences: A transatlantic study. EU-US Study for the European Commission. Brussels: DG EAC. http://ec.europa.eu/education/more-information/doc/2011/skills_en.pdf. Accessed 4 Dec 2012.
  27. Sullivan, W. M., Colby, A., Wegner, J. W., Bond, L., & Shulman, L. S. (2007). Educating lawyers: Preparation for the profession of law. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  28. Van Dyke, G., & Loedel, P. (2009, April). Introduction: Pressures to increase global citizenship , student engagement, and learning outcomes and EU simulation experiences : Simulations as models of active learning and global citizenship. Paper presented at the biennial Conference of the European Union Studies Association (EUSA), Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  29. Van Dyke, G., DeClair, E., & Loedel, P. (2000). Stimulating simulations: Making the EU a classroom reality. International Studies Perspectives, 1, 145–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vecchi, P. M. (2004). L’apprendimento nei programmi ERASMUS/SOCRATES. In V. Zeno-Zencovic (Ed.), Come insegnare il diritto. Metodi, modelli, valutazione (pp. 35–41). Torino: Giappichelli.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefania Baroncelli
    • 1
  • Fabio Fonti
    • 2
  • Gordana Stevancevic
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EconomicsFree University of Bozen-BolzanoBozen-BolzanoItaly
  2. 2.Management and Organisation DepartmentESC Rennes School of BusinessRennesFrance

Personalised recommendations