CE  Vol.8 No.6 , May 2017
The Future Relevancy of University Institutions’ Teaching in the Digital Era
ABSTRACT
The paper focuses on the structured and well-planned design and execution of courses in academic studies in general, and in architecture in particular, based on the great relevance of the learning-centered approach for teaching in universities in the digital era, related to the traditional teaching-centered approach applied in the majority of academic institutions today. The design of a course according to the learning-centered approach has unique value, particularly in the information era, with computers virtually and instantaneously transmitting endless knowledge. In the learning-centered approach, unlike frontal transfer of information, a dialogue is formed between academic faculty and students, leading to compatibility between learning outcomes (course goals) and teaching methods. stressing the value of course design according to the learning-centered approach are necessary as a result of social, cultural, and technological changes in the current information highway era and the consequent status of knowledge as possessed by everyone, while noting and emphasizing the special needs involved in the challenges of teaching and learning in this era. The paper also depicts the significance of recording learning outcomes, and the benefits and challenges associated with the formulation of learning goals. To illustrate this topic, development of a course in the “backward design” method, consistent with the learning-centered paradigm, shall be presented. The challenges of this method shall also be portrayed, with the possibility of generalization to varied disciplines. This paper shall emphasize the main potential advantage of physical academic institutions and universities, where students and teachers meet, talk, and hold direct and unmediated discussions, and through the learning-centered approach, versus the virtual knowledge and teaching centers have recently emerged as an alternative to traditional academic institutions and are seemingly threatening to obviate the justification for universities. It is particularly important also, in light of disturbing data indicating a considerable drop in university registration rates, in Israel and elsewhere, with the current young generation finding gradually less interest in universities as capable of shaping their personal and professional future. Therefore, with the gradual increase in accessible knowledge, instructors are required to bring with them added value to the teaching process. This is a complicated requirement that compels instructors to relinquish traditional teaching patterns. Planning a course in this method requires extensive forethought, time, and effort, compared to designing a course following the traditional method. To promote such addedvalue teaching, the academic system needs a model that recognizes, appreciates, and compensates faculty for the efforts they invest in learning-centered teaching, and one that will incentivize instructors to devote time and energy to developing, revising, and improving their teaching practice to develop these aspects in their work. Such a model also serves the existential interests of the institutions of higher education, in their role as entities that also responsible for properly training future generations, in an era when traditional teaching methods being no longer sufficient, attractive, or meeting the needs and wishes of potential students for shaping their personal and professional future, in light of the paradigmatic changes in knowledge acquisition.
Cite this paper
Davidovitch, N. and Levy, B. (2017) The Future Relevancy of University Institutions’ Teaching in the Digital Era. Creative Education, 8, 953-974. doi: 10.4236/ce.2017.86070.
References
[1]   Amaral, A., & Magalhaes, A. (2004). Epidemiology and the Bologna Saga. Higher Education, 48, 79-100.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HIGH.0000033766.02802.92

[2]   Barak, A., & King, S. A. (2000). The Two Faces of the Internet: Introduction to the Special Issue on the Internet and Sexuality. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 3, 517-520.
https://doi.org/10.1089/109493100420133

[3]   Bar-El, A., & Nuemayer, M. (1996). Encounters with Psychology (2nd ed.). Tel Aviv: Rechess.

[4]   Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From Teaching to Learning—A New Paradigm For Undergraduate Education. Change, 27, 13-26.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1995.10544672

[5]   Bills, D. B. (2004). Creeping Credentialism in the Unites States and Germany: Changing Relationships between Educational Credentials and Occupational Assignment.
www.iuperj.br/rc28/papers/bills%20rc28%20brazil%20hiring%trends.pdf

[6]   BrckaLorenz, A., Haeger, H., Nailos, J., & Rabourn, K. (2013). Student Perspectives on the Importance and Use of Technology in Learning. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Long Beach, CA, 18-22 May 2013.
http://cpr.iub.edu/uploads/NSSE13%20AIR%20Technology%20Paper.pdf

[7]   Brown, D. K. (2001). The Social Sources of Educational Credentialism: Status Cultures, Labor Markets, and Organizations. Sociology of Education, 74, 19-34.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2673251

[8]   Canny, A. (1995). School-Leavers’ Career Choices: An Investigation of the Relationship between Action and Structure. Irish Journal of Sociology, 5, 164-191.
https://doi.org/10.1177/079160359500500108

[9]   Cassidy, T., & Lynn, R. (1991). Achievement Motivation, Educational Attainment, Cycles of Disadvantage and Social Competence: Some Longitudinal Data. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 1-12.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1991.tb00956.x

[10]   Council for Higher Education (2012). Budgeting Model of Israel’s Higher Education System (pp. 20-33). Jerusalem: Planning and Budgeting Committee. (In Hebrew)

[11]   Daugherty, K. K. (2006). Backward Course Design: Making the End the Beginning. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 70, Article 135.
https://doi.org/10.5688/aj7006135

[12]   Davidovitch, N. (2013). Learning-Centered Teaching and Backward Course Design— From Transferring Knowledge to Teaching Skills. Journal of International Education Research, 9, 329-338.
https://doi.org/10.19030/jier.v9i4.8084

[13]   Dippelhofer-Steim, T., Bargel, B., Bromberek, E., Jetten, S., Kump, G., Sagmeister, H.-G., & Walter, J. T. (1984). Students in Europe, Motives for Studying, Expectations of Higher Education and the Relevance of Career Prospects. European Journal of Education, 19, 309-315.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1502848

[14]   Dore, R. (1976). The Diploma Disease: Education, Qualification and Development. London: George Allen & Unwin.

[15]   Doron, N. (1983). On the Path to Success. Tel Aviv: Yahdav Publishing.

[16]   Eberly, M. B., Newton, S. E., & Wiggins, R. A. (2001). The Syllabus as a Tool for Student-Centered Learning. The Journal of General Education, 50, 56-74.
https://doi.org/10.1353/jge.2001.0003

[17]   Gehart, D. (2011). The Core Competencies and MFT Education: Practical Aspects of Transitioning to a Learning-Centered, Outcome-Based Pedagogy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 37, 344-354.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2010.00205.x

[18]   Greene, H., & Minton, R. (1989). Beyond the Ivy Wall: 10 Essential Steps to Graduate School Admission. Boston, MA: Little Brown & Company.

[19]   Harpe, S. E., Phipps, L. B., & Alowayesh, M. S. (2012). Effects of a Learning-Centered Approach to Assessment on Students’ Attitudes towards and Knowledge of Statistics. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 4, 247-255.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2012.05.002

[20]   Jones, S. (2002). The Internet Goes to College: How Students Are Living in the Future with Today’s Technology. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED472669.pdf

[21]   Kazley, A. S., Annan, D. L., Carson, N. E., Freeland, M., Hodge, A. B., Seif, G. A., & Zoller, J. S. (2013). Understanding the Use of Educational Technology among Faculty, Staff, and Students at a Medical University. TechTrends, 57, 63-70.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-013-0647-z

[22]   King, J. M., & Anderson, D. M. (2004). A Practitioner’s Guide to a Learning-Centered Co-Curricular Activities Program. College Student Affairs Journal, 24, 91-100.

[23]   Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2010). Student Success in College: Creating Conditions that Matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

[24]   Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J., Whitt, E., Andreas, R. E., Lyons, J. W., & Strange, C. C. (1991). Involving Colleges—Successful Approaches to Fostering Student Learning & Development outside the Classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

[25]   Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C.-L. C., & Cohen, P. (1980). Effectiveness of Computer-Based College Teaching: A Meta-Analysis of Findings. Review of Educational Research, 50, 525-544.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543050004525

[26]   McKeachie, W. J. (1990). Research on College Teaching: The Historical Background. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 189-200.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.2.189

[27]   Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the Difference? A Review of Contemporary Research on the Effectiveness of Distance Learning in Higher Education. Washington DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.

[28]   Reynolds, J. (2000). Learning-Centered Learning: Theory into Practice. Inquiry, 5, 1-9.

[29]   Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing Understanding of the Idea of Communities of Learners. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1, 209-229.

[30]   Seel, N. M. (2003). Model-Centered Learning and Instruction. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1, 59-85.

[31]   Shapira, R., & Etzioni, E. (1973). Who Is the Israeli Student? Tel Aviv: Sifriyat Ofakim, Am Oved. (In Hebrew)

[32]   Stage, F. K., Muller, P. A., Kinzie, J., & Simmons, A. (1998). Creating Learning Centered Classrooms. What Does Learning Theory Have to Say? ERIC Digest.

[33]   Streveler, R. A., Smith, K. A., & Pilotte, M. (2012). Aligning Course Content, Assessment, and Delivery: Creating a Context for Outcome-Based Education. In K. Mohd Yusof, S. Mohammad, N. Ahmad Azli, M. Noor Hassan, A. Kosnin, & S.K. Syed Yusof (Eds.), Outcome-Based Education and Engineering Curriculum: Evaluation, Assessment and Accreditation (pp. 1-26). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

[34]   Tyler, W. (1982). Complexity and Control: The Organisational Background of Credentialism. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 3, 160-170.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0142569820030204

[35]   Van der Hijden, P. (2012). Student Mobility in Europe: Recent Trends and Implications of Fata. In: P. Scott, L. Vlasceanu, & L. Wilson (Eds.), European Higher Education at the Crossroads: Between the Bologna Process and National Reforms (pp. 377-386). Netherlands: Springer.

[36]   Vedder, R. (2011). Too Many PhDs and Professionals? The Chronicle of Higher Education. 5 January 2011.
https://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/too-many-ph-d-%E2%80%99s-and-professionals/28236

[37]   Vernon, J. (2010). Disaster Strikes: The End of the Public University in England. Universities in Crisis, Blog of International Sociological Association (ISA). [Blog post], 22 October 2010.
http://www.isa-sociology.org/universities-in-crisis/?p=774

[38]   Wagner, E. B., & McCombs, B. L. (1995). Learner Centered Psychological Principles in Practice: Designs for Distance Education. Educational Technology, 35, 32-35.

[39]   Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design: Expanded Second Edition (pp. 140-142). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

[40]   Windolf, P. (1995). Selection and Self-Selection at German Mass Universities. Oxford Review of Education, 21, 207-231.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498950210206

[41]   Wonacott, M. E. (2000). Credentials: One Size Fits All? Columbus, OH: National Dissemination Center for Career and Technical Education. ED 447 275.

[42]   Yemini, M., & Ben-Artzi, Y. (2013). Application of the Bologna Process in Israel’s System of Higher Education. Dapim, 55, 177-197. (In Hebrew)

 
 
Top