Last changed 4 July 1999 ............... Length about 1000 words (8000 bytes).
This is a WWW document maintained by Steve Draper, installed at

Web site logical path: [] [~steve] [talks] [talk details] [this page]

Models for collaborative teaching

This document contains the OHP slides for a talk (talk details).

Contents (click to jump to a section)

Why collaborate across HEIs?

[HEI = Higher Education Institution]

The structure of HE is that:

Some think world famous HEIs may dominate the market with their brand names.

But instead, perhaps multi-national consortia will provide overwhelming combined expertise and quality through collaboration within a discipline but across HEIs.

Cross-HEI collaboration (cont.)

This will apply most to rapidly changing and/or new subjects where both research and consequent teaching is most rapidly created
(and least to, say, first year statistics).

This talk concerns teaching HCI
(Human Computer Interaction)

Success may depend on quality, including originality and distinctiveness:

The Waterloo model

Distance learning / delivery =>
So author and deliverer the same person for any unit

Consortium of mainly Canadian universities, none of whom could offer the whole course alone.

A variety of kinds of unit of various sizes (to suit / attract the target market), and some novel types.


The MANTCHI model: teaching units

Many variations, but one format was: TRAIL = Tertiary Reusable Atom Instantiated for Learning

These units called "ATOMs"
(Autonomous Teaching Objects in MANTCHI)
8 ATOMs both written and delivered.
(2 more written)

Target size of a unit is quite small:
One week's work for students on a module
(Approx. 8 hours)

Small unit size is important

The MANTCHI model (cont.)

True reciprocal collaborative teaching

All sites both authored AND delivered others' material. Probably a unique feature. (cf. EUROMET) (cf. the EUROMET project)

Structure of an ATOM's web pages for export

There are 4 web pages associated with an ATOM:

  1. The teacher overview page, intended for teachers browsing for ATOMs they might choose to use in their courses.

  2. Teacher details: fuller notes for teachers, with instructions for them, and rationales for why the exercise is the way it is

  3. The learner details page: the instructions for learners. This is likely to have the basic explanation and description of the ATOM, and also acts like a handout for students

  4. The course home page (for learners) for a particular delivery of an ATOM

Teacher Overview page's structure

Preface: introduction to the notion of an ATOM

Summary State the topic and type of ATOM.

How the concept fits into the course
Student prerequisite knowledge
Student prerequisite skills
Course level

Timetabling: how the activity fits into the course
Amount of student work
Amount of contact hours
Group work
Relationship to the rest of the course
Activity plan (probably a pointer to the student page)

Resources needed
Remote expert

History and admin.

Structure of the ATOM's web pages

Teacher details [Notes for teachers and authors]



How it fits into the course

Rationale (why is the exercise designed this way?)


TRAILs: past student work

Evaluation reports and comments

Issues / contrasts

Are authors and deliverers the same?

Yes: distance model, or non-collab. local model

No: Using bought-in textbook, or MANTCHI model

Re-processing through independent deliverers is a powerful extra quality check, and teachers learn
(cf. "teachback" technique).

Unit size

Small unit size increases the chance of tailoring to diverse local needs BUT fails to re-use larger scale planning / design (e.g. of curriculum).

Designing for, and supporting Re-use

What does it take to support re-use of teaching materials?