Research-Based Learning: Connecting Research and Instruction
5.5 Conclusion
The RBL approach presented in this study is one way of combining research, schol- arship, teaching, and learning in a holistic way. It has taken into account the needs and preference of the learner by enabling choice of projects and opportunities to choose the research skills they wish to pursue in more depth. The staged introduc- tion of research skills in tutorials takes account of the cognitive complexities inher- ent in the research process. Importantly, the alignment of skill development with the natural progression of the research project enables students to directly relate theory to practice. Such an approach might help to leverage students’ learning experiences in ways that will equip students with the capabilities that have been identifi ed for working twenty-fi rst century. Still, empirical evidence is needed to support the suc- cessfulness of curricula using the RBL approach.
References
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American psychological association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airsasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P.
R., et al. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives . New York: Longman.
Baldwin, G. (2005). The teaching-research nexus: How research informs and enhances learning and teaching in the University of Melbourne. Retrieved April 20, 2013, from http://www.cshe.
unimelb.edu.au
Barrie, S. C. (2004). A research-based approach to generic graduate attributes policy. Higher Education Research and Development, 23 (3), 261–275.
Beck, K., & Krapp, A. (2006). Wissenschaftstheoretische Grundfragen der pädagogischen Psychologie. In A. Krapp & B. Weidenmann (Eds.), Pädagogische Psychologie (pp. 33–73).
Weinheim: Beltz.
Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university . Philadelphia, PA: SRHE and Open University.
Blackmore, P., & Fraser, M. (2007). Researching and teaching: Making the link. In P. Blackmore
& R. Blackwell (Eds.), Towards strategic staff development in higher education (pp. 131–141).
Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill International.
Blumschein, P., Ifenthaler, D., & Pirnay-Dummer, P. (2007). Der SMARTroom—Innovative Technologien zur Erweiterung des Lehr- und Ausbildungsangebots. In G. Schneider, B. Couné, C. Gayer, E. Vögele, & C. Weber (Eds.), Neue Medien als strategische Schrittmacher an der Universität Freiburg Wie Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien Studium, Verwaltung und Forschung verändern (pp. 131–138). Freiburg: Universitätsbibliothek.
Bosanquet, A. (2011). Brave new worlds, capabilities and the graduates of tomorrow. Cultural Studies Review, 17 (2), 100–114.
Bosch, K. (2006). Planning classroom management (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brew, A. (2010). Transforming academic practice through scholarship. International Journal for Academic Development, 15 (2), 105–116.
Clark, B. R. (1997). The modern integration of research activities with teaching and learning.
Journal of Higher Education, 68 (3), 241–255.
Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47 , 273–305.
doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.273 .
Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Towards a general theory of expertise . Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Freeman, J. V., Collier, S., Staniforth, D., & Smith, K. J. (2008). Innovations in curriculum design:
A multi-disciplinary approach to teaching statistics to undergraduate medical students. BMC Medical Education, 8 (28). doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-8-28
Gosper, M. (2011). MAPLET—A framework for matching aims, processes, learner expertise and technologies. In D. Ifenthaler, Kinshuk, P. Isaias, D. G. Sampson, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on problem solving and learning in the digital age (pp. 23–36). New York: Springer.
Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquiry-based learning. In R. Barnett (Ed.), Reshaping the university: New relationships between research, scholarship and teaching (pp. 30–42). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill International.
Huber, L. (2009). Warum Forschendes Lernen nötig und möglich ist. In L. Huber, J. Hellmer, &
F. Schneider (Eds.), Forschendes Lernen im Studium. Aktuelle Konzepte und Erfahrungen (pp. 9–35). Bielefeld: UVW.
Humboldt, W. V. (1984). Der Königsberger Schulplan, 1809. In A. Flitner (Ed.), Schriften zur Anthropologie und Bildungslehre (pp. 69–76). Frankfurt am Main: Küpper.
Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Learning and instruction in the digital age. In J. M. Spector, D. Ifenthaler, P.
Isaías, Kinshuk, & D. G. Sampson (Eds.), Learning and instruction in the digital age: Making a difference through cognitive approaches, technology-facilitated collaboration and assess- ment, and personalized communications (pp. 3–10). New York: Springer.
Ifenthaler, D. (2012a). Design of learning environments. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (Vol. 4, pp. 929–931). New York: Springer.
Ifenthaler, D. (2012b). Determining the effectiveness of prompts for self-regulated learning in problem-solving scenarios. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15 (1), 38–52.
Ifenthaler, D., & Gosper, M. (under review). Guiding the design of lessons by using the MAPLET Framework: Matching aims, processes, learner expertise and technologies. Instructional Science .
Ifenthaler, D., & Lehmann, T. (2012). Preactional self-regulation as a tool for successful problem solving and learning. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 9 (1–2), 97–110.
Ifenthaler, D., & Seel, N. M. (2011). A longitudinal perspective on inductive reasoning tasks.
Illuminating the probability of change. Learning and Instruction, 21 (4), 538–549. doi: 10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2010.08.004 .
Kossack, P., & Ludwig, J. (2010). Projektbericht SEPHA. Didaktische Konzepte für die strukturi- erte Studieneingangsphase. Retrieved April 20, 2013, from http://www.sepha.org/cms/index.
php?page=638410081&f=1&i=638410081
Ludwig, J. (2011). Forschungsbasierte Lehre als Lehre im Format der Forschung . Potsdam:
Universitätsverlag.
Pirnay-Dummer, P., Ifenthaler, D., & Seel, N. M. (2012). Designing model-based learning environ- ments to support mental models for learning. In D. H. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed., pp. 66–94). New York: Routledge.
Rindermann, H., & Amelang, M. (1994). Das Heidelberger Inventar zur Lehrveranstaltungs- Evaluation (HILVE). Handanweisung . Heidelberg: Asanger.
Rocca, K. A. (2010). Student participation in the college classroom: An extended multidisciplinary literature review. Communication Education, 59 , 185–213.
Seel, N. M., & Ifenthaler, D. (2009). Online lernen und lehren . München: Ernst Reinhardt Verlag.
Windish, D. M., Huot, S. J., & Green, M. L. (2007). Medicine residents’ understanding of the biostatistics and results in the medical literature. Journal of the American Medical Association, 298 , 1010–1022.
91 M. Gosper and D. Ifenthaler (eds.), Curriculum Models for the 21st Century:
Using Learning Technologies in Higher Education, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-7366-4_6,
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract With increasing globalization and twenty-fi rst-century trends such as the personalization and commoditization of technology, individuals are required to refresh and adapt their competencies continuously and keep their knowledge current. The changing environment and the diverse learning needs of individuals require a change in the existing paradigm of engineering education. What is needed