From Challenge to Advantage: Innovating the Curriculum Across Geographic Boundaries

  • Natalia TimuşEmail author
Part of the Advances in Business Education and Training book series (ABET, volume 6)


The pressure of globalization requires modern education systems to provide learners with necessary knowledge and skills to succeed in the current job market. In this respect, creativity, innovation, and competitiveness are the prerequisites. Moreover, EU countries are confronted with the problems of ageing, immigration, skills deficit among professionals, and international competition. All these challenges can be addressed more easily with the help of new ICT and e-learning. This paper examines the role of collaborative learning within the blended learning framework in promoting innovative European Studies (ES) pedagogical practices via cross-institutional exchange. It illustrates how innovative courses contribute to curricular reforms and inter-university cooperation through the case study of a blended learning course involving lecturers and students from Maastricht University (UM) in the Netherlands and Bilkent University in Turkey. The work reports the advantages and limitations of blended learning in fostering collaborative learning among international groups of academics and learners.


European Union Collaborative Learning Blended Learning European Union Enlargement Collaborative Knowledge Building 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anderson, L., Fyvie, B., Koritko, B., McCarthy, K., Paz, S. M., Rizzuto, M., Tremblay, R., & Sawyers, U. (2006). Best practices in synchronous conferencing moderation. Technical evaluation report. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(1). Available at: Accessed 30 June 2011.
  2. Baturay, M. H., & Bay, O. F. (2010). The effects of problem-based learning on the classroom community perceptions and achievement of web-based education students. Computers & Education, 55(1), 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beatty, K. (2003). Teaching and researching computer-assisted language learning. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  4. Cini, M. (2006). The ‘State of the art’ in EU studies: From politics to interdisciplinary (and back again?). Politics, 26(1), 38–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Daymount, T., & Blau, G. (2008). Student performance in online and traditional sections of an undergraduate management course. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 9(3), 275–294.Google Scholar
  6. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  7. European Commission. (2010). Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A new impetus for European cooperation in vocational education and training to support the Europe 2020 strategy (COM (2010) 296). Brussels: Rue de la Loi.Google Scholar
  8. Finkelstein, J. (2006). Learning in real time: Synchronous teaching and learning online. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  9. Friday, E., Friday-Stroud, S. S., Green, A. L., & Hill, A. Y. (2006). A multi-semester comparison of student performance between multiple traditional and online sections of two management courses. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 8(1), 66–81.Google Scholar
  10. Garrison, D. R. (2003). Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The role of reflective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Practice and direction (pp. 47–58). Needham: The Sloan Consortium.Google Scholar
  11. Grandzol, C. J., & Grandzol, J. R. (2010). Interaction in online courses: More is not always better. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(2), 1–18.Google Scholar
  12. Kalpana, K. (2008). A comparative study of the effectiveness of traditional instruction with home study instruction on GED test scores applied dissertation. Nova Southeastern University, Fishler School of Education and Human Services.Google Scholar
  13. Keeler, J. T. S. (2005). Mapping EU studies: The evolution from boutique to boom field 1960–2001. Journal of Common Market Studies, 43(3), 551–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In R. Kern & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 1–19). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kolding, M., Robinson, C., & Ahorlu, M. (2009). Post-crisis: e-Skills are needed to drive Europe’s innovation society. IDC White Paper.Google Scholar
  16. Larreamendy-Joerns, J., & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the distance with online education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 567–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lightfoot, S., & Maurer, H. (2013). Introduction: Teaching European studies – Old and new tools for student engagement. European Political Science (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  18. Maastricht University. (2009). Leading in learning. Education and research 2008–2009. Maastricht: Maastricht University.Google Scholar
  19. Malcolm, J., Hodkinson, P., & Colley, H. (2003). The interrelationships between informal and formal learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(7/8), 313–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maurer, H., & Neuhold, C. (2013). Problem based learning in European studies. In S. Baroncelli, R. Farneti, I. Horga, & S. Vanhoonacker (Eds.), Teaching and learning the European union. Traditional and innovative methods. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Mihai, A. (2013). The virtual classroom: Teaching European studies through webinars. European Political Science (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  22. Mulligan, R., & Geary, S. (1999). Requiring writing, ensuring distance-learning outcomes. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26(4), 387–395.Google Scholar
  23. Ng, K. C. (2007). Replacing face-to-face tutorials by synchronous online technologies: Challenges and pedagogical implications. In I. Jung (Ed.), Regional focus issue: Changing faces of open and distance education in Asia, IRRODL, 8(1). Accessed 2 June 2013.
  24. Olson, T., & Wisher, R. A. (2002). The effectiveness of web-based instruction: An initial inquiry. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(2). Available at Accessed 28 Oct 2013.
  25. Persell, C. H. (2004). Using focused web-based discussions to enhance student engagement and deep understanding. Teaching Sociology, 32(1), 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2). Available at Accessed 28 Oct 2013.
  27. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50–71.Google Scholar
  28. Russel, T. (2001). The no significant difference phenomenon: A comparative research annotated bibliography on technology for distance education (5th ed.). Montgomery: IDECC.Google Scholar
  29. Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating – The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  30. Spector, J. M. (2005). Time demands in online instruction. Distance Education, 26(1), 3–25. Available at
  31. Spector, J. M., & Merrill, M. D. (2008). Effective, efficient, and engaging (E3) learning in the digital age [Special issue]. Distance Education, 29(2), 123–126. Available at
  32. Stigmar, M., & Kornefors, R. (2005). Interplay between pedagogy and media technology when planning e-learning. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning (EURODL), I. Available at: Accessed 28 Oct 2013.
  33. Stigmar, M., & Sundberg, D. (2001, July 9–12). Teachers as reflective learners. Paper read at 26th international IUT conference, Växjö University, Department of Education, Johannesburg.Google Scholar
  34. Timuş, N. (2010, November 1–2). Distance learning in teaching European studies. Paper read at “Student Mobility and ICT: World in Transition”, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  35. Timus, N. (2013). Distance learning as an innovative method of teaching European studies. In S. Baroncelli, R. Farneti, I. Horga, & S. Vanhoonacker (Eds.), Teaching and learning the European union. Traditional and innovative methods (pp. 430–444). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. U.S. Department of Education (USDOE), Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education (USDOE), Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.Google Scholar
  37. Umbach, G., & Scholl, B. (2003). Towards a core curriculum in EU studies. European Political Science, 2(2), 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wilson, D., & Allen, D. (2011). Success rates of online versus traditional college students. Research in Higher Education Journal, 14, 1–8. Available at Accessed 21 Jan 2012.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Maastricht Graduate School of GovernanceMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Sciences Po.ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations