Blended Learning Report

Faculty of Health and Human Sciences

Report to the Learning, Teaching and

Assessment Committee of the Blended

Learning Task and Finish Group

March 2006

Report of the Blended Learning Task and Finish Group

Authors

Jim Adams – Blended Learning Unit Manager

Audrey Blenkharn – Senior Lecturer, Programme Leader

Gill Briggs –

Denise Burley –

LRC Manager – Westel House

Director of Studies, -

Post Qualifying (London)

Karen Elcock – Project Leader,

Learning Community Development

Gwyneth Hughes – Principal Lecturer,

Educational Development

Lai Chan Koh –

Pat Lindsay –

Charlie McGrory

Karen Sheehy –

Principal Lecturer, Programme Leader


Senior Lecturer, Programme Leader

Senior Lecturer, Professional Development

Co-ordinator

Carol Trespaderne – Lecturer, Community Nursing

© TVU March 2006


Contents Page

Executive Summary

Introduction

Why blended learning?

Blended learning definitions

Blended learning models

The Task

Methodology

Blended Learning e-Swot

Topic E-swot

Questionnaires

Summary

Topic reports

Conclusion

Recommendations

References

Appendices

Appendix 1 –Task and Finish Group Composition

Appendix 2 – Framework for undertaking the task

Appendix 3 – Topic reports

1.

Pedagogy, curriculum design and development

14

15

16

17

18

2.

Learning resources and networked learning

3.

Student support, progression and collaboration

4.

Strategic management, human resources and capacity development.

5.

Quality

6.

Research and evaluation

7.

Infrastructure and technical standards

5

7

7

8

10

12

1

2

3

4

© TVU March 2006


Executive Summary

The Faculty is well placed to exploit the benefits that blended learning can offer. These benefits include increased flexibility for students in accessing learning and support; opportunities for independent and self-directed learning; student choice in mode of delivery and a richer more varied learning experience, catering for preferred learning styles while combining the best features of both e-learning and faceto-face learning. The Faculty has considerable experience in developing all modes of programme delivery, from distance to workbased learning and e-learning to blended learning. This experience lies across all sections of the Faculty and includes pedagogical design, learning materials design and development, student support, and technical and administrative support relevant to the mode of delivery.

However, the growth in blended learning (as defined by the integration of e-learning with other forms learning and teaching) is resulting in challenges for the Faculty to move from pockets of effective practice to a position where blended learning is embedded and catered for in institutional practices and processes and forms a part of everyday working practice. In moving to this position it will be necessary to ensure that our blended learning developments are underpinned by the necessary refinement of our quality assurance mechanisms and a targeted team based approach to staff development.

This review carried out between January and April 2006 identified many of those challenges and makes a series of recommendations on how, from a learning, teaching and assessment perspective, they can be strategically addressed.

Recommendations

The relevant topic reports when read in conjunction with the recommendations will provide further background information and pointers on operationalisation.



Establish a framework that supports the development of blended learning programmes from validation through to programme delivery and reflects the necessary modifications to the existing dominant campus based model. (1. Pedadgogy, curriculum design and development)





Prioritise investment in the development; distribution; access; evaluation and research of learning resources that support blended learning. (2. Learning resources and networked learning)

Develop effective and sustainable support systems to ensure that students gain the relevant technical and academic skills needed to

© TVU March 2006 1

Report of the Blended Learning Task and Finish Group engage with blended learning environments. (3. Student support, progression and collaboration)







Establish an effective and ongoing staff development programme to ensure all staff have the relevant skills to engage with, develop and support blended learning programmes. (4. Strategic management, human resources and capacity development)

Establish comprehensive quality assurance procedures for the development, delivery and evaluation of blended learning programmes and supporting learning materials in line with QAA recommendations and other emerging standards. (5. Quality)

Develop a research action plan that contributes to the University’s research strategy. (6. Research)



Develop closer working relationships with Learning and

Information Services to ensure that the infrastructure is responsive to and supports emerging e-learning pedagogies. (7.

Infrastructure and technical standards)

Introduction

As blended learning is neither a theory of learning or teaching, then what is it, and why and on what terms is it becoming part of the vocabulary and teaching practice of higher education?

Once established, can the characteristics of a blended learning approach be mapped to theories of learning and teaching that provide blended learning curricula with an underpinning and evidence-based educational foundation?

How do we ensure that the principles of a guiding philosophy and learning theory such as social constructivism are in alignment with a blended learning approach?

How do we confirm that blended learning programmes are making best educational use of the options available to provide efficient and effective learning and teaching experiences for staff and students?

What evaluation strategies need to be in place to ensure the quality of our blended learning programmes?

How do we map the learning needs of students and the characteristics of the learning environment to ensure that we maximise the benefits of blended learning?

How do we define a blended learning model that forms the basis for curriculum development?

What are the developmental needs of staff and students to ensure meaningful engagement with blended learning curricula and programmes?

© TVU March 2006 2


Once thing is certain, blended learning currently raises more questions than it provides answers for. There is no road map for blended learning or if there is it is fragmented and slowly evolving.

Why blended learning?

There are three key strands that have contributed to the emergence of blended learning as an approach to providing learning and teaching experiences; and the common thread running through all of them is the use of learning technologies and e-learning.

Firstly, blended learning has evolved from the failure of e-learning as deployed within the commercial and training sector. Stand alone elearning solutions were seen as a cost-effective solution to providing corporate training. However low completion rates, poorly designed and generic solutions, costly development, lack of human support and limited impact soon meant that a rethink as to the effectiveness of stand alone e-learning solutions was required. From this failure, the term blended learning emerged as representing the necessary human interaction and support in the learning process.

This is not to say that e-learning per se is a failure. E-learning has a valuable contribution to make to the learning process, however it appears that to be effective, certainly within a HE context, it must be integrated or blended with other learning and teaching strategies and support. Blended learning offers a more holistic and rounded learning experience for both learners and tutors than stand alone e-learning solutions.

Secondly, blended learning has resulted in the convergence of the learning experience for students on distance learning and ‘campusbased’ programmes. This convergence is being achieved through the use of digital learning environments to facilitate communication; knowledge exchange and sharing; collaboration and tutorial support between distance learning students and tutors. The learning experience of distance learning students can be similar, or at least offer similar learning opportunities, to that of campus-based students. The benefits of this convergence, in terms of flexibility, access to resources, independent and self-directed learning opportunities and an enriched learning experience are now being integrated into campus-based programmes.

The convergence that is afforded through the use of learning technologies illustrates one aspect of the blended learning paradigm – i.e. the blended learning programme.

Thirdly, the available learning technologies are developing, and will continue to develop, in ways that allow us to better apply the established principles of learning and teaching to digital learning environments. We are beginning to be less constrained by the

© TVU March 2006 3

Report of the Blended Learning Task and Finish Group technology, (although there is still much development and research needed to determine how information technology can be best applied to learning and teaching), and the available tools allow us to design programmes that are more in line with the range and type of learning experiences we would and do offer in the classroom.

From these key strands we can conclude that one feature of any emerging blended learning model is that it contains some e-learning activity or engagement in support of student learning in combination with other forms of delivery such as classroom or work-based learning.

Blended learning definitions

The dominant perception of blended learning is that it is a mix of media and modes. This understanding forms the core of most blended learning definitions which usually state that blended learning is a combination of e-learning and face-to-face (F2F) delivery.

However, this definition is limiting and does not indicate the range of possibilities that blended learning can offer or indeed the pedagogical decisions that inform a blended learning offer.

If blended learning is more than the combination of e-learning with

F2F modes of delivery, how can it then be defined in a way that indicates the educational process and decisions that inform and shape a blended learning approach and the subsequent skills and support needed to realise such an approach.

Rovai and Jordan (2004) begin to tease out some of the issues by suggesting that:

‘Blended learning is thus a flexible approach to course design that supports the blending of different times and places for learning, offering some of the conveniences of fully online courses without the complete loss of face-to-face contact. The result is potentially a more robust educational experience than either traditional or fully online learning can offer.’

Rovai and Jordan’s definition emphasises the flexibility of time and place that is not offered by the time and place specific requirements of F2F, however Voos (2003) goes further and begins to identify the fundamental characteristic of blended learning by suggesting that,

‘it is unlikely that the ‘blendedness’ makes the difference in such courses, but rather the fundamental reconsideration of course design in light of new instructional and media choices and the

learning strengths and limitations of each.’ (pp2-5)

For Voss blended learning is not a product but a process. A process of course design, that draws on established practice, theories and principles of learning but yet critically considers and takes account of

© TVU March 2006 4

Report of the Blended Learning Task and Finish Group new learning and instructional arrangements that are emerging as a result of new media and technologies. It is this attention to basic learning and teaching principles that must inform our blended learning strategy to ensure that we are driven not by the available technology, which has yet to be fully proven and developed, and our blended learning approach is underpinned by sound learning and teaching principles.

The Faculty, through consultation with academic staff who have been involved in developing blended learning programmes, has formulated its own working definition of blended learning.

Blended learning is considered to be:

‘The planned integration of learning and teaching methods that support learners in the achievement of learning outcomes through the provision of a range of learning experiences that accommodate different approaches to learning in a range of learning environments.’

(Blended Learning Network: Blackboard Discussion August 2004)

This definition makes no reference to learning technologies and highlights the educational and pedagogic decisions that underpin curriculum and programme development. The emphasis is on the quality of the student learning experience and the provision of a range of learning experiences, appropriate to the context in which learning is taking place, that provide opportunities to accommodate different learning styles of students.

As such this definition is really just about learning and makes no distinction for blended learning other than to acknowledge that there are decisions to be made about learning and teaching methods that may or may not incorporate e-learning. The definition supports the development of an integrated learning and teaching strategy that incorporates all aspects of and approaches to learning and teaching.

The term blended learning as suggested by Massy (2006) may eventually become so ubiquitous that that the word ‘blended’ is dropped.

Blended learning models

The very nature of the term blended learning suggests that there is no one overarching model that can be adopted as a basis for curriculum development. If blended learning represents choices from a range of media, instructional technologies, modalities, teaching and learning strategies, learning theories and so on and those choices are based on the learning opportunities and types of learning experiences

© TVU March 2006 5

Report of the Blended Learning Task and Finish Group that support the attainment of learning outcomes; then it is the decision-making processes that inform these critical choices that are of importance and dictate the final configuration of the blended learning mix.

Blended learning is then based on principles of learning and teaching.

The final configuration of any blended learning programme may constitute a model and it may be applicable to other situations, but the ‘blend’ is likely to specific to the learning intentions and outcomes of particular programmes. Is it possible then to identify general principles and processes that are applicable to all blended learning programmes and offer a framework for curriculum development?

As blended learning matures, frameworks that are based on learning and teaching principles and best practice are emerging to offer guidance to programme developers.

Kerres and de Witt (2003) propose a didactical framework for the design of blended learning arrangements and state:

‘A conceptual framework for a blended learning arrangement should include guidelines for selecting elements of a blended learning arrangement and for the sequential ordering of these

elements.’ (p.103)

Singh (2003) presents a model for assembling an effective blend of delivery methods and a rationale for choosing their use to create meaningful learning experiences and environments. He draws on the e-learning framework proposed by Khan (2003) to widen the scope of blended learning to include not just a pedagogical dimension but other important dimensions such as resource support, the management of blended learning programmes, interface design and evaluation that need to be considered as part of a holistic approach to blended learning development.

Graham (2006) proposes that blended learning offers an improved pedagogy through an increase in the level of active learning strategies, peer-to-peer learning strategies, and learner-centered strategies. He identifies levels of ‘blendedness’ from institutional, programme and module through to activity level and takes this further by categorising blended learning systems as either enabling, enhancing or transformative. The analysis by Graham of blended learning based on developments from across a range of global educational and training organisations and corporate and academic arenas illustrates how the field of blended learning is developing an evidence base informed by research and case studies and how our understanding of blended learning as a pedagogic approach will continue to grow. It is important that we continue to engage with the debates that are taking place around blended learning so that our

© TVU March 2006 6

Report of the Blended Learning Task and Finish Group learning, teaching and assessment strategy reflects best practice and current thinking.

E-learning is has developed its own e-pedagogy or pedagogy for elearning, i.e. the art of learning and teaching within an online learning environment, which tends to sits outside of blended learning frameworks. Where e-learning forms part of a blended learning programme then the educational philosophies and principles underpinning the use of online methods to achieve learning goals should be made explicit through the use of appropriate models, such as Salmon (2000), Mayes and Fowler’s framework (1999), of

Alexander (2001) who concludes that successful e-learning takes place within a complex system involving the students’ experience of learning, teachers’ strategies, teachers’ planning and thinking, and the teaching/learning context.

The Task

Using an evidence-based approach the task was to identify key strategic recommendations to support the implementation of blended learning that would inform the learning, teaching and assessment strategy for the Faculty.

Methodology

The Task and Finish group drew on a range of sources and resources to collect and review information to inform the final report. These included:





A blended learning e-swot.

Questionnaires aimed at lecturers, academic managers and administrative staff.







A blended learning e-brainstorm and discussion around 7 key areas.

First hand experience of academic staff.

A literature review around the 7 key areas.







Student LRC/electronic resources survey.

Student Blackboard survey from MCCC – BSc (Hons) DIP (HE)

Cancer and Palliative Care.

Policy and strategy documents from TVU, other Universities,

Government and the NHS.

The Task and Finish Group met on three occasions with discussion and additional work effectively conducted in between meetings using

Blackboard. Blackboard was also used as a repository of source materials and resources.

© TVU March 2006 7


The Task and Finish Group consisted of 9 core members but certain activities within Blackboard were opened up for contributions from other staff across the University, expanding the core group to 37 participants (Appendix 1). Three additional members from the expanded group joined and contributed to the work of the core group.

Blended Learning e-Swot

The blended learning e-swot was presented at the Faculty strategy day, a handout was distributed both at the strategy day and in the internal post, and two Faculty all user emails with the attachment were distributed. This was followed up by several phone calls to

Faculty teams.

The blended learning e-swot was undertaken through a Blackboard discussion board. Faculty were invited to contribute to the e-swot and while response was generally low (14 respondents) the 65 responses posted (from the respondents) were from staff who are currently engaged or had previous experience of developing blended e-learning learning programmes. The e-swot was supported by questionnaires to map the use of e-learning and blended learning across the Faculty, to identify how staff perceived the development and future potential of blended learning and to identify the type of support needed to embed blended learning in the working practices of the Faculty. Again, while response was low, (23 respondents), the questionnaires, containing both open and closed questions, were completed by staff groups with a range of experiences and provided a useful insight into how blended learning is currently perceived by academic managers, lecturers and administrative staff. The questionnaires were completed by 4 academic managers, 16 lecturers, 2 administrative staff and a representative from the FHHS Learning Resource Centre

The low response rate, to both the e-swot and the supporting questionnaires, is a fair indication of the level of direct involvement of academic staff in developing blended learning programmes. Those that responded were representative of staff who could be considered as champions, enthusiasts and staff who are experienced in and can see the potential of e-learning and blended learning as a learning and teaching strategy.

Many of those academic staff who did not respond will have had no experience of blended learning and as such do not consider it to have relevance to their teaching practice.

The administrative staff that did respond have blended learning and blackboard support as a formal part of their roles and the lack of response from other administrative teams would indicate that

Blackboard does not form part of their routine working practices.

© TVU March 2006 8


This suggests that there is a need to develop working procedures and practices with administration staff, assessment and enrolment teams in supporting blended learning developments through engagement with Blackboard.

The results from both the e-swot and the questionnaires have been carried forward, developed and have informed the work and the report of the Task and Finish Group.

A summary of the data collected in the blended learning e-swot is presented below.

© TVU March 2006 9


Topic E-swot

The topic e-swot was conducted around 7 areas that represent key aspects of the processes of curriculum development and programme delivery. The key areas have been taken from the HEFCE e-learning strategy and while they are contextualised within e-learning in the strategy they also encompass principles applicable to any learning and teaching environment. The 7 key areas have been carried forward and informed the review process and the report from the

Task and Finish Group. The key areas are:

1.

Pedagogy, curriculum design and development

2.

Learning resources and networked learning

3.

Student support

4.

Strategic management, human resources and capacity development.

5.

Quality

6.


7.

Infrastructure and technical standards

Strengths

Curriculum design/pedagogy



Blended learning supports a social constructivist curriculum and

EBL.





Experience of using blended learning across a range of programmes.

Examples of curriculum innovation.

Student support





Developing use of Blackboard to support students through feedback, communication and online interactions.

Practice Education Portal.




Existing robust evaluation strategies.





Examples of action research.

Funding available for research from HEFCE, the University and other agencies.

Staff development







Ample opportunities for staff development.

Existing staff development policy.

Teaching fellowship scheme.

Infrastructure

Robust technical infrastructure.

© TVU March 2006 10


Weaknesses




Need to make blended learning more explicit in curriculum development.











Not enough sharing of expertise and good practice.

Fragmented and variable learning experience.

Lacking of co-ordination.

Lack of strategic guidance and support.

Lack of understanding as to the learning and teaching potential of blended learning.





Lack of support and expertise to develop innovative and attractive programmes.

Student support



Limited monitoring of student engagement.

No clear guidelines for student engagement and expectations of use.



No clear guidelines for staff on a model of online student support.

Quality



Lack of skills and experience (e.g. instructional design and online tutoring) may impact on the quality of blended learning programmes.





More monitoring required.

Lack of interactivity and media rich environments.

Learning resources



Not enough sharing of resources.




Existing evaluation procedures may need to be modified but no guidance as yet.

Staff development



Limited uptake of workshops.



Not followed through with staff.

Infrastructure



More development support /learning technologists needed.



Opportunities




New programme validations especially Dip H.E.; Mentorship

Preparation; Nurse Prescribing.

Staff development



Reward and recognition fro development and innovation




Funding available for research from HEFCE.



Funding available for research from TQEF.



More statistical data from Blackboard would help to inform strategy, areas for development and impact on grades.

Infrastructure



Development of Portal, Content Management System and Eportfolios.

Threats




Lack of clarity around blended learning as a pedagogic approach.



Limited recognition and resourcing for the additional time taken to develop blended learning programmes.











Lack of ‘buy-in’ from staff.

Lack of evaluation.

Not knowing what we want to achieve from blended learning and as a result not knowing if we are successful.

Competitors steal the advantage with better resourcing and support for developments.

NHS has developed strategies and capacity for e-learning.

A summary of the data collected from the questionnaires is presented below.

Questionnaires

The responses to the open ended questions in the supporting questionnaires echoed many of the issues that emerged from the eswot.

It is clear that as a Faculty we are building up experience, skills and

(re-) defining academic and administrative processes required to develop and support students on blended learning programmes. The respondents listed 30 modules and several programmes (as well as institutional examples) where the use of Blackboard contributes to


Report of the Blended Learning Task and Finish Group the blended mix. There are many other examples of blended learning not captured in the questionnaires and this limited mapping of developments is one of the weaknesses of the current development approach.

Areas for further development included providing more guidance in order to move away from the ‘noticeboard’ and ‘electronic box file’ approach to creating more interactive and online learning activities; defining a ‘basic’ entry level of Blackboard use as a default for all programmes and creating online formative and summative assessment strategies. One recurring issue that emerged from all the questionnaires was the time and instructional skills required to develop blended learning programmes. Blended learning often requires an upfront development time to structure and populate

Blackboard with learning activities, resources, discussion boards, surveys and tests. Activities that equally need preparation time in a face-to-face environment, but activities that can often evolve from overheads or handouts where the lecturer is present to orchestrate learning and teaching activities as the lesson unfolds.

The staff development requirements of both experienced and inexperienced lecturers were raised and it was suggested that a ‘roll out’ programme similar to EBL is implemented. The pedagogic skills required to develop blended learning strategies were clearly seen as contributing to the continuing professional development of lectures.

Lack of suitable equipment in the classrooms was seen as a major barrier to introducing students to the blended learning requirements of modules and in supporting classroom teaching.

There was a strong response across all the questionnaires to suggest that blended learning has had very little impact on either the internal or external profile of Faculty; that it is very early days in relation to evaluating the potential of blended learning; that it is a sporadic and fragmented activity, and that we are on a steep learning curve.

‘There is still a very limited understanding within NHS trusts as to what e-learning and blended learning are and can offer. Their main perception being that they must be cheaper as less face-toface contact.’

It is clear from the comments that blended learning can offer many benefits to the Trusts. However, there is a need to articulate and disseminate what blended learning is and what it means, in terms of greater flexibility around releasing staff, quality and variety of learning experiences, strengthening of student support and communication, responsiveness to developing needs, the ability to cater for specialisms where numbers are low and enhanced opportunities to engage with learning away from the University.



There is also a need to reinforce that blended learning is not a ‘cheap’ option that results in a diminished student learning experience.

Where blended learning does appear to have had an impact is in relation to the student learning experience, with students positively evaluating access to Blackboard and requesting further access in modules. This positive feedback comes from those programmes that use a blended learning approach and as a commitment form programme teams that have developed the necessary pedagogic (and technical) skills to design and support such programmes.

A positive response was received in relation to the opportunities that blended learning can offer. These ranged from flexibility, wider access and an expanded student catchment area. These benefits tend to result from the characteristics of learning technologies, however other opportunities related more to programme design, student engagement and creative, innovative learning and teaching strategies.

‘….. offers an opportunity to create a very different culture of learning that gives flexibility for our students, most of whom are mature and require a programme that is flexible to fit around their family commitments.’

It was highlighted that the benefits of blended learning could not be achieved without a ‘clear strategic approach to e-learning that is embedded in a blended learning approach, with a clear rationale for implementation within programmes that is underpinned by evidence.’

A vision for blended learning and where the Faculty should be in 5 years’ time was strongly presented in all of the responses. It is clear that all respondents see blended learning as part of a long-term strategy for the Faculty and it was stated by all respondents that all programmes and modules should have a blended/e-learning component.

‘90% of programmes should be offered by blended learning and should be seen as a normal expectation from module design through to validation and evaluation.’

‘…. Otherwise we will be left behind our competitors.’

Summary

Both the feedback from the e-swot and the questionnaires indicate that the Faculty has made progress in adopting a blended learning approach albeit fragmented and uneven. The developments to date have tended to be on an individual or programme basis emanating from enthusiastic and committed programme teams and range from validated blended learning programmes or modules, to programmes where the availability of Blackboard has provided lecturers with the


Report of the Blended Learning Task and Finish Group tools to develop their own solutions and approaches to using technology in support of student learning and teaching.

The feedback also indicated that there are gaps in our provision and areas that need defining and further attention. These areas tend to fall into 4 broad areas of strategy, pedagogy, programme development and resourcing in broad terms. They include









An integrated strategy for blended and e-learning that is conveyed to all stakeholders.

A curriculum framework that provides an educational underpinning for blended learning.

Faculty mechanisms that enable the evaluation of blended learning approaches.

Development support around the design of instructional media.











A resourcing model that acknowledges the ‘upfront’ development required for delivering blended learning programmes.

A guide for students that explains what blended learning is and the role of the learner within a blended learning environment.

A guide for staff that explains best practice in blended learning.

A staff development programme for developing blended learning programmes.

More availability of tools at the point of need such as classroom learning technology.

The issues highlighted in the e-swot and the questionnaires were carried forward into the work of the Task and Finish Group.

Topic reports

The group shared the work of reviewing the 7 topic areas identified in the HEFCE e-learning strategy with a view to making recommendations to the Learning Teaching and Assessment

Committee. A framework and guidelines were offered for the Task and Finish Group (Appendix 2).

The review was undertaken of the relevant literature around the 7 areas that would draw on the experience and research of other

Universities, JISC and the Higher Education Academy, and case studies that would inform more strategic approaches and recommendations to embed blended learning.

The topic reports are presented as Appendix 3.



Conclusion

Blended learning is really just learning and as such all the considerations, principles and practices that underpin our approach to developing and delivering programmes are relevant and applicable to blended learning. However adopting a blended learning framework as a strategic and institutional approach to programme development and delivery does have it own challenges. It requires modifications to existing practices and the establishing of new procedures; if the full potential of blended learning is to be realised for all stakeholders.

Many of these challenges and required changes are presented in the discussions, literature reviews and surveys that informed the writing of this report.

Blended learning practitioners across the HE sector are engaging in research and an evidence-base is developing and will continue to develop that will inform the Faculty approach and understanding of what a blended learning framework entails and its impact. This is particularly so where e-learning is integrated with existing F2F practice to provide new learning arrangements and opportunities for students and new teaching and support interactions for lecturers and tutors.

We have already made progress and are currently developing programmes that make use of a blended learning approach. As a

Faculty our progress in embedding blended learning reflects that of the HE sector in general. We have examples of innovators, and early adopters and have moved some way towards an early majority.

However, much work still needs to be done, both at strategic and operational levels, to move towards a full scale and sustainable implementation of blended learning as a framework that informs curriculum development and the student learning experience.

There is no road map for blended learning, but we know from our experience and evidence to date that it has the potential to attract new markets and new students; it has the potential to deliver programmes in a way that best meets the needs of employers; it has the potential to contribute to the retention of students by offering more engaging and flexible programmes; it has the potential to add value to our existing programmes and most importantly it has the potential to enhance the student learning experience and develop independent, and self-directed learners.

It is intended that the fulfilment and implementation of these strategic recommendations will deliver that potential.



Recommendations

The relevant topic reports when read in conjunction with the recommendations will provide further background information and pointers on operationalisation.





Establish a framework that supports the development of blended learning programmes from validation through to programme delivery and reflects the necessary modifications to the existing dominant campus based model. (1. Pedadgogy, curriculum design and development)

Prioritise investment in the development; distribution; access; evaluation and research of learning resources that support blended learning. (2. Learning resources and networked learning)



Develop effective and sustainable support systems to ensure that students gain the relevant technical and academic skills needed to engage with blended learning environments. (3. Student support, progression and collaboration)







Establish an effective and ongoing staff development programme to ensure all staff have the relevant skills to engage with, develop and support blended learning programmes. (4. Strategic management, human resources and capacity development)

Establish comprehensive quality assurance procedures for the development, delivery and evaluation of blended learning programmes and supporting learning materials in line with QAA recommendations and other emerging standards. (5. Quality)

Develop a research action plan that contributes to the University’s research strategy. (6. Research)



Develop closer working relationships with Learning and

Information Services to ensure that the infrastructure is responsive to and supports emerging e-learning pedagogies. (7.

Infrastructure and technical standards)

Blended Learning Task and Finish Group

31st March 2006



References

Alexander, S. (2001) ‘E-learning developments and experiences’.

Education and Training, Bradford, 43(4-5) pp240–248.

Association for Learning Technology (2005) ALT Learning Technology

Research Strategy, ALT. Available at: http://www.alt.ac.uk/ALT_2005_Research_Strategy_20050420.html.

Conole, G. The role of evaluation in the quality assurance of elearning. Available at: http://distlearn.man.ac.uk/events/abstract/conole.php

.

Fielding, A.; Harris, S. and King, S. (2004) Quality assurance for online courses: A view from the shop floor. Available at: http://distlearn.man.ac.uk/events/abstract/king.php

.

Figl,K.; Derntl, M. and Motschnig-Pitrik, R. (2005) Assessing the added value of blended learning: An experience-based survey of research paradigms. Available at: http://www.pri.univie.ac.at/~derntl/papers/ICL2005-final.pdf

Fitzgibbon, K.M. & Jones, N. (2004) ‘Jumping the hurdles: challenges of staff development delivered in a blended learning environment’.

Journal of Educational Media, 29(1), March.

Glasgow Caledonian University (2004) E-learning guides: 4.

Developing resources for e-learning. Available at: http://www.learningservices.gcal.ac.uk/apu/eguides/resources.pdf

Graham, C.R. (2006) ‘Blended learning systems: definition, current trends, and future directions’. In: Bonk, C.J. & Graham, C.R. (eds.).

(in press). Handbook of blended learning: Global Perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing. Available at: http://www.publicationshare.com/graham_intro.pdf. Accessed 19th

March 2006 .

Hughes, G. (2005) ‘Using blended learning to increase learner support and improve retention’. Conference paper presented at

Building Confidence: students as learners, staff as innovators,

Thames Valley University, June 2005.

JISC (2003) Embedding learning technology institutionally. A Senior

Management Briefing Paper. Available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/ibsm18embeddingLearni ngTech.pdf

Kennedy, D.M. (2005) ‘Standards for online teaching: lessons from the education, health and IT sectors’. Nurse Education Today, 25(1) pp23-30.



Kerres, M, and de Witt, C. (2003) ‘A didactical framework for the design of blended learning arrangements’. Journal of Educational

Media 28(2-3) pp102–113.

Khan, B.H. (2003) A framework for e-Learning. Available at: bookstoread.com/framework. Accessed 19th March 2006.

Lambrick, D. (2004) UNIGIS: Quality assurance crossing borders.

Available at: http://distlearn.man.ac.uk/events/abstract/lambrick.php

Lockwood, F (2003) ‘Flexible learning within MMU: working smarter not harder’. MMU Learning & Teaching in Action, 2(2) Summer.

Lockwood, F. (2004) Quality assurance in open, distance and on-line learning: from cottage industry into the mainstream. Available at: http://distlearn.man.ac.uk/events/abstract/lockwood.php

MacDonald, J. and McAteer, E. (2003) ‘New Approaches to Supporting

Students: strategies for blended learning in distance and campus based environments’. Journal of Educational Media, (October) 28,(2–

3) pp129–146.

Massy, J. (2006) ‘The Integration of Learning Technologies into

Europe's Education and Training Systems’. In: Bonk, C.J. & Graham,

C.R. (eds.). (in press). Handbook of blended learning: Global

Perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.

Available at: www.publicationshare.com/toc_section_intros2.pdf.

Accessed 19th March 2006.

Mayes, J.T. & Fowler, C.J.H. (1999) ‘Learning technology and usability: a framework for understanding courseware’. Interacting

With Computers, 11, pp485–497,

NATFHE (2003) On-Line Learning the lecturer’s experience. A Survey

Report. NAFTE, July, London.

O’Toole, J.M.and Absalom, D.J. (2003) ‘The impact of blended learning on student outcomes’. Journal of Educational Media, October

28(2–3) pp179–190.

Perry, S. and Tompkinson, B. (2004) Integrating e-learning into

University procedures at UMIST. Available at: http://distlearn.man.ac.uk/events/abstract/perry.php

QAA (2004) Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in Higher Education. (2nd ed) QAA: London. Available at: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/codeOfPractice/section

2/collab2004.pdf.

Rovai, A. P. and Jordan, H.M. (2004) ‘Blended Learning and Sense of

Community: A Comparative Analysis with Traditional and Fully Online

Graduate Courses’. International Review of Research in Open and



Distance Learning, 5(2), (August). Available at: www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/192/274. Accessed 19th

March 2006.

Salmon, G. (2000) E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page. Web resource available at: coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/salmonmodel/index.htm. Accessed 19th

March 2006.

Schweizer, K.; Paechter, M. and Weidenmann, B. (2003) ‘Blended learning as a strategy to improve collaborative task performance’.

Journal of Educational Media, (October) 28,(2–3), pp211–224.

Singh, H. (2003) ‘Building effective blended learning programmes’.

Educational Technology, 43(6) pp51–54. Available at: bookstoread.com/framework/blended-learning.pdf. Accessed 19th

March 2006.

Slater, J. (2004) Quality assurance in open & distance learning: A national perspective. Available at: http://distlearn.man.ac.uk/events/abstract/slater.php.

Slone, D. (2005) Blackboard Student Evaluation October – December

Semester 2005 – BSc (Hons) DIP (HE) Cancer and Palliative Care module. Marie Curie Cancer Care.

Smith, J. M. (2001). ‘Blended learning: An old friend gets a new name’ Executive Update, March. http://www.gwsae.org/Executiveupdate/2001/March/blended.htm

Tinto, V (1993) Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. (2nd ed) Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Valiathan, P. (2002) Blended learning models. Learning Circuits.

Available at: http://www.learningcircuits.org/2002/aug2002/valiathan.html.

Voos, R. (2003). ‘Blended learning: What is it and where might it take us?’ Sloan-C View, 2(1), pp2–5. Available at: www.sloanc.org/publications/view/v2n1/blended1.htm. Accessed 19th March

2006.

Walmsley, L. (2004) How quality learning can learn from distributed learning. Available at: http://www.ltu.mmu.ac.uk/ltia/issue8/walmsley.shtml.

William, P. Collaborative provision, and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning): QAA’s Revised Code of Practice.

Available at: http://distlearn.man.ac.uk/events/abstract/williams.php.


Report of the Blended Learning Task and Finish Group – Appendix 1

Task and Finish Group composition

Core Group

Jim Adams – Blended Learning Unit Manager

Audrey Blenkharn – Senior Lecturer, Programme Leader

Obed Brew –

Gill Briggs –

Denise Burley –

Senior Lecturer, Adult Health

LRC Manager – Westel House

Karen Elcock –

Pat Lindsay –

Charlie McGrory

Director of Studies, –

Post Qualifying (London)

Project Leader,

Learning Community Development


Senior Lecturer, Programme Leader

Carol Trespaderne – Lecturer, Community Nursing

Extended Group

Kate Beverley – Senior Lecturer, Human Sciences

Gwyneth Hughes – Principal Lecturer,

Educational Development

Lai Chan Koh – Principal Lecturer, Programme Leader

Tad Leduchowicz – Head of e-learning, E-learning Unit

Julia Magill-Cuerden – Teaching Fellow - FHHS

Karen Sheehy – Senior Lecturer,

Professional Development Co-ordinator

© TVU March 2006


Framework for undertaking the task

To date several staff have expressed interest in looking at particular areas. This is summarised below and if no one else expresses an interest I suggest this is what we go with in the first instance.

Topic Area

General overview, introduction to

Blended learning within the University and wider context.

Reviewers

Jim Adams

Methodology of review.

1. Pedagogy, curriculum design and development.

2. Learning resources and networked learning

3. Student support, progression and collaboration.

4. Strategic management, human resources and capacity development.

Jim Adams

Karen Sheehy

Lai Chan Koh

Audrey Blenkharn

Gill Briggs

Audrey Blenkharn

Karen Elcock

5. Quality

Karen Sheehy

Carole Trespaderne

Denise Burley

Pat Lindsay

Charlie McGrory

6. Research and evaluation.

7. Infrastructure and technical standards.

Karen Elcock

Gwyneth Hughes

Jim Adams

Obed BRew

Jim Adams Summary of brainstorm and other BB site to be included as relevant in the above

Conclusion Jim Adams

© TVU March 2006


Carrying out a review

Blended learning here incorporates e-learning.

I would suggest that our understanding and immediate experience of developing and delivering blended learning programmes, within the

Faculty and the University is a starting point for the review. It is important as the discussion boards illustrate that this experience is captured and eventually formulated as strategic recommendations for the LTAC. The focus of this aspect of the review is the practicality of embedding blended learning in institutional, academic and student support practices; and the support and resources needed to do so.

Some of this has been captured in the DBs, however it may be worth revisiting this, as reviewers, so that it is not part of a discussion, but is a list of key bullet points, from your experience, of what is needed,. what needs to be strengthened, what needs to be improved, what needs to be evaluated, what needs to developed. I think how these are achieved is for the LTA Committee to decide.

The what …. approach should help us move from the operational to the strategic.

It is also important not to lose sight of the educational principles that underpin any blended learning curriculum development or learning and teaching approach. Most of this will be picked up in the T&L group, but where possible it would be good to make reference to appropriate learning and teaching models or theoretical models; for example, work-based learning, situated learning, conversational theory, constructivism, EBL, student centre learning, collaborative learning.

It is also important that our recommendations are grounded in the evidence that exists, health and social care agendas, developing educational trends, so any recommendations reinforced by examples, case studies, research would help to strengthen the recommendations.

Although the focus of the student learning experience is addressed under topic 3, it should be present as much as possible in all topic areas, so possibly one recommendation for each area should focus on the student learning experience.

© TVU March 2006


Stages

Make contact with your partner reviewer.

Make a list of bullet points around the key area.

Share out the review of the literature as listed in

Blackboard. 2-3 articles each (max)

Search for, draw on other articles/resources if necessary.

Revise you bullet points in light of the review.

Map any recommendations, evidence from the literature back to you bullet points.

Write up a 200 word summary of the context, key issues for your topic area.

Follow up with 3 or 4 key recommendations.

Write a short conclusion

Deadline for 1st draft to

Jim by the 20th March.

What is needed?

What needs to be strengthened?

What needs to be improved?

What needs to be evaluated?

What needs to developed?

Summarise the key findings of these articles

© TVU March 2006


Topic Reports

1. Pedagogy, curriculum design and development

What is needed?



A TVU definition of blended learning.





A strategy for agreed pedagogy for validation of programmes and modules.

Curriculum design that reflects the pedagogy and the delivery mode of blended learning.

What needs to be strengthened?







A clear strategy for blended learning for the organisation.

Development of academic staff to the concepts of blended learning and technical training.

Development of administrative staff to support the online administration.





Instructional support for students.

Increased computers for the number of students we have.

What needs to be improved?



As above

What needs to be evaluated?



Current programmes and modules which have blended learning.

What needs to developed?



Designing programmes/modules using blended learning approach.

Literature review

Kerres and De Witt (2003) consider the typical ingredients of blended learning e.g. classroom interaction, interaction web-based training, email based communication, self-paced content and threaded discussion. They present a framework using the 3Cs (content, communication, construction) to describe didactical design decisions.

Singh (2003) provides a comprehensive view of blended learning and possible dimensions of offline/online learning. He describes the 4 dimensions of blended learning: self paced, live collaborative learning; structured/unstructured learning; custom content and offthe shelf content; learning, practice and performance support.

Learning approaches and choices with examples are offered. Benefits of blended learning are discussed. Two examples of blended learning were described, one from Stamford university and the other from the

© TVU March 2006


University of Tennessee. The author then suggests his Octagonal

Framework for blended learning which addresses 8 areas:

Institutional issues, Pedagogy, Technology, Interface design,

Evaluation, Management, Resource support and ethical issues.







An institutional definition of blended learning

A defined pedagogy for validation of programmes and modules

Curriculum design that reflects the interface design of blended learning with equal attention paid to each mode of delivery.





Technological provisions in both hardware and software.

Training and development for staff, and students.

Recommendations







An institutional definition of blended learning and strategy for blended learning.

Curriculum design that reflects the interface design of blended learning with equal attention paid to each mode of delivery.

Technological provisions in both hardware and software.




A clear institutional strategy for blended learning, ongoing development and training for academic and administrative staff, availability of technological equipment and material as well as student support are critical issues to be addressed before a blended learning approach is adopted.

© TVU March 2006


2. Learning resources and networked learning

For the purposes of this review learning resources are defined as all instructional media. However, as the key issue in blended learning appears to be the integration of traditional teaching and learning with e-learning methodology the review will focus on electronic resources.

Electronic resources include the Internet, intranets, extranets, satellite broadcasts, audio/videotape, interactive TV and CD-Rom. All of these resources are currently available within the Faculty. However their use within programmes and modules is variable.

Learning resources need to be accessible to all, and those using them should feel comfortable with them and supported in their use. From the student perspective, consideration should be given to specifications of hardware and software, provision of passwords and user ID’s in a simple and timely manner (ideally through a single gateway) and the availability on ongoing technical support. If elearning is a key element to a programme or module passwords and user ID’s must be available on day one!

Equally important is an assurance that students have received sufficient training and acquired an acceptable level of information literacy, enabling them to search independently for suitable material from reliable sources.

Resources also need to be flexible, dynamic and re-usable; improvements could be made in capturing output from discussion groups and archiving it for future use, thus providing a bank of material relevant to common areas of study.

It is important to consider what type of resources students will need and whether these are already available and if so are these of good quality (GCU, 2004). If new resources have to be created then time, budget and expertise need to be considered (EPIC, 2003). Other questions to consider are:







Will more sophisticated delivery methods enhance the learning process?

Will the time and effort be worthwhile long term?

Will resources be easy for students to use?





Will students need additional software/hardware to view them?

Will resources encourage interaction and dialogue?



Can they be used for multiple modules?

Ideally resources should be developed by a professional team – tutors, instructional designers, graphic designers and technical experts. This approach is most likely to produce resources that are

© TVU March 2006

Report of the Blended Learning Task and Finish Group – Appendix 3 educationally effective, visually attractive and technically robust thus enhance learning.

A FHHS LRC survey showed that 50% of students did not know their

Athens password. The majority of students in FHHS not using electronic resources stated they were not comfortable with using them and more frequently used Google.

Recommendations





A Single sign-on system needs to be implemented in order to provide easy access to learning resources specific to students' study needs.

Adequate training and ongoing support must be provided to ensure all students make full and proper use of the resources available to them





A resource that develops the relevant digital literacy and information retrieval skills needs to be developed and integrated into all programmes and made explicit at validation.

A system/process which takes into account the IPR (Intellectual

Property Rights) and ownership of materials needs to be developed to ensure that learning resources are publicised, made available and shared across the Faculty.

© TVU March 2006


3. Student support, progression and collaboration

What is needed?





An integrated learning environment i.e. a seamless flow from classroom to Bb and other learning technologies.

Ability to develop learning communities (not only TVU pre-reg ones) in which our students engage.



Peer review of academic staffs’ ability in using Bb and other learning technologies.



Identified ‘mentors’ who are skilled to mentor those less skilled.




Our use of GroupWise and Bb.






Number of lecturers with e-moderating skills.

Feedback skills of lecturers.



Skills of lecturers in developing blended learning materials - both paper and electronic materials.




Existing programmes using a blended approach and how we support students in more traditional learning situations.





Students’ perceptions of support.

Experiences of academic staff in supporting students on Bb and other e-learning approaches.

What needs to be developed?



Mechanisms to facilitate good student support.







Staff - through staff development programme to develop lecturer skills for utilising blended learning approaches

(developing paper based and e-learning materials; emoderating etc.)

Resource repository that lecturers can use for core activities that may be common to many blended learning programmes that develop student’s skills in participating in blended learning approaches (e.g. intro to Bb, academic skills etc.)

Tools to help students use Bb more effectively especially if not

IT literate (both workbooks and activities).

© TVU March 2006



Schweizer et al (2003) found that learners who worked together F2F had much more coherent discourse than learners did in a pure elearning situation. However, they also found that when students were required to collaborate in problem solving they achieved this better in synchronous settings, but not necessarily F2F.

McDonald & McAteer (2003) compared student support in two different blended learning approaches, distance learning and campusbased. Their conclusions were that F2F has clear benefits in the degree of interaction generated and for building relationships. It is also ‘time bound’ therefore easy for the tutor to define involvement.

E-support on the other hand increases individual contact with students and this contact is more continuous. The use of e-mail and discussion boards extends the tutorial support beyond real-time tutorials and messages can be shared with a wider audience.

However, they also conclude that the number of e-mails or discussion board messages needed to meet students’ needs may be considerably in excess of the number of tutorials to achieve the same purpose. One F2F intervention can address a variety of issues in response to tutor probing and students’ reaction.

Citing Tinto (1993), McDonald & McAteer (2003) highlight the importance of establishing relationships in contributing to learning and student retention and suggest that initial F2F contact is important in building these relationships, as well as introducing and familiarizing learners with communications software.

The authors feel that F2F and e-communication can be used to complement one another but that the latter needs to be integrated into the learning experience and not simply added on. They stress that unless it is an integral part of the programme few student will participate. This is a recurring theme in all the literature.

Smith (2001) states that adults need to feel comfortable with technology as a learning tool otherwise the process of having to learn new soft/hardware gets in the way of learning. Salmon (2000) states there needs to be a well developed introduction to e-communication.

Students need guidance on how different types of support and roles fit together to meet their needs and students look to tutors for leadership. Often on-line discussions are loosely managed by tutors.

A survey by Masie Centre (2000) cited in Valiathan (2002) found that

90% of respondents placed a high value on a facilitator ‘managing’ their learning experience i.e. monitoring progress, evaluating on-line work, building and facilitating an on-line community and being available via e-mail or discussion board to respond to content questions. The survey also concluded that combing self-paced

© TVU March 2006

Report of the Blended Learning Task and Finish Group – Appendix 3 learning with facilitator supported learning reduced feelings of isolation.

What conclusions can we draw from the literature?









Students and tutors need to be well briefed in the use of e-mail, discussion boards and on-line learning resources.

Students need to feel part of a learning community and rely on the tutor to build and maintain this.

On-line communication must be integral to any programme not an add on.

A combination of F2F and on-line contact works best.



On-line communication is more time costly but does have the advantage of increasing individual contact and continuity of contact with students.

Blackboard Student Evaluation October – December Semester

2005

This paper is a summary of the evaluation of Bb by students on the

BSc (Hons) DIP (HE) Cancer and Palliative Care which is undertaken away from TVU. Some interesting points made in relation to student support.

1.

A number of students had difficulties accessing Bb because it was new to them and/or not very IT literate. Preparation sessions/material are therefore very important.

2.

Layout not easy to navigate so we need to improve how we help students navigate and understand it.

3.

Many had not accessed or accessed rarely Bb. This limited and irregular use does not develop the necessary skills for engagement. There is a need to ensure the development of learning activities that encourage access and improve skills level.

4.

Bb seen positively as offering access to valuable materials to tutor and other students.

Using blended learning to increase learner support and

improve retention.

Hughes (2005) notes the following important areas to in relation to student support:

1.

Identifying at risk students early by: a.

Keeping a record of frequency of log-ins and interaction on

Bb b.

Early use of a formative assessment.

© TVU March 2006


2.

The importance of having a tutor who can offer effective on-line support to students and can guide the student appropriately.

3.

The value of on-line peer support.

4.

The need to mentor tutors new to e-learning to help them to develop the required skills to provide support to students online.

Recommendations







Both students and tutors need to be effectively prepared for elearning.

The use of Bb or any other virtual learning environment must be integral to the learning experience with activities designed to engage students in discussion and collaboration and knowledge acquisition.

Tutors need to build and maintain a learning community. This requires skill therefore effective student support requires good staff development programmes.

© TVU March 2006


4. Strategic management, human resources and capacity development

What is needed?



Managers should make clear the role e-learning and learning technology should play in achieving institutional/FHHS objectives.







An appropriate and knowledgeable managerial framework that drives e-learning forward.

An audit of current and expected e-skills and some idea of the level of expertise within FHHS

Staff development should be planned and based on an audit of current skill/knowledge levels and decided in consultation with staff.




A clear strategy for blended learning for the organisation and development of a core skills framework.



Development and career progression for all staff in relation to engagement with blended learning and technical training expertise.




A clear expectation that all staff will engage and deliver learning and teaching by blended learning.



Unless they meet the core skill requirement new staff are not recruited.







Current staff development approaches.




An audit tool for staff development.


Manchester Metropolitan University (Lockwood, 2003) have identified e-learning and flexible learning with 50% of delivery expected to be online by 2006. MMU have a growing expertise and the article gives some useful references for strategy development.

NATFHE (2003) undertook a comprehensive survey exploring FE & HE lecturers’ experiences of online learning and in particular about the impact on their working life, for instance in terms of balance of work, overall workload, and access to training. The focus is on blended

© TVU March 2006

Report of the Blended Learning Task and Finish Group – Appendix 3 learning rather than distance learning. Key issues are identified in relation to training for online e-learning and student expectations.

A case study by Fitzgibbon and Jones (2004) addresses the challenges for the development of staff development within the

University of Glamorgan. It outlines the process of an e-learning initiative and the model of teaching and learning is examined. The paper concludes that a blended learning environment lends itself well to staff development for e-learning initiatives.

Summary

There are emerging and changing roles in learning and teaching in FE and HE. New specialities such as learning technologists, educational developers and researchers mean that teachers will have expanding demands on their time and workload. Academics are taking on more responsibility for learning technology support and play a role in the development of learner IT key skills (JISC, 2003).

The impact of new technologies and staff development to enhance learner skills is crucial. Most universities have dedicated central learning technology support units yet the units are not explicit in institutional objectives and strategies. There are pockets of activity and innovation which is reflected in FHHS at the moment.

Benchmarked units nationally have the following (1) Good collaborative networks, internally and with other institutions. (2)

Targeted support for teaching staff to integrate learning technology into their courses. (3) Dept/service teams to meet strategic aims. (4)

Specialist ILT teams within computer departments. (5) A requirement on programmes of study to address student ICT skills. (6) A requirement on departments to demonstrate pedagogical research

/scholarship of teaching’ (JISC, 2003, p2).

It would seem timely to audit the FHHS current workforce with regards to ICT skills and plan staff development strategically against benchmarks for core skills sets (NAFTE, 2003). A clear statement of intent needs to be made regarding the role e-learning should play in achieving intuitional objectives (JISC, 2003)

Recommendations







Develop an institutional strategy for staff development in blended learning.

Link training and development for staff, and students to an internal audit and benchmarks of good practice.

Disseminate a clear expectation that all staff will engage and deliver learning and teaching by blended learning.

© TVU March 2006


5. Quality




Within blended learning how do we identify those students requiring additional support (to ensure they don't just disappear off the radar)?




Evaluation of distance-learning elements needs to be strengthened as this seems to be a particular problem with this mode of delivery. What would provide reliable and focussed feedback which measures quality and provides useable data for future improvements?




How do we ensure consistency in maintaining and updating materials? Is there a 'prompt' system for this?



Is BS8426 code of practice for e-support in e-learning systems relevant to TVU at all?




What systems do we have/do we need to ensure consistency and quality across the board in blended learning programmes in terms of access to and delivery of programmes, reliability of systems?


Walmsley (2004) found that distance learning often had the same quality framework as traditional provision and as this is not appropriate there is a need to develop a tool that is ‘fit for purpose’.

Fielding (2004) looked at how on-line courses fit into the quality assurance framework and considered the QAA drivers such as the

‘Disability Discrimination Act’, institutional requirements and a person’s own professional standards. Fielding comments that the QAA draft code, section 2, includes e-learning whereas the 1999 QAA guidelines target open and distance learning strategies which are not appropriate for newer courses e.g. what is an acceptable email response time is not in the 1999 guidelines. He found that the QAA processes asked the right questions but there was lack of guidance on how they should be interpreted for open and distance learning.

Perry and Tompkinson (2004) describe how the QAA procedures were used on a visit to the ‘Process Integration Centre’ in 2003. This was completely computer based (therefore not blended learning) but used some of the same technologies. Quality systems for student feedback

© TVU March 2006

Report of the Blended Learning Task and Finish Group – Appendix 3 and interactions included e-mail, web conferencing; PC based video conferencing and telephone.

Lockwood (2004) questioned whether the quality of open and distance learning material was acceptable and also asks ‘how can we assure the quality of the learning experience?’ Issues to be considered:









Cost effectiveness.

Appropriate material.

Support and retention.

Briefing and training of staff.









Development testing.

Technical support.

SENDA 2001 Requirements (Special Educational Needs).

Student assessment.



Copyright.

Cole has commented that there is much research around evaluating the effectiveness of on-line courses but many research questions remain unanswered e.g. what skills do teachers/students need in order to use on-line effectively? Is e-learning better than face-to-face teaching? Frameworks for evaluation, the OU evaluation focuses on context, interaction and outcomes.

Slater (2004) revised the QAA code to reflect open and distance learning and to include e-learning. The Code expects that flexible and distance learning arrangements should widen learning opportunities without prejudicing the academic standard of the award or the quality offered to students.

He comments that a problem for HEIs is the quality of data held about students e.g. information regarding disability is not always held centrally.

Postal and email addresses as well as mobile telephone numbers are needed in order to drive blended learning but the information kept on systems is often patchy. This is important with regards to sending emails and obtaining feedback. HEIs need to put more effort into their record systems. QAA recognise that BS8426 (Code of Practice for e-support in e-learning systems) are relevant and that HEIs fall into a wider context. He concluded that some HEIs are developing their own codes of practice that relate to credit transfer principles and also noted that there are some disparities of students and procedures, especially where there are collaborations outside the UK.

© TVU March 2006


Lambrick (2004) focuses on collaboration with HEIs in the UK and abroad.

QAA Part B (8 parts) has aspects specific to ‘flexible’ and ‘distributed learning’ with the expectation listed and explanatory paragraphs.

This is a helpful guide/benchmark if TVU develops its own code but also when considering the quality assurance of existing or developing courses.

Kennedy (2005) There are limitations in this paper, it focuses on online teaching, discusses standards – not quality – though it is argued standards play a part in the wider issue of quality and was submitted for publication in Sept 2004 so views and opinions expressed may already be dated. Its strengths are it is written from a healthcare, nursing education standpoint and offers and overview of national and international approaches to standards setting and links this to quality.

The paper suggests QAA (1999) and Open and Distance Learning

Quality Council (Morley, 2000) standards tend to be derivative of standards constructed for conventional classroom teaching. It appears to warn against the danger of ending up with institutionally set standards/benchmarks which have little relevance or meaning to educational staff and students and so are not supportive of online learning. Kennedy’s work would seem to have relevance then to our discussions given the acceptance of the Blackboard Discussion definition of blended learning. (BB, Aug 2004).

Four significant areas related to standards are outlined:

1.

The role of standards is only one element of the quality strategy, cites  vreteit (1992) in relation to health care that people and processes not standard setting and inspection are fundamental to a quality health service.

2.

The characteristics of standards are agreed properties not notional views - cites Nicklin and Kenworthy (2000) proposing useful standards are:



Meaningful: those who use them understand and value them,





Measurable: behaviours can be observed,

Monitorable: processes exist to ensure standards are met,



Managed: at both corporate (a framework for establishing/monitoring) and at individual level a strategy for application.

3.

The multiple effect of standards suggests their setting in one sector has implications elsewhere - see the discussion on the

© TVU March 2006

Report of the Blended Learning Task and Finish Group – Appendix 3 problems of enrolment and student access to online systems such as BlackBoard.

4.

The dangers of standards are that the right questions may not be asked such as “What features of online teaching (sic blended learning) must have priority?” before considering what may be appropriate standards. Not addressing this it as suggested leaves room for ‘quality apparatchiks’ who will draw up standards for every issue ensuring extra levels and layers of work completing reports related to institutional level procedures that do not encourage the work of supporting student learning.

Standards then can be valuable and helpful if driven by shared values and mutual agreement rather than external inspection and specifying minimums to keep out of trouble.

Kennedy (2005) goes on to outline how the use of asynchronous online discussion generated standards for online teaching and outlines the steps taken as well as offering examples from a ‘good practice checklist’ used in the University of Paisley. This appears to fit with the approach taken by the Blended Learning Task and Finish

Group.

Recommendations

The QAA code is helpful, detailed and as it has been revised in light of the new technologies available it should form the basis of any quality framework developed in relation to blended learning within TVU.

Several points need to be considered in conjunction with the QAA

Code (Section 2).



There is the need to develop a quality framework to reflect blended/distance/e-learning within TVU.









The infrastructure to support this form of learning needs to be in place i.e. IT support and data retrieval systems.

Quality standards should be established for learning materials/activities and subject to review at validation.

Quality standards should be established for online communications and tutorial support.

Develop a quality structure from the bottom up which the majority of all (academic, administrative, managerial) staff contribute to and sign up to and which focuses on processes to support learning.

© TVU March 2006


6. Research and evaluation

What is needed?



Development of simple effective tool(s) for evaluating blended learning.




Commitment to evaluation of e-learning.




Peer review of online learning.



Dissemination of research and evaluation of e-learning at TVU.




Identify which programmes use blended learning.





Quality of the materials being used.

Effectiveness of different pedagogic approaches e.g. is putting lecture notes and presentations online approach enough?

















Students’ use of e-learning.

Students’ perceptions of this approach.

Lecturers’ perceptions on this approach.

Impact on student attrition and attainment.

Cost effectiveness of e-learning.

Use of appropriate online assessment.

Training and development for staff and students in e-learning.

Readiness to learn.





Motivational reasons for participation.

Person-centered dispositions of the students and instructors.





Understandability of content.

Learning platform functionality, usability, support.

What needs to be developed?









Robust research and evaluation strategy.

Methods for quality assurance of e-learning.

Ways of reusing and repurposing quality checked e-learning materials.

Ways of piloting new e-learning technologies and disseminating results.

© TVU March 2006



A study by O’Toole, and Absalom (2003) looked at a blended module where students could attend a lecture and/or get the lecture notes and materials via a VLE. There were F2F tutorials but no online discussion. The students were given a test and the results correlated with their mode of attendance. Those who attended lectures scored highest and most of these students also looked at web materials.

Those who did not attend lectures but read the online materials did less well while others performed even worse because, although they downloaded materials, they did not attend the lecture or read and they were lulled into a false sense of security. The conclusion is that web materials should not be used to replace lectures completely.

However, there are problems with the study. The study acknowledges that those attending the lecture might be the most motivated learners but whether the lecture contributed to motivation is not clear. It could be that these learners would have done well whatever the delivery method as they were the most able and motivated. Also since there was not any tutor feedback or interaction on the VLE, this is very limited use and it would be hardly be expected to produce good results.

The ALT research strategy (2005) is to combine the pedagogical concerns with the potential of new technologies and not to be swayed by uninformed techno-enthusiasm. Research questions could include:

How do we deliver a personalised experience within a mass system with learners in control?



How do we make learning reusable?







How do we deliver to a more global, diverse set of learners?

How do we ensure a good completion rate for the learning?

How do we ensure cost effective efficient learning? E.g. multimedia looks great but can be very expensive.





How do we devise and deploy appropriate assessment?

How do we build in quality assurance support?



How do we harness informal technology based learning to support formal learning? (e.g. informal learning communities, games and edu-tainment).

These seem fine as very broad areas but there are other things we need to question e.g. what new learning to learn skills do learners need? How can learning support be improved using technologies?

Which learners are already benefiting from new technologies and how can this be extended?

© TVU March 2006


Figl et al explored a number of different research approaches in an attempt to identify the best approach for evaluating the added value of blended learning. The authors argue that as blended learning is based on social as well as technological theories there is no one best method that can cover all the different research questions and recommend a triangulation of methods.

Evaluation Research – Impact analysis evaluates the consequences of an implementation. Formative evaluation evaluates the intervention and its results have an impact on further actions whereas summative evaluation occurs at the end and gives a summative judgement. External evaluation uses someone form outside and so provides objectivity whereas internal evaluation allows attention to be focused on areas of particular interest to the project.

Experimental Trials – seen as the ‘best’ but replicability difficult with a blended learning approach and explanatory power is low with blended learning because of the situational aspects.

Action Research – this paper offers an extended action research approach which also employs hypothesis building and experimental trials.

Design Based Research – Useful approach for developing new educational and learning theories.

Paper goes onto present its own research into blended learning. The list of factors evaluated could be a useful start for ourselves to explore.





Readiness to learn.

Motivational reasons for participation.









Person-centered dispositions of the students and instructors.

Understandability of content.

Learning platform functionality, usability, support.

Profitable aspects of the course.















Open knowledge questions.

Specific questions for the learning contract.

Learning on three levels.

Personality items (e.g., the big five, measured by Neo-FFI [2]).

Team orientation (e.g., measured by scales of the questionnaires BIP [11] or FAT [12]).

Quality and length of questionnaire.

Degree of contribution and degree of benefit from the course.

© TVU March 2006


A study by Schweizer et al, (2003) analysed how two groups of learners worked together in e-learning and blended learning environments. They found that where ‘the group members had to share and exchange their knowledge to come to a joint solution they achieved better results in synchronous settings, especially in the videoconference and the face-to-face setting and that learners in the blended learning condition who worked together face-to-face led a much more coherent discourse than learners in the pure e-learning conditions.’

Newsgroups achieved poorly for many of the tasks. Where students need to exchange knowledge to come to a joint solution they achieved better results in synchronous settings (videoconferencing & face to face). Newsgroups were only suitable where knowledge exchange for task performance was not required for task completion.

We therefore need to consider carefully the task and expectations before deciding on the communication setting.

© TVU March 2006


7. Infrastructure and technical standards

Issues around infrastructure and technical standards tended to fall outside the remit and expertise of this group. It is suggested therefore that a further investigation into the support and technical requirements of providing and developing a resilient and expanding infrastructure to meet the emerging needs of e-pedagogy is undertaken by the relevant University staff.

However during the literature review and e-swot many references were made to the requirements of technology and standards, especially where they impact on delivery and the student learning experience.

Several are included here to provide an insight into some of the issues.



There is a need to ensure adequate provision of PCs to enable students to access learning materials and support.





Schemes for student purchase or loan of laptops should be investigated.

A standard Microsoft Office suite should be available on both staff and student PCs to ensure compatibility between applications and resources.









Consideration should be given to the NHS firewall as a potential barrier to accessing Blackboard in the NHS Trust sites.

Electronic enrolment should be given priority.

A ‘test bed’ should be set-up where new developments can be piloted and evaluated.

The Content Management System and Portal for Blackboard should be rolled out.



Implement sign-on to systems and applications for staff and students.

‘There is a requirement to have resilience in the system so that failed delivery through one medium can be covered by alternative delivery through another. Some attention is given to resilience of delivery systems in a conventional computer sense. It is not however recognised that most failures to deliver are not through technology

but through the poor information that underpins the system.’ (Slater,

2004)

© TVU March 2006


© TVU March 2006

Blended Learning Report

Report to the Learning, Teaching and

Assessment Committee of the Blended

Learning Task and Finish Group

Related documents

Products

Support

Blended Learning Report

Report to the Learning, Teaching and

Assessment Committee of the Blended

Learning Task and Finish Group

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib