To develop a totally online reality-based course that engages students and enables the development of enhanced teamwork and report-writing skills.
Setting:
Outbreaks of infectious diseases impacts upon commerce, trade and tourism as well as placing strains on healthcare systems. A general course introducing university students to epidemiology and public health would help public education into the consequences of worldwide outbreaks.
Methods:
Scaffolding of course activities was used to enable students to build upon skill acquisition and development. Student feedback was used to continuously improve the course.
Results:
The course enables around 80 students per year to engage efficiently and effectively with the courseware. Student satisfaction was high and has improved with fine-tuning of the course.
Conclusions:
We have developed an effective team-based course that has high student engagement and satisfaction. The model could be used to effectively deliver other science-based courses online.
FisherDHuiDSGaoZ. Pandemic response lessons from Influenza H1N1 2009 in Asia. Respirology, 2011: 16: 876–82.
2.
Trust for America’s Health. Ready or Not? Protecting the Public’s Health from Diseases, Disasters and Bioterrorism Report 2011. Washington, DC: Trust for America’s Health. Online. Available at: http://healthyamericans.org/assets/files/TFAH2011ReadyorNot_09.pdf (accessed 23 January 2012).
3.
ChickeringAWEhrmannSC. principles: Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin, 1996: 3–6.
4.
MannixENealeMA. What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2005: 6: 31–55.
5.
AhlfingerNREsserJK. Testing the groupthink model: Effects of promotional leadership and conformity predisposition. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 2001: 29(1): 31–42.
6.
SpringerLStanneMEDonovanSS. Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 1999: 69(1): 21–51.
7.
PowellAPiccoliGIvesB. Virtual teams: A review of current literature and directions for future research. ACM SIGMIS Database, 2004: 35(1): 6–36.
8.
RobertLPDenisARHungYC. Individual swift trust and knowledge-based trust in face-to face and virtual team members. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2009: 26(2): 241–79.
9.
PeaR. The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2004: 13(3): 423–51.
10.
SweetMMichaelsenLK. How group dynamics research can inform the theory and practice of postsecondary small group learning. Educational Psychology Review, 2007: 19(1): 31–47.
11.
MichaelsenLK. Getting started with team based learning. In: MichaelsenLKKnightABFinkLD (eds), Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups (pp. 53–76). Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2002.
12.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. Science for All Americans: Project 206. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press, 1989.
13.
JohnsonDWJohnsonRTSmithKA. Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works?Change, 1998: 20(4): 27–35.
14.
FalchikovN. Peer feedback marking – Developing peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 1995: 32: 175–87.
15.
EomSBWenHJAshillN. The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcome and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 2006: 4: 215–35.
16.
BrownSDoveP. Self and Peer Assessment. Paper presented at the Standing Conference on Educational Development, Birmingham, England, 1994.
17.
ViolatoCLockyerJ. Self and peer assessment of pediatricians, psychiatrists and medicine specialists: implications for self-directed learning. Advances in Health Science Education Theory and Practice, 2006: 11: 235–44.
18.
McGourtyJDominickPReillyR. Incorporating student peer review and feedback into the assessment process. Proceedings of Frontiers in Education Conference, 1998: 1: 14–18.
19.
SomervellH. Issues in assessment, enterprise and higher education: The case for self-, peer and collaborative assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1993: 18(3): 221–33.
20.
MarkKPThadaniDRCalongeDSPunCFKChiuPHP. From neophyte to experienced facilitator: An interactive blended-learning course for graduate teaching assistants in Hong Kong. Knowledge Management and E- learning: An International Journal, 2011: 3(2): 153–69.
21.
RafiqYFullertonH. Peer assessment of group projects in civil engineering. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 1996: 21: 69–81.
GandellTWestonCFinkelsteinAWeinerL. Appropriate use of the web in teaching higher education. In: MannB (ed.) Perspectives in Web Course Management (pp. 61–8). Toronto: Canadian Scholar’s Press Inc, 2000.
24.
RushinJWDeSaixJLumsdenAStreubelDPSummersGBernsonC. Graduate teaching assistant training: A basis for improvement of college biology teaching & faculty development. The American Biology Teacher, 1997: 59(2): 86–90.
25.
LobrydeBruynL. Monitoring online communication: Can the development of convergence and social presence indicate an interactive learning environment?Distance Education, 2004: 25(1): 67–81.
26.
GrabingerRSDunlapJC. Rich environments for active learning: a definition. In: SquiresDConoleGJacobsG (eds) The Changing Face of Learning Technology (pp. 8–38). Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2000.
27.
GrandoD. 2008. Evaluating a new online course in the epidemiology of infectious diseases by studying student learning styles. Journal of College Science Teaching, 2008: 37(3): 29–33.
28.
BransfordJDSchwartzD. Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. In: Iran-NejadAPearsonPD (eds) Review of Research in Education, 24: 61–100. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, 1999.
29.
SadlerR. Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 1989: 18: 119–44.
30.
DeNisiAKlugerA. Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be improved?Academy of Management Executive, 2000: 14(1): 129–39.
31.
WalbergHJ. Productive teaching. In WaxmanHCWalbergHJ (eds), New Directions for Teaching Practice Research (pp. 75–104). Berkeley, CA: McCutchen, 1999.
32.
SadlerPMGoodE. The impact of self- and peer-grading on student learning. Educational Assessment, 2006: 11(1): 1–31.
33.
Santandreu CalongeDChiuPThadaniDRMarkKPPunCFK. In-service development for graduate teaching assistants: A blended-learning and formative approach. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 2011: 8(3). Online. Available at: http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol8/iss3/3 (accessed 19 January 2012).
34.
WolteringVHerrlerASpitzerKSpreckelsenC. Blended learning positively affects students’ satisfaction and the role of the tutor in the problem-based learning process: Results of a mixed-method evaluation. Advances in Health Sciences Education Theory and Practice, 2009: 14(5): 725–38.
35.
PallofRPrattK. Lessons from the Cyberspace Classroom: The Realities of Online Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2001.
36.
DavisKS. ‘Change is hard’: What science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practices. Science Education, 2003: 87: 3–30.
