University teachers' design work is generally focused in one of two ways: student-centred or teacher-centred¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? University teachers' design work is generally focused in one of two ways: student-centred or teacher-centred. → Connolly 2021

Evidence¶

Connolly 2021¶

Connolly, C., & Hall, T. (2021). Designing for emergency remote blended and online education: a response to Bennett et al. (2017). Education Tech Research Dev, 69, 281–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09892-0

q2 · i? · theoretical · r2

The commentary reports, based on its reading of Bennett et al. (2017), that "university teachers’ design work is generally focused in one of two ways: student-centred or teacher-centred". This is the authors' interpretive summary of the reviewed study, not a new empirical result.

"The paper and review of literature illustrate how design work is characterised indifferent countries and cultures, and how university teachers’ design work is generally focused in one of two ways: student-centred or teacher-centred."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• University teachers follow a top-down design approach considering learning outcomes, content scope, activities and assessment — related
• Staff recognise substantial opportunities to use GenAI to enhance teaching through streamlined administrative processes, improved curriculum and assessment design, and student-centred learning activities. — related
• The four schemes of work showed replicable significant heterogeneity in effectiveness, with the predicted-least-effective teacher-centred/non-human scheme among the most effective — related
• Teachers used the VCL in ways that re-enforced their current practice, whether student-centred or teacher-centred — a narrower finding that bears on this claim