- What's your pedagogical approach?
ANS: The
materials have elements of associative and constructivist learning. We do not,
however, espouse a single pedagogical approach. Instead, we say that the
resources can be used in a variety of educational contexts and pedagogical
approaches.
- How are you addressing the 'learning design' that describes how you incorporate the
materials into teaching?
ANS: Our
college partners will integrate the materials into their lesson plans. Our
university partners use a less formal way of describing contact time but they
will timetable and plan the way that lecture time is used in different ways,
e.g. large-group tutorials or drop-in sessions.
- What do you see as the main benefits to working collaboratively?
ANS: There are many recognisable benefits:
- Efficiency gains in developing
a single resource for many similar uses
- Understanding of cultural and
operational differences in college and university working
- Content is appropriate for a
broader audience
- What do you see as the main drawbacks to working collaboratively?
ANS: Processes
take time to develop and put-in-place. By the very nature of working with more
people we're introducing inevitable delays in communication and feedback—the
trick is to be as clear as possible at the outset on roles, purpose and
responsibilities. Information flow and effective communication are also vital
factors. It's not a panacea but a useful reminder for successful group-work.
- When do you hope to see the benefits of this approach?
ANS: It
depends on what's meant by benefits and how you measure them! We're already
seeing the benefit of staff being directly involved in the CeLLS project; their
involvement in content development (as advisors and reviewers) and enthusiasm
to use the materials. Each academic institution has specific objectives and
we'll be conducting evaluation activities to assess how well the materials are
'fit for purpose'.
- How have you addressed the efficiency gains (reduction in staff costs) reported from
the NCAT work?
ANS: We
do not have as a specific objective to reduce staff costs; it wasn't in our project
proposal or our current plan. Our university partners may choose to use
research staff and post-graduate students for a particular area of the
curriculum but this is where specific knowledge adds particular value to the
learning experience. Our partners envisage that our flexible delivery
opportunities will encourage more active and independent learners so the seeds
for more independent study will be there for the future.
- Is this approach really cost effective? How do you know?
ANS: It's
much too early to quantify the cost effectiveness. The grant funding enabled us
to accelerate the work in terms of developing a ‘process' for working together
and creating the on-line ‘product'. We need to take a long-term view of say
three to five years in order to quantify the cost benefits.
- What are your plans after the 2 year funded period?
ANS: We
recognise that the longevity of the materials need a proper life-cycle approach
through updates and further development. We have a sustainability plan to
generate revenue through a ‘distributed learning model' with Interactive
University this revenue will allow us to carry-out the materials life-cycle.
There may also be other material out there that can dove-tail with the CeLLS
resources and so expand the coverage beyond SCQF levels 7 and 8.
- Do you think you could apply this approach to non-science subjects?
ANS: This
approach is useful where there is either an
existing overlap and duplication in foundation material or where there's a
will to agree a common curriculum for
SCQF levels 7 and 8.