Teaching Methods Used in FLO
Joerdis Weilandt
Definitions:
Effective teaching has been broadly understood as teaching that is oriented to and focused on students and their learning. Beyond that fundamental assumption are two broadly accepted components of effective university teaching: that it requires a set of particular skills and practices as identified by research (Penny, 2003) and that it meets the requirements of the context in which it occurs (Devlin, 2007a). [1]
A teaching method in our definition is a unit derived out of the conscious reflection of several interdependent variables such as the learning outcomes, the instructor as well as the learning theory that informs his/ her choice for a specific instructional strategy, the students and their unique approaches to learning, the content matter, study materials and technological tools. The consideration of all elements is central to designing effective student learning experiences:
- What is to be learned (learning objectives)?
- Who’s involved (learners + instructors/ assessors)?
- What’s the context of teaching (resources, space, time)?
Instructional Methods function as means to motivate and activate learners, guide in the exploration of specific subject matters, as well as ensure the application and formation of essential learning skills. In addition, reflective use of teaching methods often provides the means to measure the progress of learning as it happens.
For the list and description of the methods we have chosen for the online teaching of FLOf 2019, we employed the methods model presented by Hilbert Meyer, a German eremitus educationist, who defines the term by splitting it into three distinct levels (2016). On the micro level, the model describes methods as “molecules of teaching design” or content elements that are utilised by instructors to best realise the teaching goals. Graphs, mindmaps, pictures, readings, statistical representations can serve as examples for possible “molecules”. On the second rank, the meso-level, methodical actions are described that include the social arrangements (individual, pair, group work), the format of learning (presentation, reading task, case study, role paly, etc.) and the stages of the teaching (e.g. presentation, practice, application). On the highest plane, the macro level, the fundamental form of teaching is described which shapes the interactions between the involved parties in very specific ways (e.g. teacher-centred, student-centered, learning-centered).
See the following chapters for the individual methods chosen in FLOf2019:
| Methods | 1. Building Community | 2. Working with the OL Learner | 3. OL Classroom Dynamics | 4. Facilitating OL Learning | 5. Reflective Practice |
| Macro-level: | student-centered | student-centered | student-centered | student-centered | student-centered |
| Meso-level | |||||
| Social Arrangements | individual 1,2,3, group work 1, 2,3 | individual, group work | individual, group work | individual | individual, group work |
| Format of Learning | video viewing, readings, video introduction, written discussion, | Wikipedia Education Tutorials, interactive lecture, reading, reading annotation, survey, sharing of resources | reading, written discussion, written draft, website research | reading, reflection, video viewing, collaborative strategy Wiki, lesson planning, video discussion | reading, forum discussion, self-evaluation of learning, do survey and reflect on results |
| Stages of Teaching | introduction, presentation, practice, application | introduction, presentation, practice, discussion, evaluation, student presentation | introduction, presentation, reflection/ evaluation, application | introduction, presentation, reflection/ evaluation, application | reflection, presentation, identification of future learning goals |
| Micro-level: | |||||
| Content | video, article 1, article summary, article 2, teaching philosophy, glossary | Wikipedia tutorials, lecture, article, survey questionnaire, articles, websites, online courses, etc. | book chapters, online resource map with multiple teaching resources | articles, videos, slideshow | questionnaire, survey |
Reading List:
jigsaw http://www.jigsaw.org
Brauer, M. (2014). An der Hochschule lehren: Praktische Ratschläge, Tricks und Lehrmethoden. Springer-Verlag.
Brinker, T. & Schumacher, E. M. (2014). Befähigen statt belehren. Neue Lehr-und Lernkultur an Hochschulen. Lehrkit für Hochschuldozierende. Arbeitsbuch und 66 Methodenkarten. Bern HEP Verlag.
Bryan, C., Clegg, K., & Clegg, K. (2019). Innovative Assessment in Higher Education : A Handbook for Academic Practitioners. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429506857
Butcher, C., Davies, C., Highton, M., Davies, C., & Highton, M. (2019). Designing Learning : From Module Outline to Effective Teaching. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429463822 (available to UofL)
Davis, J. R. (1993). Better Teaching, More Learning: Strategies for Success in Postsecondary Settings. American Council on Education Series on Higher Education. Oryx Press, 4041 North Central at Indian School Road, Phoenix, AZ 85012-3397.
Devlin, M., & Samarawickrema, G. (2010). The criteria of effective teaching in a changing higher education context. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(2), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360903244398.
Dreamson, N. (2020). Critical Understandings of Digital Technology in Education. London: Routledge.
Egger, R & Merkt, M. (eds.) (2012), Lernwelt Universität. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften | Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH. DOI 10.1007/978-3-531-18941-3_4.
Ellis, R., & Goodyear, P. (2013). Students’ experiences of e-learning in higher education: the ecology of sustainable innovation. Routledge.
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features From an Instructional Design Perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21143
Fiehn, J., Spieß, S., Ceylan, F., Harteis, C., & Schworm, S. (2012). LehreProfi – Entwicklung und Einsatz eines Instruments zur Erfassung hochschuldidaktischer Kompetenz. In R. Egger & M. Merkt (Eds.), Lernwelt Universität: Entwicklung von Lehrkompetenz in der Hochschullehre (pp. 45–62). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-18941-3_4
Henard, F., & Roseveare, D. (2012). Fostering quality teaching in higher education: Policies and practices. An IMHE Guide for Higher Education Institutions, 7–11.
Hoffmann, S. G., & Kiehne, B. (2016). Ideen für die Hochschullehre. Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin. http://dx.doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-4916
Khalil, M. K., & Elkhider, I. A. (2016). Applying learning theories and instructional design models for effective instruction. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(2), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00138.2015
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2014). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: what is “enhanced”and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 6–36.
Laurillard, D. (2013). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315012940
Meyer, P. D. H. (2016). Praxisbuch Meyer: UnterrichtsMethoden, 2 Bde., Bd.1, Theorieband (16. Auflage). Cornelsen
Meyer, H. (2005): Was ist guter Unterricht. 2. Aufl., Berlin.
Parkin, D. (2017). Leading Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. London: Routledge, https://doi-org.ezproxy.uleth.ca/10.4324/9780203817599 (available to UofL)
Race, P. (2020). The Lecturer’s Toolkit. London: Routledge.
Schmidt, B., & Tippelt, R. (n.d.). Besser Lehren—Neues von der Hochschuldidaktik? pedocs. Retrieved February 5, 2020, from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0111-opus-73923 oder https://www.pedocs.de/frontdoor.php?source_opus=7392
Szczyrba, B. & Wunderlich, A. (2015). Lehre A – Z. Methoden. ZLE– Zentrum für Lehrentwicklung. Retrieved from https://www.th-koeln.de/mam/downloads/deutsch/hochschule/profil/lehre/steckbrief_methoden.pdf
Stahr, I. (2009). Academic Staff Development: Entwicklung von Lehrkompetenz. In R. Schneider, B. Szczyrba, U. Welbers & J. Wildt (Hrsg.), Wandel der Lehr- und Lernkulturen (S.70-87). Bielefeld: Bertelsmann.
Webler, W.D. (2003): Lehrkompetenz – über eine komplexe Kombination aus Wissen, Ethik, Handlungsfähigkeit und Praxisentwicklung. In: Welbers, U. (ed.): AHD – Hochschuldidaktische Aus- und Weiterbildung. Grundlagen – Handlungsformen – Kooperation. Bielefeld: WBV, S. 53-82.
http://www.hochschullehre.org/wp-content/files/diehochschullehre_2017_Ulrich_Heckmann_Taxonomien.pdf
Macke, Hanke Viehman https://sisis.rz.htw-berlin.de/inh2010/12376443.pdf Hochschuldidaktik-Lernen-Pruefen
- Devlin, M., & Samarawickrema, G. (2010). The criteria of effective teaching in a changing higher education context. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(2), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360903244398 ↵
