The COVID-19 pandemic forces millions of teachers worldwide to engage in online teaching. Teachers are exploring and experimenting with various digital forms to deliver learning content, keep communicating with students and colleagues, and assess learning outcomes. A digital knowledge-building community gradually emerges and becomes more vivid. This note reports results from a study among honors teachers and administrators from 18 schools of a large Dutch university who all shared their problems and recommendations after the first five weeks of remote teaching, Spring 2020.
LINK
This paper will discuss the process of the MA program ePedagogy / Visual Knowledge Building during the first semester of the academic year 2005 – 2006. This MA program is a joint venture between the Universities of Helsinki, Hamburg and INHOLLAND. This publication will discuss and evaluate the concrete steps (in terms of learning process) during this first semester. In particular the role of the eTutor will get special attention. This publication is based on the principle of action research. Hart & Bond defines action research as “it is a form of reflective inquiry which enables practitioners to better realise such qualities in their practice. The tests for good action research are very pragmatic ones. Does it improve the professional quality of the transactions between practitioners and clients/colleagues? This action research approach is being realised upon three main sources. As an eTutor and member of the staff of this program I weekly filled in an “Evaluation Log” in which the following questions are centralized: 1. What happened (this week) 2. Significant experience 3. Reflection 4. Actions Secondly I used a little survey which was being used by the staff to evaluate the first semester. All the three Universities filled in a form with the following questions concerning the education and organisation: Education 1. What do you consider most hindering in your teaching? 2. What do you consider most beneficial in your teaching? 3. What kind of teaching methods do you prefer in this program? 4. Do you think the course offers are attractive for the target group? 5. How do you evaluate student’s engagements and motivation in your courses? 6. What can / should be improved in terms of collaborative learning activities and processes? Organisation 1. In what specific context do you spot organisational constraints? 2. Does your organisation recognise and support the MA program? 3. What is your short-, mid- and long term vision on this program? Thirdly an important source for this action research approach was the International Seminar which was hold in the middle of February 2006. In this seminar the changes based on the questions of the questionnaire were discussed and implemented. The theoretical framework in this publication is based on the dissertation of Karel Kreijns (Sociable CSCL Environments). In this dissertation he discussed the collaborative cognitiveand epistemic performance in a CSCLE. The social presence theory takes a central position in this dissertation. In this paper the pitfalls and barriers concerning a sociable CSCLE are being discussed and evaluated. This paper describes, the interventions the staff took, in order to improve the educational context of the program. From this perspective we looked very carefully to the barriers and pitfalls in our Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). We found evidence for the fact that a good CSCLE consists at least a good balance between Content, Community and Pedagogy. In the program we emphasised our focus (too much) on content and (too) little on community and pedagogy. The community was poor because of the fact that we used three content learning systems, which didn’t stimulate the group processes. Pedagogy was too much based on individual eTutor behaviour. In January 2006, after the courses were ended, the Universities organised a little survey. In this survey was shown that we have to some interventions to improve the learning process. At the International Seminar in February 2006 eTutors and students discussed the problems. The following interventions are being considered and implemented: 1. The use of three Virtual Learning Environments should be decreased. Especially the INHOLLAND / Blackboard system doesn’t reflect the open source philosophy. Besides this the accessibility of this system is not very easy for foreign students 2. The collaborative aspect should be increased, by emphasising the interdisciplinaryand international co-operation. The formation of international subgroups is implemented.
This paper explores the impact of the physical and social dimensions of the work environment on satisfaction and perceived productivity of knowledge workers in Dutch universities of applied sciences. The approach took the form of a literature review, multiple case study of six research centres using interviews and logbook analysis, and web-based survey (N = 188). Optimally facilitating knowledge production requires both space for concentration (to support internalisation of knowledge) and space for interaction (to support externalisation of knowledge). None of the work environments involved in the study adequately supported all the phases of knowledge development adequately. Cellular offices with personal desks are preferred for solo work and, whereas new workplace designs with a focus on the office as a meeting place support interaction and collaboration. Spatial layout and interaction have a stronger impact than comfort and absence of distraction. The spatial layout should support both in-depth concentration and communication, fit the internalisation/externalisation ratio of activities, and accommodate the proximity essential for collaborative knowledge development. Being able to choose is the key to success. In terms of research limitations, knowledge workers’ productivity was measured by self-assessment, but only a limited number of diaries were collected. The lessons learned can be used as inputs to decision-making processes regarding the design, implementation and management of working environments in higher education settings. Few studies have been conducted concerning the spatial preferences and needs of knowledge workers in universities of applied sciences. The results show that the physical dimension (comfort and layout) is more important for collective productivity, whereas individual productivity is more strongly influenced by the social dimension (interaction and distraction).
MULTIFILE
