Despite reading being recognized as a core academic skill, surprisingly little research has been undertaken into university lecture reading requirements. This article reports on the trial and evaluation of a minimalist reading model developed for students in arts and education subjects. Comprising annotated extracts from full texts ‘linked’ wherever possible via hypertext mark-up language to glossaries, e-dictionaries and online translation services, the minimalist model was intended to rethink pre-lecture reading requirements and conventional approaches to designing reading lists at the tertiary level. Findings indicate that while students are generally receptive to the redesign of conventional approaches to pre-lecture reading in the disciplines sampled, several participants expressed reservations about the model. The research provides insights into the study mores of the contemporary university student and re-emphasizes the need to ensure the diversity and complexity of the student cohort is catered for by educators and university managers as far as practicable.
AriewRErcetinG (2004) Exploring the potential of hypermedia annotations for second language reading. Computer Assisted Language Learning17(2): 237–59.
2.
AronowitzS (2000) The Knowledge Factory: Dismantling the Corporate University and Creating True Higher Learning, Boston: Beacon Press.
3.
BatesCMatthewmanA (2009) Studying Arts and Humanities, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
4.
BennettSMatonKKervinL (2008) The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology35(5): 775–86.
5.
BonkC (2004) The Perfect E-Storm: Emerging Technology, Enormous Learner Demand, Enhanced Pedagogy and Erased Budgets, Athens: University of Georgia Press.
6.
BrickJ (2006) Academic Culture: A Student’s Guide to Studying at University, Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.
7.
BrownJSCollinsADuguidP (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher18(1): 32–41.
EllisRAGoodyearPProsserMO’HaraA (2006) How and what university students learn through online and face-to-face discussion: Conceptions, intentions and approaches. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning22: 21–36.
14.
FairbairnGFairbairnS (2001) Reading at University, Buckingham: Open University Press.
15.
Habib B (2007) Breaking the ritual: Getting students to participate in discussion-based tutorials in the social sciences. In: Enhancing Higher Education, Theory and Scholarship: Proceedings of the 30th HERDSA Annual Conference, Adelaide, 8–11 July. Milperra, NSW: HERDSA.
KennedyGJuddTChurchwardAGrayKKrauseK (2008) First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives?Australasian Journal of Educational Technology24(1): 108–22.
McLoughlin C and McCartney B (2000) The acquisition of generic skills for the new millennium. In: Flexible Learning for a Flexible Society (ed. L Richardson and J Lidstone), Proceedings of the ASET/HERDSA Joint International Conference, Toowoomba, Queensland, 2–5 July. Australian Society for Educational Technology and the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australia.
22.
MannS (2000) The student’s experience of reading. Higher Education39: 297–317.
23.
MarginsonS (2004) Don’t leave me hanging on the Anglophone: The potential for online distance education in the Asia-Pacific region. Higher Education Quarterly58(2/3): 74–113.
24.
MarshallLRowlandF (1995) A Guide to Learning Independently, Melbourne: Longman.
25.
MartonFSäljöR (2004) Approaches to learning. In: MartonFHounsellDEntwistleN (eds) The Experience of Learning, Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, pp. 76–88.
26.
MillerB (1999) An integrated taxonomy of student reading and learning development. Journal of Further and Higher Education23: 309–16.
27.
Oliver R (2002) The role of ICT in higher education for the 21st century: ICT as a change agent for education. In: Proceedings of the Higher Education for the 21st century Conference. Miri, 24–26 September. Sarawak: Curtin University.
PriceLRichardsonJ (2007) Face-to-face versus online tutoring support in distance education. Studies in Higher Education32(1): 1–20.
30.
ProsserMTrigwellK (1999) Understanding Learning and Teaching: The Experience in Higher Education, Buckingham: Open University Press.
31.
RamsdenP (1992) Learning to Teach in Higher Education, London: Routledge.
32.
RosenbergM (2006) Beyond E Learning: Approaches and technologies to enhance organizational knowledge, learning and performance, San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
33.
SalmonG (2005) Flying not flapping: A strategic framework for e-learning and pedagogical innovation in higher education institutions. Research in Learning Technology13(3): 201–18.
34.
Sankó G (2006) The effects of hypertextual input modification on L2 vocabulary acquisition and retention. In: Nikolov M and Horváth J (eds) UPRT 2006: Empirical Studies in English Applied Linguistics, Lingua Franca Csoport, 157–78. Available at: http://mek.oszk.hu/04900/04902/04902.pdf#page=149 (accessed 16 October 2009).
35.
SonJ (2007) Learner experiences in web-based language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning20(1): 21–36.
36.
StokesPMartinL (2008) Reading lists: a study of tutor and student perceptions, expectations and realities. Studies in Higher Education33(2): 113–25.
Swain H (2006) Makeovers for the guides to essential reading. Times Higher Educational Supplement, 20 January, 18–19.
39.
UTMU (1976) Improving Teaching in Higher Education, London: University Teaching Methods Unit.
40.
Van den Eynde J, Newcombe P and Steel C (2007) Responding to learners’ needs for choice: Flexible learning modes for creating an e-learning community. Paper presented at the ASCILITE Conference, Singapore, August. Available at: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07 (accessed 10 September 2009).
41.
YoungJ (2002) The 24-hour professor. Chronicle of Higher Education48(38): A.31–A.31.
