Evolutionary change of higher education driven by digitalization

preparation
seminar and exam
feedback
input lectures: 
theoretical and
conceptual input
presence
platform
preparation in 
teams 
team work: transfer of
input to case studies
exam: presentation
of results and discussion
personal feedback
course structure
medium
transfer workshop
course
management
system
announcement of information, instructions and dates/deadlines of the course 
Fig. 3.
Prior structure of course

---

platforms and videos were used in addition to the presence 
platform and the course management system. Figure 4 presents 
the new course structure, which is resulting in a three by three 
matrix combining the structural elements and media used. 
Within the matrix the concrete design elements of the module 
are shown. In the traditional course the preparation for the 
seminar and exam was based on input lectures held by the 
lecturer. In contrast to this the preparation of the new course is 
available in the form of short videos. Using the new medium 
allows the students to prepare themselves where ever and 
whenever they choose to do so. The new approach is no longer 
restricted to the presence platform. Instead the design elements 
of the course spread over the different media. Furthermore, it is 
the students´ decision to use virtual platforms of their own 
choice, to facilitate the respective adoption, or the presence 
platform to do the team task for preparation and to get 
feedback. 
IV.
EXPERIENCES
WITH
THE
NEW
STRUCTURE
At the beginning of the restructuring process skepticism 
prevailed, even though other academics recommend the 
adoption of the above mentioned elements for higher education 
courses [3,13]. Reference [1] even underlines the necessity to 
implement and apply new teaching elements. Nonetheless 
many open questions remained when starting the field test: 
Would the students learn with the videos, slides and other 
sources? Is the material comprehensive enough to allow for the 
learning goals to be reached or would (too) many open 
questions remain? Would the students take the challenge of 
producing videos and would these contents-wise be “deep” 
enough? Would there be a substantial discussion? 
The results obtained in the field test were truly surprising. 
Not only did the students learn with the material, the 
preparation of the students for the workshop was even better 
than with the input lectures of the former course design. Here, 
the students did normally not stay for the whole timespan to be 
able to attend kick-off lectures of other courses. Now, the 
students had the required knowledge of the theoretical and 
conceptual basis and were able to apply this to the case studies. 
They valued the possibility to learn at their own leisure and 
pace any place convenient. The students also valued the small, 
but coherent pieces of input. The resulting videos of the 
teamwork were very creative and professionally done and at 
the same time they were contents-wise of high quality. The 
discussions after the video presentations were focused and well 
prepared, which was much better than the discussions after the 
presence presentations. Furthermore, the lecturer of the course 
experienced that the students´ opinion towards the discussions 
changed from an annoying must after the presentation to an 
interesting and collaborative element of the exam, where a 
contribution of the students and sharing of their knowledge is 
required. 
V.
CONCLUSION,
LIMITATIONS
AND
FUTURE
RESEARCH 
Collectively, the feedback was very good and the students 
definitely encouraged the lecturer to keep the new format of 
the course. Some critical points were the comfort and structure 
of the course management system for organizing and sharing 
the contents and the time consuming preparation of the videos. 
The evaluation of the course allowed identifying key “success 
factors”. The success factors are the organization of the 
contents in small yet coherent pieces, the possibility of 
contacting the lecturer anytime for questions via e-mail, the 
mix of virtual and physical touch points, the freedom to choose 
the tools of their liking to organize the preparation task and 
production of videos, and overall the ensuing flexibility for the 
students to organize their learning schedule. 
The article only considers a single course redesign. This is 
the reason why the results can only give a hint of possible 
positive effects for a future restructuring of modules in higher 
education. Reference [14] also redesigned one of his courses at 
the University of South Australia nearly in parallel to the above 
described case. The study of the author supports the results 
mentioned above [14].
Future research has to demonstrate those results in a 
broader context. Especially interesting is the answer to the 
question whether these results can be proven right when more 
than one module in higher education is designed as 
characterized above or if the positive effects cancel out when 
education is completely restructured. 
R
EFERENCES
[1]
K. Erenli, “Gerneration I(mmersion): How to meet the Learners 
Expectations of Tommorrow,” International Journal of Advanced 
Corporate Learning 9(1), pp. 19-25, 2016. 
[2]
F. Pinzaru, E.-M. Vatamanescu, A. Mitan, R. Savulescu, A: Vitelar, C. 
Noaghea, M: Balan, “Millennials at Work: Investigating the Specificty 
of Gerneration Y versus other generation,” Management Dynamics in 
Knowledge Economy, 4(2), pp. 173-192, 2016. 
[3]
Guthrie, C., “Who Are We Teaching?: The Learning Expectations of 
“Digital Tribes” in the Classroom”. International Journal of e-Education, 
e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 4(2), pp.146–150, 2014. 
mobility
flexibility
collaboration
sharing
time restrictions
cost of studies
contribution
involvement