Jumping the Hurdles: challenges of staff development delivered
in a blended learning environment
Karen M Fitzgibbon
Prof. Norah Jones
Humanities and Social Sciences
Humanities and Social Sciences
University of Glamorgan
University of Glamorgan
1
New developments in e-learning and increasingly sophisticated learning technologies
are beginning to make a major impact in U.K. Universities. There has been a growth
in e-learning both in universities and in commercial training organisations.
Universities in the UK are approaching a crossroads as a result of technological
advances and their impact on teaching. It is clear that universities need to change to
accommodate the impact of technology on learning. It is not just the case that students
are provided with greater access to materials on-line but alongside this it is necessary
for academics to re-evaluate their teaching and pedagogic models. Whilst we
recognise the need to engage with the new learning opportunities that online learning
brings, we also recognise the crucial part that staff development plays in making such
a change a positive experience for academic staff. There is convincing evidence
(Salmon, 2000 and 2002, Laurillard, 2002) that the role of the lecturer needs to be reexamined in the context of on-line learning.
The aim of the paper is to explore the impact of the introduction of an e-learning
project on a university's staff development processes. The paper is structured into
three sections, the first of which outlines the development process of an e-learning
initiative. In the second section the model of teaching and learning is examined and
finally challenges to change are explored.
Background
The core activity of the case study University (University of Glamorgan) is traditional
delivery of courses at the University campus and through agreements with its
Associate and other Partner Colleges in the further education sector. It has now been
2
decided to build on this successful experience and to work with partners in the public,
private and voluntary sectors to widen the accessibility of the University's Business
and Management courses through new methods of delivery. This is being piloted
through the E-College Wales (ECW) initiative.
E-College provides the additional flexibility of training and support through on-line
entrepreneurial programmes.
If the University is to be successful in taking advantage of the new opportunities
offered by e-learning, then the strategy it adopts to realise this goal needs to include
staff development considerations. As Robinson (1998: 34) emphasises:
‘Strategic staff development needs to be:

Aligned to organisational as well as individual goals

A systematic process with planning and control

Directed at improving knowledge, skills, attitudes and performance at the level
of the individual, the work group, and the organisation.’
Robinson goes on to add ‘the starting point for any staff development strategy is the
support of senior management followed by the definition of a purpose, policy and
plan.’
For this project staff development needs were assessed at the outset of the project, a
somewhat different approach for Glamorgan. Rowntree (1998: 231) discusses the
pressures in managing ‘up front’ staff development. ‘[Open and Flexible Learning]
OFL projects are often set up in a hurry… The timescale may seem too short to
prepare people in advance’
It was important to ensure that staff who would be working on the project should have
the opportunity to learn the skills associated with e-moderating, but also have an
3
opportunity to experience working in this very different learning environment. This is
further emphasised by Benfield (2000: 6)
‘using online communication requires a strong conscious effort, planning,
forethought, time… One of the best things that any teacher intending to go
online can do is take an online course themselves.’
Thus we put in place a staff development programme to help staff accommodate the
new environment. At this stage in 2000 there were very few examples of staff
development programmes supporting e-learning initiatives. Gilly Salmon at the Open
University had just developed a model for teaching and learning on-line and we
enlisted her help in developing our staff. Salmon devised a staff development
programme for us based on her model in order to help inform, what at that stage, was
a group of naïve and inexperienced e-moderators. BlackBoard was the chosen
managed learning environment (MLE) which provided the platform for
communication. The course was designed placing great emphasis on asynchronous
discussions.
The model of e-moderator training was centred on the learning framework put
forward by Salmon (2000). This framework has five distinct sequential stages of
development comprising a series of tasks, referred to by Salmon (2000) as e-tivities.
The five stages are as follows:
4
Stage One: Access and Motivation
It is essential that students are able to gain access quickly and easily to the managed
learning environment of BlackBoard. The School provides technical help through a
telephone help line in addition to tutor support via email and telephone.
Stage Two: Forming Relationships On-line
Students becoming more familiar with the new environment are able to 'socialise' online. However, the familiar cues from oral and non-verbal communications are
missing and new patterns of socialisation emerge. Although it could be argued that the
student experience is diminished because of this it could equally be argued that there
are fewer distractions and more equal opportunities for participation. The tutor in this
phase ensures all students contribute although he or she needs to be aware of some
students biding their time; Salmon (2000) refers to this as 'browsing'. It is clear from
Salmon's experience of on-line learners that as chatting on-line increases a sense of
belongingness develops. Tutors are able to help facilitate this amongst other support
activities amongst, which are promotion of mutual respect between participants,
defusing problems and offering advice, guidance and academic counselling.
Stage Three: Information Exchange
In addition to the module content tutors prepare Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
sections for ease of reference. Advice on academic issues is also provided.
Stage Four: Knowledge Construction
The expectation at this stage is that students interact with each other in more
participative ways, constructing knowledge for themselves and helping each other in
5
clarifying academic issues. The tutor becomes less involved and contributes when
necessary.
Stage Five: Development
Students now become more responsible for their own learning and generally will need
less support. At the higher levels of under graduate and post-graduate studies the
skills of critical thinking and the ability to challenge the givens are in evidence at this
stage.
Thus tutor involvement changes through the stages; in the first stage technical and
academic support may be equally important whilst thereafter, academic support
increases up to and including stage three and decreases thereafter.
The model for teaching and learning on-line remains an area where an improved level
of understanding is required and further research should be undertaken Kearsley
(1999). Salmon (2000) bases her model on extensive experience with Open University
students and corporate clients. It will be interesting to see whether the model is
generalisable to first year undergraduates on the E-College programme. Staff have
been trained using the Salmon model but are now being encouraged to reflect on their
experiences during the first year.
6
The Pilot Studies
The First E-Moderator Course
The first e-moderator course was offered from September to November 2001, and was
moderated by Gilly Salmon and David Shepherd. The first group consisted of 36 full
time staff from the University and Associated Further Education Colleges. The
authors were students on this first course. The course was successful and 27 members
of staff completed the course. The course not only provided training in the skills of emoderating but also gave tutors the insight into what it felt like to be an e-learner. At
the end of the course the authors critically reflected on the experience and introduced
a number of changes in preparation for the next course on which we would become
the e-moderators.
The changes introduced were as follows:
 Contextualisation of some of the e-tivities to meet specific University of
Glamorgan issues
 Creation of a set of on-line resources such as book reviews, useful web sites
and published materials provided by staff at the University who were research
active in e-learning.
 Development of a half day face to face induction programme which was not
recommended by Salmon (2000) as she argued that socialising face to face
will inhibit the creation of an on-line community.
 Incorporated two further face to face evaluation meetings during the midpoint and towards the end of the module.
7
The third and fourth developments show above altered the nature of the module
delivery from wholly on-line to a blended delivery model, a development which
required evaluation in order to test its suitability.
Some of the reflections from the first e-moderating group are summarised below:
‘I think this course has been useful in lots of ways:
has helped me realise that it can be almost pleasant communicating via computer and
that techniques such as summarising and feedback are crucial’
‘Despite having struggled to keep up with the course at times, it has provided me with
an insight into a wide range of considerations to be taken into account, from both emoderator and student perspectives. At times, I was able to appreciate the frustrations
that student will undoubtedly experience with software/navigation/repetition of etivity content’
‘I think that the course took a while to warm up but overall I think that I have enjoyed
it. I would have rather smaller groups because I have not read all messages posted and
wish I had the time to do so. As a leader in the beginning I felt that I was getting to
know a few people but the pressure of work and a dodgy computer resulted in me
being a follower.’
Whilst only providing a snapshot of the experiences, these reflections do reinforce the
8
subsequent experience of many of us as e-moderators, highlighting the value of the emoderating module as preparation for the on-line teaching experience.
The Second E-Moderator Course
The revised staff development programme was offered September until December
2002. There were 24 full time members of staff consisting of experienced tutors from
HE and FE.
During the second training programme, the authors began to identify emergent issues
for both the staff undertaking the training and the University as a whole. The next
section of the paper reflects on our learning from this staff development programme
and offers some insights into the challenges of on-line staff development. As
Robinson (1998: 43) points out ‘While particular training activities and events may in
themselves be effective, their impact can also depend for success on factors outside
the control of staff developers’.
Reflections from the second group
‘I feel more confident about being an E Tutor now because I know exactly what is
expected of me’.
‘I feel more confident in using the system and am beginning to feel less guilty about
being the last one to complete activities. Such was my haste that I goofed with 2.6 - if
I'd read the material thoroughly I would have understood what emoticons are. The
saying more haste less speed springs to mind. I found 2.3 challenging as it's difficult
9
to convey the right message without sounding patronising. Overall I'm much happier
about my role’.
‘ I would like to thank you for your help and support during the course and I must say
that it has changed my view and I am now a convert to this way of teaching and
learning. I did not think I would say that when I started. It was not that I possessed a
closed mind but I just did not think there was any substitute to conventional methods
of learning and the motivation a good teacher can give in a classroom situation. In
actual fact, it is possible, as you Norah and the team have proved very successfully.
Thank you for being patient with me and for your help, support, advice and guidance.
It is very much appreciated’.
The Challenges
Time
When we first began to address the challenges which ‘time’ represented we quickly
realised that this was a complex issue with many facets. Comments from staff who
had undertaken the course such as ‘finding the time is difficult’ revealed many
different aspects of the experience that the course provided. Some staff felt that they
should receive some kind of remission from other activities whilst taking part in the
training course, a model adopted by some participants in the LeTTOL Learning to
Teaching On-Line project (Kirby, et.al. 1997). However, we also identified issues of
the timing of the course provision itself. The two courses had both run during
10
September and October. This was due to the fact that the actual on-line enrolling
students would commence their engagement with the on-line learning materials in
November and we therefore needed to train the staff prior to the enrolment of the
students. However, in practice, many staff were already working under intense
pressure due to enrolment duties and induction of their on-campus traditional delivery
students and generally preparing for the new semester. Finding the time really was an
issue for them. Staff who had been engaged to work with on-line students only, did
not have this issue to contend with. It is important for future cohorts of staff that we
identify more suitable dates to start the course.
A further time-related issue is the length of the training programme. For the first
cohort, staff were given six weeks to complete the programme. Most staff met this
deadline and only a few required a little extra time to complete the final e-tivities.
When the second cohort commenced, we allotted six weeks once more, but on
reflection we feel that a longer time period would provide more opportunities to
introduce ‘live’ aspects mirroring more closely the actual e-moderating experience.
We intend therefore to lengthen the time allotted for the next cohort. We are not
alone in this decision to lengthen the programme. The LeTTOL project originally
allowed 60 hours for 2 OCN credits (from May – July) but had to extend this 12 to 16
weeks (Kirby et.al. 1997).
The authors (who were the e-moderators for the second course) also experienced
time-related challenges. We were each allocated 3 hours per week to support and
monitor the students. This became inadequate and often we would spend more than
eight hours per week in the moderation of discussion forums or monitoring participant
11
contributions. In contrast LeTTOL tutors have 60 hours teaching time for each group
of 12 students – the same amount of time as is allocated to the students to complete
the course. There is a further issue here related to the success with which the student
e-moderators engage in on-line activity; Salmon (2002: 162) describes it as follows:
‘However, note that the more successful you are at achieving good
participation in the e-tivities, the more the response and summarizing time
from the e-moderator will rise. Our own little catch-22!’
This mirrored our experiences of moderating the students for examples summarising
the e-tivities took up to two hours to produce (almost the total time allocated for that
week of e-moderating).
The pace of learning and waves of student activity and inactivity also contribute to the
roller-coaster time and task management experiences of the e-moderator. Students
worked through the tasks at differing speeds and at any point of time some students
were ahead but some were well behind schedule. The student controls the pace of the
learning but this adds to the work of the e-moderator for example in attempting to
provide summaries and archiving responses. Our course statistics revealed that
whatever the time of day or night, whatever the day of the week, someone was online. This is of course one of the reasons why on-line learning is so successful, the
complete freedom it gives to learning anytime, anyplace, and anywhere. However, it
also demonstrates why e-moderating is an extremely different teaching experience to
that of the traditional on campus delivery experience. On campus, academic staff
12
expect some quiet times of the day (e.g. before 9am and after 4.30pm) and some times
during the week.
Once you are working as an e-moderator, the structure of your working day changes.
One of the authors remembers the day when she arrived for work shortly before 8am,
checked her voicemail and picked up 10 messages which had been left overnight (not
an unusual load for a course leader), dealt with 18 or so emails from staff and students
on campus, went on-line to monitor the forums from the group of on-line students she
was moderating and then remembered that she was actually meant to be in front of a
group of on-campus students and she was already late for the class! Brabazon (2001:
6) makes a similar observation about the lack of time she now has for research when
on campus.
‘My story is not unusual. But this change in the pattern of my working day –
within four years – has reduced and decentred intellectual tasks to competency
and generic skills.’
The final time-related issue for on-line moderators is the amount of time required in
checking and fine-tuning the on-line learning materials participants will engage with.
Dependent upon the institutional approach, this may require the academic to actually
make the changes themselves, or go through a team of instructional designers, editors
and so on before the changes can be made. The number of discussion board messages
and emails generated by the on-line students meanwhile will be growing ferociously
until the problem is addressed!
13
Induction
In addition the importance of a good induction programme should not be under
estimated. Salmon (2000) advises against face to face meetings during induction, but
we have found that this is more effective for our blended learning approach. We have
found that a face to face induction day helps improve student motivation on-line and
helps in creating on-line socialisation. The induction was well received by the
students and they all thought that this should be an obligatory part of the e-moderators
course. We have also introduced a mid-course face to face feedback meeting and a
half a day final reflections meeting.
Technology
One of the most important features for any e-learning course is secure technology
Laurillard (2002. When the second course started the University was using version 5
of the chosen MLE, which provided a stable platform for on-line teaching and
learning. Two weeks after the commencement of the second course the University
moved from version 5 to version 6. There were defendable reasons for the change; the
timing of the decision was partly made because full time students would not have
engaged in learning until early October. The e-moderator course already underway
was overlooked and as a result there were two weeks of disruption. Students were
unable to gain access to the MLE and when they did, it quickly became apparent that
the platform at this stage was unstable. The technical staff at the University were
placed under enormous pressure to provide quick fixes until the MLE license provider
solved the problems. The students on the e-moderator course at this time were in
14
Session two of the course and the primary objective of this stage is to develop on-line
socialisation. Salmon (2000) places great importance on this phase claiming that the
creation of on-line community in this phase is critical to effective on-line learning.
Thus, as a result of the problems with the software the work of the e-moderators
increased. Even more effort was put into communicating with the students in order to
keep them motivated. This was partially successful but four students withdrew from
the course at this time. Students’ comments on this experience highlight the effect of
technology failure on motivation.
‘Well I have certainly had a taste of what it is like to have problems with the system.
My e-mail is at last working, so I can now communicate with the rest. I have had
experience of feeling totally alone. The system seems to always be down when I have
time to work. This will help me to understand my student’s problems’.
‘We all had a good lesson during this part of the course. The frustration caused when
systems fail. Perhaps a good thing to experience on a course like this. At least we
know how the students feel!’
Another issue regarding technology is the way academic staff perceive the use of
technology in their teaching role. Furnell et al (undated: 4) make the point that
‘[academics] may feel intimidated by the technology and therefore regard this as a
barrier to the whole issues of ODL’ . The training of course developers and module
writers represent another group of staff whose staff development needs must not be
overlooked.
15
Developing New Teaching Skills
A further challenge that e-moderating brings is the heightened awareness of the
impact of messages posted in an on-line environment. Benfield (2000: 1) stresses that
‘There is a need to develop an on-line ‘voice’ or persona, and to use language
thoughtfully.’ The e-moderator has a very powerful presence on-line and as such
misuse of humour, a sarcastic tone or ill-phrased posting has the potential to
dramatically affect the participants’ levels of contribution. We are careful to monitor
both our own practice on-line and the language used by our students. We have
evolved a system of ‘shadowing’ on-line groups which enables one e-moderator to act
as the e-convenor (posting messages, responding to threads, monitoring contributions
and managing the conferences themselves) and one e-moderator who visits every now
and then acting as a voice of support to the e-convenor. We wouldn’t expect to do the
same in our face to face teaching. Salmon (2000: 35) confirms the need to adapt face
to face teaching practices for the on-line teaching experience
‘I conclude that face-to face facilitation skills, while having many of the same
attributes as online e-moderation, are insufficient in themselves to ensure
successful interactive conferences.’
Lewis (1995) offers an example of the outcome of prolonged discussions between
academic staff and their strategic director concerning the future learning environment
of their university. ‘Instead of identifying the positive aspects of their likely future
roles, the staff feared the removal of the skilled teacher from the centre of a university
education’. Furnell et al (undated: 4) also address the role of the academic in the online learning world, making the point that
‘ODL could be used as a vehicle to undermine the role of the lecturer – i.e.
once all of the relevant course information is available online, it could be
16
delivered without further intervention from the lecturer, leading to a situation
where his/her services are no longer required’.
The Glamorgan experience has so far been a very positive one. Staff have been
encouraged to develop course materials rather than being required to do so. Most of
those volunteering to develop on-line materials have subsequently been motivated to
join a course such as the e-moderating module under discussion, and whilst challenges
and issues are undoubtedly present, they have been overcome by the desire to succeed
in this very different teaching medium.
Selecting participants
None of the cohorts of learners so far inducted onto the e-moderating module have
been selected – they have all volunteered. Consequently, the mix of experiences,
roles and technical ability has been broad amongst all the groups. We have not yet
seen a need to divide groups into those with previous on-line experience, those with
limited technical ability, those who teach, those who support teaching and so on. It
could be argued that the diversity of such a learning group reflects a typical on-line
teaching experience – a mix of cultures, backgrounds and reasons for choosing a
course – and this can be seen as a strength of this approach. The LeTTOL Project
Report (1997:14) supports this
‘the tutors agreed, that at this stage in the project, they were not going to
restrict interested colleagues from joining the course by a rigorous selection in
terms of IT skills’.
However, it is also possible that staff with previous on-line experience may wish to
further develop their on-line teaching skills in a group of similarly experienced
colleagues as opposed to sharing their expertise with novices, or that those with
17
limited technical skills would feel more comfortable in a group consisting of those
with a similar level of ability. We will endeavour to meet the needs of such learning
groups as they arise.
Conclusions
One of the University’s targets is that all academic staff will become engaged to at
least the basic level with the new technologies in the medium term (2001-2003). To
underpin this it will be necessary to develop a strong expertise platform in Schools to
enable peer supported targeted staff development. It is anticipated that learning and
teaching groups will be key players in this respect.
It is intended that staff development is taken on board not only by academic staff but
support staff, students, validation panels, external examiners; in fact all stakeholders
across the range will have to adapt to this change. E-delivery will become a
significant part of the delivery process although it is unlikely, at least on campus, to
entirely replace traditional methods.
The importance of staff development for on-line learning has been highlighted
throughout the paper and this issue is one that has been stressed by others e.g.
Robertson et.al. (2002: 6) claim that
‘The sooner professional development in teaching and learning with ICT is
incorporated into all aspects of quality assurance in higher education, the
sooner good practice will emerge and the less uncertain and confusing the
future may be’.
18
We are developing the opportunities for e-learning staff development in a number of
areas. The e-moderating module under discussion in this paper will be developed as a
credit-rated module at post-graduate level. This in turn will form a core of a postgraduate qualification in on-line learning also currently being developed by the
authors. Finally, our reflections and experience with the various groups on this emoderating module have lead us to believe that a further module in advanced emoderating skills is also required. This will incorporate ‘live’ scenarios for students
to respond to, thereby giving them a more realistic experience of the role of the emoderator.
With these new initiatives well underway, the future for this staff development elearning programme seems assured. The small team of e-convenors is growing and
we look forward to continuing to contribute to the University of Glamorgan E-College
initiative to develop on-line learning. This initiative provides a significant opportunity
for the University to evaluate the development, delivery and assessment of ELearning and to create a pedagogy and andragogy for this form of education.
19
References
Benfield, G. (2000) ‘Teaching on the Web – Exploring the Meanings of Silence',
http://ultibase.rmit,edu,au/Articles/online/benfield1.htm
Brabazon, T. (2001) ‘Internet Teaching and the Adminstration of Knowledge’
http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_6/brabazon/index.html
Furnell, S., Evans, M., Phippen, A. and Abu-Rgheffi, M, (undated) ‘On-line Distance
Learning: Expectations, Requirements and Barriers' http://www.fae.plym.ac.uk/tele/odl2.html
Kearsley, G (1999) On-line education: Learning and Teaching in Cyberspace (New
York, Wandsworth)
Kirby, J., Pickering, F. and Rhodes, S. (1997) The LeTTOL Project Final Report
http://oldferl.becta.org.uk/learningonline/staff/teachingol/html
Laurillard, D. (2002) Rethinking University Teaching, (London, Routledge Falmer)
Lewis, R. (1998) 'Staff Development in Conventional Institutions Moving Towards
Open Learning' in Latchem, C. & Lockwood, F. (1998) Staff Development in Open
and Flexible Learning, Chapter 3 pp 23 – 32 (London, Routledge)
20
Roberts, J., Brindley, J., Mugridge, I. and Howard, J. (2002) ' Faculty and Staff
Development in Higher Education. The key to using ICT appropriately?' The
Observatory of Borderless Education (London)
Robinson, B. (1998) ‘A Strategic Perspective on Staff Development for Open and
Distance Learning’ in Latchem, C. and Lockwood, F. (1998) Staff Development in
Open and Flexible Learning, chapter 4 pp33 – 44, (London, Routledge)
op. cit.
Rowntree, D. (1998) ‘The Role of Workshops in Staff Development’ in Latchem, C.
and Lockwood, F. (1998) Staff Development in Open and Flexible Learning, Chapter
23 pp 231 – 238, (London Routledge)
Salmon G (2000) E-Moderating, (London Kogan Page)
Salmon G (2002) E-Tivities, (London, Kogan Page)
Word count 4,378
21