Page 214 - Štemberger Tina, Čotar Konrad Sonja, Rutar Sonja, Žakelj Amalija. Ur. 2022. Oblikovanje inovativnih učnih okolij. Koper: Založba Univerze na Primorskem
P. 214
n Tabak and Damir Kukić
a course at Curtin University in Australia, and in a small class in a course at
the University of Zenica. The text first discusses the experience of one of the
authors of the text with the methodology at Curtin University in Australia,
and then describes our experience in using the same methodology at the
University of Zenica. Finally, the two experiences are compared, and lessons
learned from the experience are discussed.
The Previous Experience with the Methodology at Curtin University
One of the authors of this text has been involved in teaching a course at
Curtin University in Australia that used this teaching methodology in 2010.
The online conference was an assessment tool for two classes at two univer-
sities in two countries (culturally quite different). Students from both coun-
tries could write an essay on four main topics of the conference. There was an
obvious dynamic conversation focusing on these topics. We found that dif-
ferent culture did not have any effect on students’ conversation. The debate
started very easy as four group of students share very similar interests. Dur-
ing debate, it occurred rather an increased curiosity as new students brought
new information to the debate, which were not circulated in both classes be-
fore the conference. However, this had nothing to do with different cultures,
but rather with involvement of the new participants in the debate. The stu-
dents in both classes knew each other very well as they were members of the
same class for almost two years, so it was difficult to get out with new infor-
mation in the conference debate. Bringing together students that were com-
pletely strangers to each other enabled some fresh discussions, and this was
probably the best part of the conference, which is probably the major aim of
any conference in general: to meet new people, to hear different voices and
opinions, and to get a feedback from someone who is completely stranger to
us. The variety of students that did not know each other was another reason
for success of a conference, as ‘blind review’ was easy to organise.
The second best feature of the conference was division of the course con-
tent on four different topics, which were focused, but enough wide for ma-
jority of students to find their own topic of interests. The conference topics,
on the other hand, keep boundaries of the debate to not lose its focus. For ex-
ample, student debating political question of internet communities did not
often talk about online games and vice versa, which (we will see later) was a
bit of a problem in the case study of the Bosnian university with a quite small
class. This was important, as it was keeping discussion lively, and nobody feel
that she or he talking to the wall. Each discussion had enough feedback, and
there were not many ‘blind streets.’
214
a course at Curtin University in Australia, and in a small class in a course at
the University of Zenica. The text first discusses the experience of one of the
authors of the text with the methodology at Curtin University in Australia,
and then describes our experience in using the same methodology at the
University of Zenica. Finally, the two experiences are compared, and lessons
learned from the experience are discussed.
The Previous Experience with the Methodology at Curtin University
One of the authors of this text has been involved in teaching a course at
Curtin University in Australia that used this teaching methodology in 2010.
The online conference was an assessment tool for two classes at two univer-
sities in two countries (culturally quite different). Students from both coun-
tries could write an essay on four main topics of the conference. There was an
obvious dynamic conversation focusing on these topics. We found that dif-
ferent culture did not have any effect on students’ conversation. The debate
started very easy as four group of students share very similar interests. Dur-
ing debate, it occurred rather an increased curiosity as new students brought
new information to the debate, which were not circulated in both classes be-
fore the conference. However, this had nothing to do with different cultures,
but rather with involvement of the new participants in the debate. The stu-
dents in both classes knew each other very well as they were members of the
same class for almost two years, so it was difficult to get out with new infor-
mation in the conference debate. Bringing together students that were com-
pletely strangers to each other enabled some fresh discussions, and this was
probably the best part of the conference, which is probably the major aim of
any conference in general: to meet new people, to hear different voices and
opinions, and to get a feedback from someone who is completely stranger to
us. The variety of students that did not know each other was another reason
for success of a conference, as ‘blind review’ was easy to organise.
The second best feature of the conference was division of the course con-
tent on four different topics, which were focused, but enough wide for ma-
jority of students to find their own topic of interests. The conference topics,
on the other hand, keep boundaries of the debate to not lose its focus. For ex-
ample, student debating political question of internet communities did not
often talk about online games and vice versa, which (we will see later) was a
bit of a problem in the case study of the Bosnian university with a quite small
class. This was important, as it was keeping discussion lively, and nobody feel
that she or he talking to the wall. Each discussion had enough feedback, and
there were not many ‘blind streets.’
214
