Frequently asked questions

What is the intention behind the UQ2U program?

What is meant by flexible learning?

What does research say about "blended" learning?

It has long been recognised that merely listening to someone else talk is less effective for learning than doing things oneself or engaging in activities. (Chinese proverb: I hear, and I forget; I see, and I remember; I do, and I understand). "Active learning" refers to a range of teaching approaches that encourage active engagement of learners with course material, one another, and/or lecturers. It contrasts with "passive learning" of lecture-based or "talking head"-style instruction. It encompasses various educational approaches including collaborative learning, cooperative learning, experiential learning project-based learning, problem-based or inquiry-based learning, peer-led instruction, role-playing and simulation.

When a student is sitting in a passive lecture (with no active learning, no immediate requirement to perform, and no discussion), their mind is likely to wander. With learning tasks that make few demands (e.g. passive lecture), executive control tends to maximise the occurrence of task-unrelated thought both inside (Rummel & Boywitt, 2014) and outside of the laboratory (Kane et al., 2007). This “mind wandering” has been linked to poor outcomes in a wide range of tasks (e.g., impairs comprehension during reading: Jackson & Balota, 2012) and during lectures (Farley et al., 2013).

In contrast, when students are engaged in time-sensitive, active learning, their mind is less likely to wander. Research shows that when learning makes consistent demands on external attention (e.g., a classroom with active learning, or learning online in small chunks with regular self-assessment under time pressure), students with good executive control tend to limit the occurrence of task-unrelated self-generated thought – that is, less likely to mind wander (McVay & Kane, 2011).

Research connecting “active learning” classrooms with student learning has been documented by Baepler et al. (2016) and shows that students in active learning:

outperform their peers in traditional classrooms;
exceed their own grade expectations as predicted by standardised test scores;
show significant student learning gains over using a lecture-based approach in the same space.

Active learning approaches are evidenced with “blended” learning practices that combine in-class activities with the delivery of online resources. It involves integrating and interspersing opportunities for student engagement through face-to-face engagement alongside interactive online activities.

Many systematic analyses and meta-analyses have addressed the effectiveness of blended learning. Paul (2001) concluded that face-to-face with online enhancement was 11% more effective than face-to-face alone (perceptual skills, intellectual skills, motor skills, attitudes). A 2004 meta-study by Prince found strong support for active, collaborative, cooperative, and problem-based learning. Across 52 studies, Zhao et al. (2005) found a 0.49 effect size for online learning mixed with face-to-face instruction (i.e. greater achievement gain for BL). Bernard et al. (2014) found that, across 96 studies, blended learning conditions exceeded face-to-face conditions on any measure of academic performance (effect size 0.33). A well-cited 2014 meta-study by Freeman et al. analysed 225 previous studies of teaching in science, engineering, and mathematics. The results showed that, when active learning was employed, average examination scores improved by approximately 6%. Further, students taught by traditional lecturing were 1.5 times more likely to fail than students taught through active learning. In light of these results, the authors recommended "abandoning traditional lecturing in favour of active learning."

References

Baepler, P., et al. (2016). A Guide to Teaching in the Active Learning Classroom: History, Research, and Practice. Stylus Publishing.

Bernard, R. M., et al. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87–122. doi:10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3

Farley, J., et al. (2013). Everyday attention and lecture retention: the effects of time, fidgeting, and mind wandering. Frontiers in Psychology, 4:619.

Freeman, S., et al. (2014) Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (Comment) vol. 111 no. 23.

Graham, C., et al. (2013). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In Blended Learning: Research Perspectives (Vol.2). Routledge.

Jackson, J.D., & Balota, D.A. (2012). Mind-wandering in younger and older adults: converging evidence from the sustained attention to response task and reading for comprehension. Psychology and Aging, 27, 106–119.

Kane, M.J., et al. (2007). For whom the mind wanders, and when: an experience-sampling study of working memory and executive control in daily life. Psychological Science, 18, 614–621.

McVay, J.C., & Kane, M.J. (2011). Why does working memory capacity predict variation in reading comprehension? On the influence of mind wandering and executive attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 302–320.

Paul, D. S. (2001). A meta-analytic review of factors that influence the effectiveness of Web-based training within the context of distance learning. Texas A&M University.

Prince, M. (2004). Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. Journal of Engineering Education 93(3), 223–231.

Rummel, J., & Boywitt, C.D. (2014). Controlling the stream of thought: Working memory capacity predicts adjustment of mind-wandering to situational demands. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 21, 1309–1315.

Zhao, Y., et al. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teacher’s College Record, 107, 1836–1884.

How are UQ2U courses selected?

How much time is required from academics to contribute to the conversion of each UQ2U course?

What resources will be made available to support the development of these courses?

How can the financial contribution to the UQ2U course conversion be used?

The funding can be used for a broad range of purposes that support the academic endeavour as it relates to leveraging or offsetting the faculty or school investment in the UQ2U program, including:

Employing a project officer to help with the course (e.g. refresh materials; review already available online resources; prepare preliminary drafts of transcripts etc.)
Off-setting other responsibilities such as marking or tutoring
Employing a research assistant to assist with a research task that would otherwise need to be deprioritised
Buying specialist materials/resources/expertise.

The funding will be provided to the faculty or school as a lump sum for allocation as required.

Will participation in the UQ2U program offers academic career benefits?

One of the anticipated benefits of the UQ2U program is access to rich learner feedback that will enable academics to adapt teaching approaches to student needs proactively. The UQ2U program also offers academics a low-risk opportunity to innovate through the application of modern teaching methods. Support for academic promotion, application for teaching innovation grants and the potential nomination for teaching awards may all be enhanced through participation in the UQ2U program.