skip to main content
10.1145/2994310.2994329acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmindtrekConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Co-design, co-teaching and co-learning in technology hands-on university tuition

Published: 17 October 2016 Publication History

Abstract

Real practice-oriented co-learning is built through co-design and co-teaching phases carried out in cooperation between a university, students, and industrial partners. Interaction between universities and students has been studied a great deal, but the role of an industrial partner in co-learning and the cooperation between these three actors has not received as much attention. We point out the opportunities and challenges this kind of setting creates through an empirical case of a hands-on university technology course that is based on interactions between these equal actors. The results are promising. The case bridges the gap between students' competencies and the needs of business life. Based on the study, the course offers a way to learn about technology in a refreshing and motivating manner. The learning results are laudable.

References

[1]
Tynjälä, P., Välimaa, J. and Sarja, A. 2003. Pedagogical perspectives on the relationships between higher education and working life. Higher Education. 46, 2, 147--166.
[2]
Conboy, C., Fletcher, S., Russell, K. and Wilson, M. 2012. An Evaluation of the Potential Use and Impact of Prezi, the Zooming Editor Software, as a Tool to Facilitate Learning in Higher Education. Innovation in Practice. 7 (March 2012), 32--46.
[3]
Bates, A.W. and Poole, G. 2003. Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education: Foundations for Success. Jossey-Bass, USA.
[4]
Yuen, A.H. and Ma, W.W., 2008. Exploring teacher acceptance of e-learning technology. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Educatio. 36, 3, 229--243.
[5]
Mahdizadeh, H., Biemans, H. and Mulder, M., 2008. Determining factors of the use of e-learning environments by university teachers. Computers & Education. 51, 1, 142--154.
[6]
Kennedy, G. E., Judd, T.S., Churchward, A., Gray, K. and Krause, K.L. 2008. First year students' experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 24, 1, 108--122, DOI=http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/kennedy.html
[7]
Edmunds, R., Thorpe, M. and Conole, G., 2012. Student attitudes towards and use of ICT in course study, work and social activity: A technology acceptance model approach. British journal of educational technology, 43(1), pp.71--84.
[8]
Zupancic, B. and Horz, H. 2002. Lecture recording and its use in a traditional university course. Proceedings of the 7th annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (ITiCSE '02) (Aarhus, Denmark June 24--26, 2002).
[9]
Fiske, S.T. and Taylor, S.E. 1984. Social Cognition. Addison-Wesley, Reading, PA.
[10]
Niiniluoto, I. 1984. Johdatus tieteenfilosofiaan: Käsitteen- ja teorian-muodostus, Otava, Keuruu, In Finnish.
[11]
Sarvimäki, A. 1988. Knowledge in Interactive Practice Disciplines: An Ana-ly-sis of Knowledge in Education and Health Care, Department of Edu-ca-tion, University of Helsinki. Research Bulletin 68, Helsinki, Finland.
[12]
Rauste-von Wright, M. and von Wright, J. 2000. Oppiminen ja koulutus, WS Bookwell Oy Juva., Finland, In Finnish.
[13]
Prashnig, B. 2000. Erilaisuuden voima, WS Bookwell Oy, Jyväskylä, Finland, In Finnish.
[14]
Ahola, T. 2004. Oppimistyylien tunnistamisen mahdollisuudet säätötekniikan opetuksen kehittämisessä, OAMK, Oulu, Finland. In Finnish.
[15]
Anonymous. 2005. Applying ERP-system in Academic Education: An Analysis from Three Actor Perspectives. In: Malpica, E., Welsch, F. & Tremante, A.(eds.). Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Education and Information Systems: Technologies and Applications, (Orlando, USA, July 14 -- 17, 2005).
[16]
TechTerms.com. 2012. Multimedia. DOI=www.techterms.com/definition/multimedia
[17]
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., and Ecclestone, K. 2004. Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning. A systematic and critical review, Learning and Skills Research Centre, London, UK.
[18]
Hargreaves, D., Beere, J., Swindells, M., Wise, D., Desforges, C., Goswami, U., Wood, D., Horne, M. and Lownsbrough, H. 2005. About learning: report of the learning working group. DOI=www.demos.co.uk/files/About_learning.pdf?1240939425
[19]
Evans, C., Cools, E. and Charlesworth, Z.M. 2010. Learning in higher education --- how cognitive and learning styles matter. Teaching in Higher Education. 15, 4, 467--478.
[20]
Krathwohl, D. 2002. A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory into practice. 41, 4, 212--218.
[21]
Fu, F. L., Wu, Y. L., and Ho, H. C. 2009. An investigation of coopetitive pedagogic design for knowledge creation in Web-based learning. Computers & Education, 53, 3, 550--562.
[22]
Millis, B. 2010. Why Faculty Should Adopt Cooperative Learning Approaches. In: Millis, B. (ed.). 2010. Cooperative Learning in Higher Education Across the Disciplines, Across the Academy. Sterling, VA., Stylus Publishing.
[23]
Ke, F. and Grabowski, B. 2007. Game playing for maths learning: Cooperative or not? British Journal of Educational Technology, 38,2, 249--259.
[24]
Thousand, J, Villa, R, & Nevin, A. 2006. The Many Faces of Collaborative Planning and Teaching. Theory Into Practice, 45, 3, 239--248.
[25]
Lowyck, J. and Pöysä, J. 2001. Design of collaborative learning environments. Computer in Human Behavior. 17, 507--516.
[26]
Vitt, E., Luckevich, M. and Misner, S. 2002. Business intelligence: making better decisions faster, Microsoft Press.
[27]
Chen, H., Chiang, R., and Storey, V. 2012. Business intelligence and analytics: from big data to big impact. MIS Quarterly. 36, 4, 1165--1188.
[28]
Gilad, B. and Gilad, T. 1985. A Systems Approach to Business Intelligence. Business Horizons. 28, 5, 65--70.
[29]
Turban, E., Aronson, J. E., Liang, T-P., Sharda, R.: Business intelligence: a managerial approach. Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey (2008)
[30]
Bernardino, J., and Tereso, M. 2013. Business intelligence tools. In Madureira, A., Reis, C. and Marques, V. (eds.). 2013. Computational Intelligence and Decision Making. 61, 267--276.
[31]
Gawboy, A. and Greene, A. 2013. Teaching Students with Different Learning Stylesand Levels of Preparation. Yale Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. DOI=http://www.yale.edu/graduateschool/teaching/learningstyles.html Series. ACM, New York, NY, 19--33. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/90417.90738.

Cited By

View all
  • (2018)Smart Campus Innovation LabProceedings of the 22nd International Academic Mindtrek Conference10.1145/3275116.3275145(251-254)Online publication date: 10-Oct-2018

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
AcademicMindtrek '16: Proceedings of the 20th International Academic Mindtrek Conference
October 2016
483 pages
ISBN:9781450343671
DOI:10.1145/2994310
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 17 October 2016

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. co-design
  2. co-learning
  3. co-teaching
  4. hands-on course
  5. industry-university cooperation
  6. technology

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

AcademicMindtrek'16
AcademicMindtrek'16: Academic Mindtrek Conference 2016
October 17 - 18, 2016
Tampere, Finland

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 110 of 207 submissions, 53%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)12
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 17 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2018)Smart Campus Innovation LabProceedings of the 22nd International Academic Mindtrek Conference10.1145/3275116.3275145(251-254)Online publication date: 10-Oct-2018

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media