Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From Challenge to Advantage: Innovating the Curriculum Across Geographic Boundaries

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Transformative Perspectives and Processes in Higher Education

Part of the book series: Advances in Business Education and Training ((ABET,volume 6))

  • 1288 Accesses

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Russell (2001) confirms the ‘No Significant Difference Phenomenon,’ this claim being supported also by the more recent studies of Olson and Wisher (2002), Friday et al. (2006), Daymount and Blau (2008), Wilson and Allen (2011).

  2. 2.

    See the special issue from 2008 on “Effective, Efficient, and Engaging (E3) Learning in the Digital Era,” Distance Education 29 (2).

  3. 3.

    See more on Turkey Institute project’s website: www.digi-college.nl.

  4. 4.

    To learn more about PBL tutorials, see Maurer and Neuhold (2013).

  5. 5.

    http://turkije-instituut.nl/page/english.

  6. 6.

    Based on course evaluation of Dr. Natalia Timuş (UM) and Dr. Dimitris Tsarouhas (Bilkent University), August 2013.

  7. 7.

    Since Bilkent University students participated on a voluntary basis and the audience changed from one lecture to another, there was a lack of opportunity to collect systematic student evaluation data regarding the three inter-university videoconferences.

  8. 8.

    During the last PBL webconferencing session all the students (15) were asked to share any feedback and recommendations regarding course design and implementation.

  9. 9.

    Incoming questionnaire No.3, Maastricht, March 2011.

References

  • 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: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/308/483. Accessed 30 June 2011.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, K. (2003). Teaching and researching computer-assisted language learning. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cini, M. (2006). The ‘State of the art’ in EU studies: From politics to interdisciplinary (and back again?). Politics, 26(1), 38–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Finkelstein, J. (2006). Learning in real time: Synchronous teaching and learning online. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kolding, M., Robinson, C., & Ahorlu, M. (2009). Post-crisis: e-Skills are needed to drive Europe’s innovation society. IDC White Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larreamendy-Joerns, J., & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the distance with online education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 567–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lightfoot, S., & Maurer, H. (2013). Introduction: Teaching European studies – Old and new tools for student engagement. European Political Science (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Maastricht University. (2009). Leading in learning. Education and research 2008–2009. Maastricht: Maastricht University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malcolm, J., Hodkinson, P., & Colley, H. (2003). The interrelationships between informal and formal learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(7/8), 313–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mihai, A. (2013). The virtual classroom: Teaching European studies through webinars. European Political Science (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulligan, R., & Geary, S. (1999). Requiring writing, ensuring distance-learning outcomes. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26(4), 387–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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). http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/335/764. Accessed 2 June 2013.

  • 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 http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/103/182. Accessed 28 Oct 2013.

  • Persell, C. H. (2004). Using focused web-based discussions to enhance student engagement and deep understanding. Teaching Sociology, 32(1), 61–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/192. Accessed 28 Oct 2013.

  • 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 

  • Russel, T. (2001). The no significant difference phenomenon: A comparative research annotated bibliography on technology for distance education (5th ed.). Montgomery: IDECC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating – The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, J. M. (2005). Time demands in online instruction. Distance Education, 26(1), 3–25. Available at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01587910500081251?journalCode=cdie20#preview.

  • 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 http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cdie20/29/2#.VBCigqOnI4I

  • 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: http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2005/Stigmar.htm. Accessed 28 Oct 2013.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Umbach, G., & Scholl, B. (2003). Towards a core curriculum in EU studies. European Political Science, 2(2), 71–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D., & Allen, D. (2011). Success rates of online versus traditional college students. Research in Higher Education Journal, 14, 1–8. Available at http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/11761.pdf. Accessed 21 Jan 2012.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Maastricht Graduate School of Governance, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Natalia Timuş

  2. Sciences Po., Paris, Campus Menton, France

    Natalia Timuş

Authors
  1. Natalia Timuş
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natalia Timuş .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Park University, Parkville, Missouri, USA

    Amber Dailey-Hebert

  2. Park University, Parkville, Missouri, USA

    Kay S. Dennis

Appendices

Appendices

1.1 Appendix 1: Incoming Students’ Survey “A Long and Winding Road: The Process of EU Enlargement,” March 2011

  1. 1.

    Why did you choose this course?

  2. 2.

    What are your expectations for this course?

  3. 3.

    How will this course help you in your future?

  4. 4.

    Are you currently carrying out an internship/research field trip/any other extra-curricular activity?

1.2 Appendix 2: UM Course Evaluation Form for “A Long and Winding Road: The Process of EU Enlargement,” April-May 2011

All items use a 5. scale (in the italic items they do so in a modified way)

1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. neutral 4. disagree 5. strongly disagree/not applicable

A. Overall questions about this course

  1. 1.

    The objectives of the course were clear to me.

  2. 2.

    The course fits well with the overall educational program.

  3. 3.

    The course was intellectually stimulating.

  4. 4.

    The course was well organized.

  5. 5.

    Overall, how would you rate the course?

B. Reader, books and other learning resources

  1. 6.

    The course manual contained the relevant information.

  2. 7.

    The course helped me learn how to obtain information from relevant readings and/or other sources.

  3. 8.

    Books, articles and/or media were easy to access.

  4. 9.

    The course’s electronic learning environment [ELEUM] was a helpful addition to other information and learning (re)sources.

C. Tutorial Group

  1. 10.

    I benefited from discussing the assignments in the group (pre-discussion).

  2. 11.

    When studying outside the classroom the learning goals agreed upon by the group were generally helpful to me.

  3. 12.

    Reporting on findings and/or readings in class (post-discussion) added to my understanding of the field of study.

  4. 13.

    Overall, how would you rate the performance of your fellow students in the group?

D. Tutor

  1. 14.

    The tutor helped me develop a better understanding of the field of study.

  2. 15.

    The tutor guided and intervened when necessary to keep the group ‘on track’.

  3. 16.

    The tutor encouraged student input.

  4. 17.

    Overall, how would you rate your tutor?

E. Lectures

  1. 18.

    The lectures helped me develop a better understanding of the field of study.

On explicit request:

  1. 18.1.

    The lecture of [name] on [subject] helped me develop a better understanding of the field of study

  2. 18.2.

    The lecture of etc.

G. Workload

  1. 21.

    Compared to other courses, the amount of effort required in the course was:

    5. much greater than usual 4. greater than usual 3. equal 2. less than usual

    1. much less than usual

  2. 22.

    How many hours per week do you estimate you spent on this course outside of class?

    On average ……. hours

H. Group work

  1. 1.

    The group work was useful within the framework of the course

  2. 2.

    The group work tasks were clear to me

  3. 3.

    The group research and reporting on findings added to my understanding of the field of study

    Overall, how would you rate the group work assignment?

I. Blended learning course design

  1. 1.

    Blended learning was a useful approach for this course

  2. 2.

    Blended learning gave me more flexibility in participating in this course

  3. 3.

    The coordinator of the course was able to offer support and answer student needs

J. Open questions

  1. 23.

    What were the best aspects of this course?

  2. 24.

    What improvements to this course would you suggest?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Timuş, N. (2015). From Challenge to Advantage: Innovating the Curriculum Across Geographic Boundaries. In: Dailey-Hebert, A., Dennis, K. (eds) Transformative Perspectives and Processes in Higher Education. Advances in Business Education and Training, vol 6. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09247-8_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation