A critical foundation: resource-based and lecture-based education

Of fundamental importance of TEL implementation is the context in which it is applied. I like to draw a distinction between resource-based and lecture-based contexts. Both make different assumptions of how TEL should be implemented, and ultimately determine the shape TEL takes in education.

The distinction between resource-based and lecture-based education was first made in:

Seelig, Caroline, and Mark Nichols. “New Zealand: Open Polytechnic.” In Perspectives on Distance Education: Using ICTs and Blended Learning in Transforming TVET, edited by Colin Latchem. Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning and UNESCO-UNEVOC, in press.

Resource-based provision:
  • Has a team of experts responsible for learning design; tends to be based on a division of labour
  • Focuses on the generation of (usually written) course materials
  • Typically assumes an independent learner
Lecture-based provision:
  • Has a lecturer or academic as subject expert and author; may also involve additional specialists
  • Is based on a verbal presentation of information
  • Typically assumes a class-based cohort
The two are not mutually exclusive however I'm certain the contrast resonates enough for illustrative purposes. The most effective, scalable and efficient forms of TEL are, in my view and from my experience, resource-based. Consider these reasons:
  1. Expertise in design. A resource-based approach is better able to maximise the input of professionals; a lecture-based approach is more likely to be limited to the educational design expertise of the lecturer.
  2. Longevity in resource. A lecture-based approach relies on the longevity and tenure of each lecturer, and new lecturers will tend to want to heavily customise 'their' course; a resource-based approach is more independent of any individual.
  3. Consistency in approach. As a result of the above points, a lecture-based approach will likely lead to a varied student experience from course to course; a resource-based approach is more likely to use a consistent design from course to course.
  4. Student expectations. Students enrolled in a lecture-based institution expect to hear from a lecturer, and to have access to that person or even to be told what they need to know; students enrolled with resource-based institutions anticipate a more independent and mediated study journey.
Ultimately, resource-based and lecture-based are simply structured differently. Resource-based institutions tend to emphasise cross-unit synergy; lecture-based institutions tend to be very independent across academic units. These differences lead to very different expectations and approaches to TEL. In my previous experience as an e-learning consultant in a lecture-based institution my work was limited to those who were keen to work with me, and even then mainly on their terms; in a resource-based institution it is far easier to influence design at the level of a programme of study.

Linking this to literature, consider King, E.,& Boyatt, R. (2015). Exploring factors that influence adoption of e-learning within higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), 1272–1280. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12195. The authors point out that there are three main barriers to the broad uptake of e-learning in contact universities: “institutional infrastructure, staff attitudes and skills, and perceived student expectation”. Gunn, C. (2010). Sustainability factors for e-learning initiatives. ALT-J, Research in learning technology 18(2), 89-104 (here) concurs: "there is a need for cross-functional collaboration to accommodate different and sometimes conflicting perspectives" (p.89) if e-learning interventions are to be sustainable. Until contact universities learn the importance of a resource-based approach barriers are unlikely to fall!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A further update to "Reading and studying from the screen"

Image
Elevator tale: Like the previous post " An update to "Reading and studying from the screen " updating my 2016 paper " Reading and studying on the screen ", this post surveys various articles not previously considered. This time ten articles released subsequent to mine and a further thirteen not included are considered. The additional articles help to portray a much richer series of nuances to what it means to read on-screen and how comparison studies between on-screen and print reading might be furthered.  Image: Hobbies on a Budget, https://www.flickr.com/photos/62030038@N02/ Earlier this year I posted an update to my 2016 article in the Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning " Reading and studying on the screen: An overview of literature towards good learning design practice ". The article considered much, but not all, of the scholarship at the time related to how on-screen education might be advanced in the face of student preferenc...
Read more

An update to "Reading and studying from the screen"

Image
Elevator tale: this post provides an overview of literature that has emerged since my 2016 paper " Reading and studying on the screen ". It's a much longer post than usual, but most is supplemental. A review of additional studies comparing reading text from print and digital devices, four not considered and a further seven of which were published subsequent to or alongside my own, confirm my 2016 findings and recommendations. It is clear that future studies need to explore further dimensions if we are to learn more. In particular, studies should move beyond a simple, print-based comparison (applying digital design intentionally), and should also seek to measure differences that might come from briefing participants as to how to read effectively from digital media (removing the over-confident approach readers tend to apply when reading from digital sources). One perceived barrier to digital education is that it requires students to read from a screen. In actuality ...
Read more

ePortfolios: Why I switched

Image
Well, this IS awkward. After almost ten years using my ePortfolio based on Mahara , I've made the switch to LinkedIn . The awkward part is, I proposed and chaired the development of Mahara in 2006-2007. So, why the big switcheroo? Here's how I've been operating up to now. I realised early on in my e-learning career that my best means of maintaining an online presence would be to ensure I have some sort of central profile that I could easily keep up to date and link others to. A customised tinyurl ( http://tinyurl.com/mnichols ) made this very simple, and I would use that URL for a whole host of profiles I would normally have to maintain separately. Think about it: my public blog profile , Student Hub Live profile , EDENprofile and user account profiles for the likes of Faithlife.com , Mendeley and ResearchGate … all are potential online sources for someone seeking information about me, and, without some sort of central coordination, each of them becomes rather dated ra...
Read more