Advertisement

Online Learning: Reflections on the Effectiveness of an Undergraduate Sustainability Tourism Module

  • Gayle JenningsEmail author
  • Ulrike Kachel
Part of the CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance book series (CSEG)

Abstract

Action research was used to evaluate the effectiveness of an undergraduate, tourism online module focusing on sustainability. The module emphasized “education for sustainability” along with “education about sustainability”. In addition to the module, sustainability principles and practices were embedded in weekly learning engagements. Online module activities, including a learning journal, required students to use higher order thinking, which shifted their learning beyond education about sustainability to education for sustainability. The module had to be completed in order to achieve a passing grade. Several students engaged in surface learning since there was no specific grade attached to the module. Currency of links in the module required constant monitoring. Additionally, user-friendliness of the module would have been enhanced by more seamless transitions between online components and sections. The majority of students appreciated that the online module provided novelty to traditional course delivery means. Finally, the online module was determined by most students, as well as, the course convener and tutor to be an effective method to engage undergraduate tourism students in higher order thinking and student reflection regarding education about and for sustainability.

Keywords

Education for sustainability Action research Online learning Learning journals Undergraduate course 

References

  1. Alexander, S. (2010). E-learning developments and experiences. Education + Training, 43(4/5), 240–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  3. Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses: Facilitating organizational learning. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  4. Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability ARIES. (2008a). Partnering business schools and corporations: Education about and for sustainability in Australian business schools: Stage 3 [Contract Document]. Sydney: ARIES.Google Scholar
  5. Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability ARIES. (2008b). Definitions: A working document (p. 9). Sydney: ARIES.Google Scholar
  6. Bates, A. W. (1997, June 18–20). Restructuring the university for technological change. Paper presented at What Kind of University?, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, London. http://www.educause.edu/Resources/RestructuringtheUniversityforT/151339. Accessed 19 May 2010.
  7. Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans.Google Scholar
  8. Boomer, G. (1982). Turning on the learning power: Introductory notes. In G. Boomer (Ed.), Negotiating the curriculum: At teacher-student partnership (pp. 1–7). Sydney: Ashton Scholastic. See p. 3.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, G., & Atkins, M. (1988). Effective teaching in higher education. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cornwell, S. (1999). An interview with Anne Burns and Graham Crookes. The Language Teacher, 23(12), 7–9. http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/articles/1999/12/cornwell. Accessed 18 May 2010.Google Scholar
  11. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education (p. 89). New York: Collier Books.Google Scholar
  12. Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P., Prosser, M., & O’Hara, A. (2006). How and what university students learn through online and face-to-face discussion: Conceptions, intentions and approaches. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 244–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Griffith University. (2008). 3202HSL sustainability module (p. 1). Gold Coast, QLD: Griffith University.Google Scholar
  14. Holmberg, J., Svanström, M., Peet, D.-J., Mulder, K., Ferrer-Balas, D., & Segalàs, J. (2008). Embedding sustainability in higher education through interaction with lecturers: Case studies from three European technical universities. European Journal of Engineering Education, 33(3), 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jennings, G. (2010). Tourism research (2nd ed.). Brisbane: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Jennings, G., Scantlebury, M., & Wolfe, K. (2009). Tertiary travel and tourism education: Using action research cycles to provide information on pedagogical applications associated with reflexivity, team-based learning and communities of practice. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 9(03–04), 193–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 559–603). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Knight, J. (2010). Distinguishing the learning approaches adopted by undergraduates in their use of online resources. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(1), 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in action (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experiences as a source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  21. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2, 34–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liburd, J., & Hjalager, A.-M. (2010). Changing approaches towards open education, innovation and research in tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 17, 12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maier, P., & Warren, A. (2000). Integrating technology in learning and teaching. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  25. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning. II—Outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Misanchuk, M., & Anderson, T. (2001, April 8–10). Building community in an online learning environment: Communication, cooperation and collaboration. In Proceedings of the Annual Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference, Murfreesboro, TN. See page 2.Google Scholar
  27. Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Brook, C. (2008). What has action learning learned to become? Action Learning: Research and Practice, 2(1), 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pendergast, D. (2010). Getting to know the Y generation. In D. Pendergast, P. Beckendorff, & G. Moscardo (Eds.), Tourism and generation Y (pp. 1–15). Wallingford, Oxfordshire: CABI.Google Scholar
  29. Perdan, S., Azapagic, A., & Clift, R. (2000). Teaching sustainable development to engineering students. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 1(3), 267–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Prensky, M. (2006). Listen to the natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8–13.Google Scholar
  31. Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ramsden, P., & Dodds, A. (1989). Improving teaching and courses: A guide to evaluation. Parkville, VIC: The Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne. See page 36.Google Scholar
  33. Reid, J. (1988). Negotiating education, appendix D. In S. Kemmis & R. McTaggart (Eds.), The action research planner (3rd ed., pp. 111–132). Melbourne: Deakin University Press. See page 132.Google Scholar
  34. Revans, R. (1980). Action learning: New techniques for management. London: Blond & Briggs.Google Scholar
  35. Sanders, R. (2006). The “imponderable Bloom”: Reconsidering the role of technology in education. Innovate, 2(6). http://innovateonline.info/pdf/vol2_issue6/The_Imponderable_Bloom_Reconsidering_the_Role_of_Technology_in_Education.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2010.
  36. Saunders, G., & Klemming, F. (2003). Integrating technology into a traditional learning environment: Reasons for and risks of success. Active Learning in Higher Education, 4(1), 74–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  38. Sheldon, P., Fesenmaier, D., Woeber, K., Cooper, C., & Antonioli, M. (2007). Tourism education futures: 2010–2030: Building the capacity to lead. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, 7(3), 61–68. See page 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Snyder, B. R. (1971). The hidden curriculum. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Spence, R. B. (1928). Lecture and class discussion in teaching educational psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 19, 454–462. See page 462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Star, C., & McDonald, J. (2007). Embedding successful pedagogical practices: Assessment strategies for a large, diverse, first year student cohort. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 3(2), 18–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Turney, C. S. M., Robinson, D., Lee, M., & Soutar, A. (2009). Using technology to direct learning in higher education: The way forward? Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(1), 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. M. Lopez-Mrillas Cole, A. R. Luria, & J. Wertsch, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard.Google Scholar
  44. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. World Commission on Environment and Development, WCED. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Imagine Consulting Group International Pty LtdBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Griffith UniversitySouthportAustralia
  3. 3.Leeds Beckett UniversityLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations