Effective Blended Learning Practices:
Evidence-Based Perspectives in ICT-Facilitated Education Elizabeth Stacey Deakin University, Australia Philippa Gerbic Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand
Information science reference Hershey • New York
Director of Editorial Content: Senior Managing Editor: Managing Editor: Assistant Managing Editor: Typesetter: Cover Design: Printed at:
Kristin Klinger Jamie Snavely Jeff Ash Carole Coulson Larissa Vinci Lisa Tosheff Yurchak Printing Inc.
Published in the United States of America by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Suite 200 Hershey PA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail:
[email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com/reference and in the United Kingdom by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 3 Henrietta Street Covent Garden London WC2E 8LU Tel: 44 20 7240 0856 Fax: 44 20 7379 0609 Web site: http://www.eurospanbookstore.com Copyright © 2009 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identi.cation purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Effective blended learning practices : evidence-based perspectives in ICT-facilitated education / Elizabeth Stacey and Philippa Gerbic, editor. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: “This book provides insight into the practice of blended learning in higher education”--Provided by publisher. ISBN 978-1-60566-296-1 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-60566-297-8 (ebook) 1. Education, Higher--Computer-assisted instruction. 2. Blended learning. I. Stacey, Elizabeth, 1949- II. Gerbic, Philippa, 1954LB2395.7.E37 2009 378.1’734--dc22
2008050171
British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.
Editorial Advisory Board
Randy Garrison, University of Calgary, Canada Ron Oliver, Edith Cowan University, Australia
Table of Contents
Foreword.............................................................................................................................................. xiv Preface.................................................................................................................................................. xvi Chapter I Introduction to Blended Learning Practices............................................................................................ 1 Elizabeth Stacey, Deakin University, Australia Philippa Gerbic, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand Section I Strategies for Blended Teaching and Learning Chapter II Including Online Discussions Within Campus-Based Students’ Learning Environments.................... 21 Philippa Gerbic, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand Chapter III Strategies for Blended Approaches in Teacher Education..................................................................... 39 Ruth Geer, University of South Australia, Australia Chapter IV Redesigning Initial Teacher Education.................................................................................................. 62 Mary Simpson, University of Otago, New Zealand Bill Anderson, University of Otago, New Zealand Chapter V Integrating New Technologies into Blended Learning Environments................................................... 79 Ana A. Carvalho, University of Minho, Portugal Zdena Lustigova, Charles University, Czech Republic Frantisek Lustig, Charles University, Czech Republic
Chapter VI Teacher and Student Responses to Blended Environments................................................................. 105 Guglielmo Trentin, Institute for Educational Technology, Italian National Research Council, Genoa, Italy Steve Wheeler, University of Plymouth, UK Section II Establishing Communities Chapter VII Blending Collaborative Online Learning with Workplace and Community Contexts........................ 125 Peter J. Smith, Deakin University, Australia Elizabeth Stacey, Deakin University, Australia Tak Shing Ha, University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong Chapter VIII Establishing Communities of Practice for Effective and Sustainable Professional Development for Blended Learning..................................................................................................... 144 Terrie Lynn Thompson, University of Alberta, Canada Heather Kanuka, University of Alberta, Canada Chapter IX Virtual Learning and Real Communities: Online Professional Development for Teachers................ 163 Julie Mackey, University of Canterbury, New Zealand Chapter X Blended Learning and Professional Development in the K-12 Sector................................................ 182 Suzanne Riverin, Regional e-Learning Contact - Barrie Region, Ontario, Canada Section III Teacher Transitions and Professional Learning Chapter XI Blended Learning and Teaching Philosophies: Implications for Practice........................................... 204 Faye Wiesenberg, University of Calgary, Canada Elizabeth Stacey, Deakin University, Australia Chapter XII Blended Learning and the New Pressures on the Academy: Individual, Political, and Policy Driven Motivators for Adoption........................................................................................ 222 Gayani Samarawickrema, Deakin University, Australia
Chapter XIII Case Studies of ICT-Enhanced Blended Learning and Implications for Professional Development.............................................................................................................. 239 Gail Wilson, Bond University, Australia Chapter XIV Blending Technology into an Academic Practice Qualification for University Teachers.................... 259 Cathy Gunn, University of Auckland, New Zealand Adam Blake, University of Auckland, New Zealand Chapter XV Reciprocal Mentoring “In The Wild”: A Retrospective, Comparative Case Study of ICT Teacher Professional Development.......................................................................................... 280 M. Brooke Robertshaw, Utah State University, USA Heather Leary, Utah State University, USA Andrew Walker, Utah State University, USA Kristy Bloxham, Utah State University, USA Mimi Recker, Utah State University, USA Chapter XVI Conclusion........................................................................................................................................... 298 Philippa Gerbic, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand Elizabeth Stacey, Deakin University, Australia Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 312 About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 347 Index.................................................................................................................................................... 353
Detailed Table of Contents
Foreword.............................................................................................................................................. xiv Preface.................................................................................................................................................. xvi Chapter I Introduction to Blended Learning Practices............................................................................................ 1 Elizabeth Stacey, Deakin University, Australia Philippa Gerbic, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand This chapter introduces blended learning practices in ICT-facilitated education for supporting adult learners in different contexts. The concept of blended learning is introduced with a thorough discussion of the way the term is defined in the literature about the field and also reviews the conceptual underpinnings and frameworks reported in a wide review of the international literature about blended learning, and begins a comprehensive discussion of the field to date. It reviews literature about blended learning in relation to the three sections of the book and discusses the development of ICT-based blended learning in its different contexts and its role in supporting adult learners providing a rationale for the researchbased chapters that follow. Section I Strategies for Blended Teaching and Learning Chapter II Including Online Discussions Within Campus-Based Students’ Learning Environments.................... 21 Philippa Gerbic, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand This chapter presents case study research which investigates online discussions as they occur within the broader framework of the learning design or curriculum within a blended environment in a campusbased degree programme. It describes how the online environment can be used in a complementary way to exploit the reflective nature of online learning while the face-to–face environment should be the place where the teacher prepares students to interact online with carefully designed discursive activities that use the potential of the online medium. The pedagogical aspects of such blended learning practices
are analysed and its advantages for students in the study for whom English is a second language are discussed. The chapter provides insights into influential factors for undergraduate student learning and makes recommendations for teachers who wish to advance the educational potential of the new communication medium. Chapter III Strategies for Blended Approaches in Teacher Education..................................................................... 39 Ruth Geer, University of South Australia, Australia This chapter draws on a study of Australian undergraduate teacher education students whose on-campus interaction is complemented by both individual and collaborative group activities in an online environment and describes strategies for fostering higher order cognition in a blended learning environment. It highlights the critical nature of effective instructional design and extends the educator’s understanding of the complexities of online and blended learning environments through an analysis of the discourse of computer-mediated communication in a first year teacher education course. The investigation results in the development of a pedagogical framework which outlines the relationship between pedagogies, technologies and their related learning outcomes. Critical indicators which are potentially important for strategies and early warning signs become evident in the analysis. The research leads to notions of imprinting and cognitive tracks which are used to inform strategies for teaching and learning using a blended approach. Chapter IV Redesigning Initial Teacher Education.................................................................................................. 62 Mary Simpson, University of Otago, New Zealand Bill Anderson, University of Otago, New Zealand This chapter outlines the redesign of a university programme that was based on two areas of literature – research into adult learners/learning, and the theory and research that proposes and discusses the value, development and nature of learning communities. Using survey data as their evidence of student perspectives, the chapter describes the design of a course and online learning environment that acknowledged learner independence and learner centredness as well providing as a non-course online gathering place for social student interaction and a staff development site of online resources. Their redesign blends a range of technological possibilities with audiovisual digital files contributed by students as well as teaching staff. The blending of student groups, the distance students more dependent on online interaction than the on campus, also meant there was the basis for a collaborative community also designed into the program with aspects of seminar participation and e-portfolio development as assessable items in the courses. The model is recommended as a pedagogical basis for redesign rather than being driven by the potential of available technologies despite the importance of their role in the blend. Chapter V Integrating New Technologies into Blended Learning Environments................................................... 79 Ana A. Carvalho, University of Minho, Portugal Zdena Lustigova, Charles University, Czech Republic Frantisek Lustig, Charles University, Czech Republic
The first section of the chapter describes a Portuguese study about the use of podcasts in blended learning courses delivered through the learning management system, Blackboard, through which the teacher provided education students with instruction about online discussions and feedback on their online postings and presentations. The students preferred the teacher’s voice in the podcasts to written text and this section provides strategies for teachers to effectively integrate podcasts into their blended learning practice. The chapter then describes a study from the Czech Republic that describes how the scientifically exact and problem-solving-oriented remote and virtual science experimental environment might help to build a new strategy for online science education through a project of electronic labs (E-Labs) that enables the handling of real objects in science experiments by students at remote locations. This blended learning environment, developed at Charles University in Prague, has been offered to science students in both, formal and informal learning, and also to science teachers within their professional development studies. Chapter VI Teacher and Student Responses to Blended Environments................................................................. 105 Guglielmo Trentin, Institute for Educational Technology, Italian National Research Council, Genoa, Italy Steve Wheeler, University of Plymouth, UK The first section is an overview about how the concept of blended solutions is interpreted in the Italian network-based education context. This section describes blended solutions based on formal and informal learning processes from the integration of online and onsite interactions. This section includes a detailed set of recommendations about how blended solutions should be structured, how the teachers should be trained for the design of onsite/online integration activities, and how to formally recognize both the eteacher status and the activities carried out by teachers online. In the second section of the chapter, an overview of some of the best practices of blended and personalised learning in the United Kingdom is presented, and there is a critical review of some of the recent British research into the efficacy of learning management system (LMS) based blended learning approaches. Section II Establishing Communities Chapter VII Blending Collaborative Online Learning with Workplace and Community Contexts........................ 125 Peter J. Smith, Deakin University, Australia Elizabeth Stacey, Deakin University, Australia Tak Shing Ha, University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong This chapter draws on research conducted by the authors from several research projects located in both Australia and Hong Kong with adult learners who participate in communities of practice and communities of learning in their own work or life contexts, and provides insights into how these outside-institution learning environments can be used in a more deliberate blending to enhance student learning experience. Their focus is on how formal learning communities can be blended with more informal and often
naturally occurring workplace communities, and the interaction that can occur as they make a case for including this phenomenon in the definition of blended learning. Chapter VIII Establishing Communities of Practice for Effective and Sustainable Professional Development for Blended Learning..................................................................................................... 144 Terrie Lynn Thompson, University of Alberta, Canada Heather Kanuka, University of Alberta, Canada This chapter investigates how blended learning practices can be used for the sustained professional learning of teachers in higher education through the establishing of communities of practice and raises the problematic issue of whether such communities only form naturally or can indeed be constructed and managed. Directors in several North American professional development centres were interviewed in order to explore how their programs supported the integration of technology into teaching and it was found that the use of such blended learning practices were less common than anticipated and there were tensions between what was occurring in such centres and what was hoped to be achieved. The chapter concludes with policy implications and recommendations for future development of effective and sustainable professional development practices. Chapter IX Virtual Learning and Real Communities: Online Professional Development for Teachers................ 163 Julie Mackey, University of Canterbury, New Zealand This chapter explores the notion of multi-membership of communities through the interaction and intersection of online communities and workplace-based communities of practice. Blended learning is examined via the experiences of teachers participating in qualification-bearing online professional development courses while simultaneously engaging in everyday professional practice in the classroom. A “communities of practice” framework guides the interpretation of teachers’ perspectives of their membership, identity, activities and experiences in the online and school communities. The evidence from this study suggests that online courses can promote the contextual learning opportunities which exist in the everyday experiences of teachers in their local communities of practice and identifies the central role of learners using technology as a tool for blending the social contexts of their learning. Chapter X Blended Learning and Professional Development in the K-12 Sector................................................ 182 Suzanne Riverin, Regional e-Learning Contact - Barrie Region, Ontario, Canada This chapter examines the use of blended learning in an online community which supported teacher professional development in the province of Ontario, Canada for ten years. The online network which was called The Education Network of Ontario/ Le Réseau éducatif de l’Ontario (ENO/REO) used a blend of tools and some face-to-face opportunities to support teacher professional development across the province. Teachers were encouraged to use the ENO/REO environment to join in discussions, create and maintain online projects and share research and curriculum resources. The chapter focuses on a study which examined the effect of long term participation in such a community in order to provide insight into the use of blended learning in online communities for professional development.
Section III Teacher Transitions and Professional Learning Chapter XI Blended Learning and Teaching Philosophies: Implications for Practice........................................... 204 Faye Wiesenberg, University of Calgary, Canada Elizabeth Stacey, Deakin University, Australia This study explores the similarities and differences between Canadian and Australian university teachers’ face-to-face and online teaching approaches and perspectives in two comparable Canadian and Australian universities, both of which offer instruction in these two modes. The chapter explores whether moving from face-to-face to online teaching results in new teaching approaches or in the creative blending of those developed within the different teaching modalities. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected to report teachers’ face-to-face and online teaching experiences and teaching approaches and philosophies in terms of their beliefs, intentions and actions in both modalities. The authors discuss the findings in terms of how to assist teachers to successfully transition from traditional teacher-centred to newly emerging learner-centred teaching approaches in blended learning classrooms. Chapter XII Blended Learning and the New Pressures on the Academy: Individual, Political, and Policy Driven Motivators for Adoption........................................................................................ 222 Gayani Samarawickrema, Deakin University, Australia This chapter focuses on the factors relating to adopting blended learning by teaching academics and the associated social world around technology adoption in a large Australian university. Set up as an institutional case study, the findings are interpreted through two theoretical frameworks: diffusion of innovation theory and actor-network theory to reveal the complexities of innovation adoption. The chapter examines teaching academics’ individual motivations including the institution’s political and policy drivers, and shows how technology is shaped to fit a context, and how the context in turn shapes the use of technology. The closing discussion considers new work systems and processes that facilitate and accommodate change precipitated by technology adoption, and suggests how the transformation process might be supported. Chapter XIII Case Studies of ICT-Enhanced Blended Learning and Implications for Professional Development.............................................................................................................. 239 Gail Wilson, Bond University, Australia This chapter reports a collective study of research–based evidence of experiences of academic staff adopting ICT-facilitated education and transitioning to blended learning practices in a regional Australian university. It analyses seven dimensions of blended learning environments that these teachers create and provides a valuable framework for practitioners, researchers and policy makers seeking to understand the transition to blended learning. This chapter examines ways of analysing and defining blended learning environments (BLEs) by focusing on the scope, nature, and purpose of the blend adopted by individual
faculty across their courses. The chapter provides case examples of BLE dimensions and their basis for a professional development model to support staff in their transition to blended learning environments and can be used in successful institutional adoption of blended learning practices. Chapter XIV Blending Technology into an Academic Practice Qualification for University Teachers.................... 259 Cathy Gunn, University of Auckland, New Zealand Adam Blake, University of Auckland, New Zealand This chapter reports design–based research that is used to integrate a blended learning process into the reconceptualisation of a course in academic practice for New Zealand university teachers. The PostGraduate Certificate in Academic Practice is a qualification designed for academic staff and focuses on teaching and learning theories, and promotes creative uses of technology to reflect current trends in the local and international environment. They describe their continuous cycle of design, implementation, analysis and refinement and intertwining the development of these courses’ learning environment with learning theory, they devised a blended learning approach through situated learning. The detail they provide of their iterative cycles and refinement of solutions after gathering feedback from stakeholders will be particularly valuable for other designers of blended learning courses. Chapter XV Reciprocal Mentoring “In The Wild”: A Retrospective, Comparative Case Study of ICT Teacher Professional Development.......................................................................................... 280 M. Brooke Robertshaw, Utah State University, USA Heather Leary, Utah State University, USA Andrew Walker, Utah State University, USA Kristy Bloxham, Utah State University, USA Mimi Recker, Utah State University, USA This chapter reports research into a process of reciprocal mentoring between student teachers and experienced schoolteachers that enables technologically skilled student teachers to provide the basis for professional learning as the experienced schoolteachers reflect on their technological expertise and provide direction for its effective blended learning practice in their classrooms. Such a model could also be adapted to universities as skilled educational development and technical staff work with teachers with more pedagogical experience who apply a reciprocal mentoring process to their professional learning about blended learning practices. Findings about the nature of reciprocal mentoring partnerships, the factors that contribute to or detract from them and the ancillary benefits of these meaningful collaborations are discussed. Chapter XVI Conclusion........................................................................................................................................... 298 Philippa Gerbic, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand Elizabeth Stacey, Deakin University, Australia
The conclusion draws together the main themes identified under the sections of the book with a synthesis of the recommendations presented by the chapter authors which connect the outcomes of these research studies with practical suggestions in all aspects of blended learning practice. It identifies and discusses future trends and implications for learning as well as areas of further research. Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 312 About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 347 Index.................................................................................................................................................... 353
xiv
Foreword
Blended learning is a convergence between face-to-face and distance learning largely enabled by technological and telecommunications developments and fuelled by the need for greater flexibility in the learning environment. Many studies show that blended learning is both an effective learning model and a popular choice amongst students. Most learners want some form of face-to-face or at least real time interaction with their teacher, though they also want the flexibility which online access to materials and other students provides. This book gives ample evidence of the appropriateness of blended learning in different countries, institutions and settings. Despite its popularity, blended learning requires more careful design and support than traditional face-to-face teaching. Many institutions have insisted that all provision is blended and this has led to lecture notes or Powerpoint slides stuck on the Web with discussion boards made available for question and answer. This is NOT what should be called blended learning. The emphasis in this book on teacher training and staff development is a reflection of the importance of course design. In fact a move to blended learning should mean that all aspects of delivery are rethought. How should the face-to-face element best be used? How is the course content best provided? What other learning resources can be made available? What interactive technologies could be used? However, the fundamental question should be, “what is the underlying pedagogy of this course”? A purely lecture-based course usually implies a teacher-centric model, whereby the teacher is the subject expert who delivers this expertise to the students. A totally online course usually encourages a student-centric pedagogy in which the learner constructs knowledge of the content through interaction with resources, other students and the teacher. Blended learning, or the mix of face-to-face and online technologies, can go in either direction. Many teachers are unwilling to give up the power and control that a teacher-centric model gives them. Others are excited by the possibilities that technology provides to create an environment in which students can really engage with course ideas through discussion and debate, through self exploration of resources and through team work and collaborative projects. Arguably a student-centric approach helps learners develop appropriate skills for the workplace and sets the stage for a lifetime of learning. In Section II of this book, various chapters on the educational value of online community present research on informal learning environments. A good deal has already been written on this topic – whether these are “real”communities, how to develop and sustain informal communities and what benefits and disbenefits these communities have in the workplace and for society at large. Nevertheless, it is a useful extension of the practice of blended learning to have these four chapters in this volume.
xv
The growth of blended learning as a model of post-secondary learning seems to be assured for the foreseeable future. Hence the value of this book, based on research and representing practice in many countries and fields of learning. Robin Mason Professor of Educational Technology The Open University Robin Mason is Professor of Educational Technology at The Open University, UK. Her work spans teaching, research and scholarship in the area of e-learning, including online and distance education. She is co-author of ‘Elearning: The Key Concepts’ (Routledge, 2006), ‘The Educational Potential of e-Portfolios: Supporting Personal Development and Re.ective Learning’ (Routledge, 2007) and ‘The e-Learning Handbook: Social Networking for Education’ (Routledge, forthcoming). She is the leader of several European Union funded projects with universities in developing countries using open content to produce locally appropriate course material.
xvi
Preface
Writing and editing this book has been in many ways an application of the practice of blending face-toface interaction with the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) that blended learning involves. With two editors living in Australia and New Zealand respectively, face-to-face planning and discussion took place only twice with several days spent in the beginning developing the proposal for the book and again after chapters were approved by reviewers. In between these meetings, constant emails and phone calls, there was time allowed for periods of independent writing and reflection followed by electronic discussion, often about quite involved levels of cognitive thought and sharing of writing, much as we hope that students experience with blended learning. Face-to-face discussions inspired some good ideas, and visual and diagrammatic sharing, but the independent reading and writing that supported collaborative discussion was done alone at our desks though with online communication and resources always at hand. This blend of interaction through face-to-face and ICT was also the means of several collaborative chapters being written for the book and for the three-reviewer process that was established for submitted chapters. Such blended learning practice is becoming the basis for much of today’s academic research, collaborative writing, and course design, as well as for professional learning through online communities interspersed with opportunities for synchronous communication and/or face-to-face meetings. Though the term blended learning has achieved widespread acceptance, its application to academic and professional practice has led to this book’s title terminology of blended learning practices which brings a much wider scope of focus to this new field of ICT-facilitated education. Over the last two decades with the development of new technologies with great potential for learning, ICT-facilitated education has been widely adopted while online learning has also transformed many adult learning contexts. The resulting integration of online technologies and practices into physical settings has transported online learning from predominantly distance contexts to that of campus, work- and community-based settings. Blended learning is now a widely-accepted term to describe the range of teaching and learning strategies which have arisen from the mixing of different physical or virtual environments in universities, communities and the corporate sector. As the capability of online learning technologies have expanded and new learning environments have become possible, new issues about pedagogic values and the role and shape of online communities and the professional learning for teachers have also arisen. The relative newness of online learning within blended environments means that there has been a need for research on which to base good teaching practice and this book addresses this issue. The integration of online and ICT-facilitated practice within campus-based and face-to-face settings has resulted in a concept of blended learning which is now also used within distance contexts and workplace setting. This contemporary mix of physical and virtual learning environments is the foundational concept of this text and is explored from three different perspectives: blended university teaching and learning, communities of learning and practice, and teacher transitions and professional learning. The chapters of this book provide research perspectives on a range of blended learning issues and contexts
xvii
and discuss implications for teaching and learning. The book also links its research to practice through its discussion of pedagogy and recommendations for blended learning practices. Many current texts about online learning have either presented an overview of the field or are anthologies of ICT-based pedagogic initiatives with a strong practitioner perspective. This text complements these approaches by adding substantive research-based commentaries about ICT-facilitated education in blended environments. The predominant use of qualitative approaches in the book means that the discussion is situated in educational and community settings and enables a grounded consideration of issues and outcomes which is also connected to theoretical and conceptual thinking in the area. The focus on ICT-facilitated communication provides new knowledge about the ways in which these environments support learning and development for a wide range of blended learning settings. The grounded nature of the research provides detailed information to enable readers to consider its applicability to their own research or teaching contexts. The emergence of blended learning signals a new conceptual way of considering E-Learning or online learning which spans the historically separated settings of learners who are distant from each other in place or time and learners who meet in face-to-face settings. Now, there are many other combinations of the use of virtual and physical spaces in learning and the blended concept has the potential to operate as a unifying force and provide new knowledge to both researchers and practitioners across these diverse settings. There are three main sections to the book with an introductory chapter and a conclusion chapter. The sections focus on: • • •
Strategies for teaching and learning Establishing communities Teacher transitions and professional learning
The introductory chapter provides an overview of the complexity of blended learning both in the way it has been defined in the research literature so far and in the way this book extends this discussion. The first section of the book explores theoretical frameworks for blended learning while focusing on case studies of blended learning practice in universities around the world. The importance of curriculum design and assessment practices for effective blended learning is detailed and the integration of technological innovation into teaching and learning are examined critically with many ideas and recommendations for practice included. The second section explores both online communities and communities of practice and the blending of these virtual and physical aspects of community in a range of contexts internationally. Describing the explicit use of blended learning practices to establish more effective communities in workplaces and their intersection with online communities of learning both formal and informal is an important contribution of this book and provides a perspective that has not been clearly defined in the research literature so far. The final section provides a number of reports of research of teachers transitioning to blended learning practices with discussion of the pedagogical and institutional implications of this process. The final chapter draws together and synthesizes these issues and implications and provides detailed recommendations to provide an overall coherent approach for practitioners, course designers and institutional policy makers. Elizabeth Stacey and Philippa Gerbic begin the book with an introduction to blended learning practices in ICT-facilitated education for supporting adult learners in different contexts. The concept of blended learning is introduced with a thorough discussion of the way the term is defined in the literature about the field. Generally blended learning has been considered as a requiring a combination of face-to-face interaction and online communication but their exploration of the literature finds a term ranging from being loosely defined as meaning any combination of learning modes to very specific categorized
xviii
combinations of technology use and traditional modes of learning even to a percentage based balance of online and face-to-face learning. This section also reviews the conceptual underpinnings and frameworks reported in a wide review of the international literature about blended learning and begins a comprehensive discussion of the field to date. The literature about blended learning is then reviewed in relation to the three sections of the book with chapters about issues in teaching in learning the most commonly published aspect for discussion so far. As online learning has become pervasive throughout the higher education and training sector, the blending of modes has become more explicitly considered and the discussion in the distance education field about technology use and flexibility is included among the pedagogical issues reviewed in this section. Less explicit in the literature is the acknowledgement of blended learning practices for professional learning and for establishing communities of learning and practice but this is becoming important to institutions realizing their value and need and is analysed and discussed in the following two sections of the chapter. Through the literature review the introductory chapter provides a rationale for the research-based chapters that follow. Section I: Strategies for Blended Teaching and Learning, provides research-based strategies for preparing to teach effectively through the mediation of ICT, contributing to the discussion on evidence-based pedagogy. It provides international perspectives on the blending of traditional face-to-face teaching with technological innovations with sound reflection on the pedagogical issues these practices raise. The authors provide researched cases of the application of blended learning with a greater range of examples of blended learning in undergraduate education which has been traditionally taught in a face-to-face mode in the international contexts described and which is the focus of research identifying the most effective blending of technologies into this learning environment. Philippa Gerbic describes case study research through which she investigated online discussions within blended environments in an undergraduate campus-based business degree program in New Zealand. Theorising online learning from a constructivist perspective she researched important aspects of the online environment including its text-based nature, time flexibility and interaction opportunities. She gathered student perspectives of the blended learning processes they experienced and she provides insights into influential factors for undergraduate student learning, particularly through the design of the learning context, its learning activities and assessment and the role of the teachers in how effectively online learning is integrated into their blended learning approach. She describes how the online environment can be used in a complementary way to exploit the reflective nature of online learning while the face-to–face environment should be the place where the teacher prepares students to interact online with carefully designed discursive activities that use the potential of the online medium. The pedagogical aspects of such blended learning practices are analysed and its advantages for students in the study for whom English is a second language are discussed. Gerbic discusses the wider implications of her findings and provides evidence based practical recommendations for blended learning practices that will be of great use to teachers in many educational contexts. Ruth Geer draws on a study of Australian undergraduate teacher education students whose on-campus interaction is complemented by both individual and collaborative group activities in an online environment. Geer, too, describes the strengths of text-based reflective learning through on interactive online community and reports the advantages of students’ ability to establish social presence through face-to-face interaction though this too needs online design assistance. Through analysis of students’ online postings, she interprets their learning from both cognitive and social constructivist perspectives and develops a pedagogical framework that helps to inform blended learning practices and outlines the relationship between pedagogies, technologies and their related learning outcomes. Geer aimed to explain students’ learning processes in this learning environment and her findings enable her to recommend instructional
xix
design attributes to assist teachers in achieving effective blended learning processes. Her framework for technology-mediated interactions (TMI) will help teachers designing blended learning environments through aligning learning outcomes they want to achieve with the interactive pedagogies enabled by a listing of interactive technologies available in universities today including learning management systems, social software tools and more innovative audiovisual technologies. Geer’s detailed explanation of her research analysis tools will provide researchers with suggestions for ways of researching blended learning environments. The process and pedagogical principles involved in redesigning traditional on campus and distance courses into a blended learning mode is described in a study from New Zealand by Mary Simpson and Bill Anderson. Rather than develop separate courses delivered by different modes to differing groups of students (usually younger on campus students and mature age students studying at a distance) the implementation of blended learning practices meant that these groups and modes could be integrated. Using survey data as their evidence of student perspectives, Simpson and Anderson draw on principles of adult learning and of online learning communities and designed a course and online learning environment that acknowledged learner independence and learner centredness as well providing as a non-course online gathering place for social student interaction and a staff development site of online resources. Their redesign blends a range of technological possibilities with audiovisual digital files contributed by students as well as teaching staff. The blending of student groups, the distance students more dependent on online interaction than the on campus, also meant there was the basis for a collaborative community also designed into the program with aspects of seminar participation and E-Portfolio development as assessable items in the courses. Simpson and Anderson recommend their model of a pedagogical basis for redesign rather than being driven by the potential of available technologies despite the importance of their role in the blend. The international perspectives of this book are particularly captured in two chapters in this section that describe European responses to blended learning. In a chapter about the integration of innovative technologies into blended learning environments, Ana Carvalho reports on Portuguese research into the use of podcasts and Zdena Lustigova and Frantisek Lustig describe a project that enables the handling of real objects in science experiments by students at remote locations, a blending of real and virtual objects. Students in Carvalho’s research study found the use of podcasts, delivered through the learning management system, Blackboard, were effective pedagogically and motivationally for students. The teacher recorded short podcasts to provide instruction about online discussions and feedback on their online postings and presentations. The personalized response of the teacher’s voice provided a stronger teaching presence online than written text and provides an example of blending with simple available technologies. Carvalho’s research contributes recommendations for teachers to effectively integrate podcasts into their blended learning practice. Lustigova and Lustig’s electronic labs (E-Labs) may not be as accessible a technology for all practitioners but provide an example of how blended learning has already integrated a blend of the real and the virtual into education, similarly to the potential that newer technologies, such as Second Life, will be implemented in the future. Continuing in another chapter on European perspectives on the responses of teachers and learners to blended learning, Guglielmo Trentin draws on a range of Italian research in reporting on blended learning solutions in university teaching. Trentin describes how corporate training in Italy has begun to commonly use a blending of media and interaction modes for professional development and how these practices are being researched as they are used in the professional learning of higher education teachers and in the design and delivery of their courses. In analyzing teachers’ choices of technology enhanced learning a categorization of approaches show a gradual move to blended learning as an integration of technology into course delivery with 48% of teachers using these approaches in the current year. Tren-
xx
tin gives a detailed analysis of reasons teachers give for introducing blended learning practices from the pedagogical and technological dimensions to economical, socio-cultural, organizational and other dimensions. He provides many practical recommendations for the introduction of blended learning into higher education particularly in advising about the institutional support and training needed as teaching and pedagogical issues are considered. Steve Wheeler highlights the student perspective in his critical commentary on the nature of blended learning uptake in higher education in the United Kingdom. He provides a detailed analysis of the students of today (and potentially tomorrow) who are becoming lifelong learners and for whom blended learning is the only option in what he calls their portfolio careers that are often changing and needing new skills and nomadic professional learning. As universities respond to student needs, he maintains they rarely consult them but impose institutional learning management systems on students as the technological solution for blended learning whereas students often prefer personal and mobile technologies and communicate via social networking. Wheeler analyses current research in the United Kingdom to develop his argument for more student-centred technological choices in blended learning and raises issues that are applicable to universities worldwide. Section II: Establishing Communities, involves a topic that has been well researched particularly since the seminal work of Lave and Wenger (1991) identified the importance of communities of practice in situated learning contexts, extended through the writing of Wenger (1999), and since the research of Garrison and Anderson (2003) and others began to explore online communities and identify their attributes and advantages in higher education and professional learning. As Robin Mason, a researcher, practitioner and international expert in the field of online learning since its inception, has pointed out in this book’s Foreword, the value of online communities as authentic communities has been considerably critiqued and this critique is further discussed in the introductory chapter. In compiling this section of the book, we found the research on the impact of blended learning practices in establishing these communities was rarely made explicit and consider this one of the particularly important contributions the book makes. This section includes a range of perspectives on research into establishing communities through blended learning practices and is perhaps the place where the definitional discussion of blended learning is most complex. Whereas many of the chapter authors have defined blended learning as a combination of face-to-face instruction and online learning, these chapters investigate the complexities of this blend. Advantages of multiple community memberships are explored, particularly whether potential tensions between face-to-face communities and online communities exist and how best to use the blending of face-to-face interaction and ICT-facilitated communities for professional learning. Peter Smith, Elizabeth Stacey, and Tak Ha have supported their discussion about issues in establishing communities from several research projects located in both Australia and Hong Kong that they describe in the first chapter of this section. Their focus is on how formal learning communities can be blended with more informal and often naturally occurring workplace communities, and the interaction that can occur as they make a case for including this phenomenon in the definition of blended learning. They first report research that investigates the use of blended learning practices in organizations as a tool for human resource development for a range of organizational roles. A research study of the use of blended learning practices for information technology professionals who learn within their workplace, either independently, with colleagues or in teams, as well as by using ICT-facilitated resources and through both formal and informal online communities, provides evidence for the importance of such practices in environments where knowledge is changing rapidly and the new members of the workplace community are often the experts in new knowledge. A third focus of the research explored the establishment of formal online learning communities and their interaction with workplace-based communities. Evidence of the importance of teacher presence in establishing meaningful online communities was found though there was little evidence of tension between online and workplace communities and recommendations of ways of using this blending of communities as an advantage is included in the chapter. In discussing factors
xxi
that “spoil the blend” of online and face-to-face communities they discuss another study of a community based organization, analyzing the reasons their research outcomes and its implications for practice. Terrie Lyn Thompson and Heather Kanuka investigate how blended learning practices can be used for the sustained professional learning of teachers in higher education through the establishing of communities of practice. They report an extensive review the literature about communities of practice and, as in Robin Mason’s comments, they raise the problematic issue of whether such communities only form naturally or can indeed be constructed and managed. They report extended advice available in the literature about forming online communities and question whether professional development centres are able to develop such communities. Through interview and analysis of current practice in such centres in North America they investigate how blended learning practices are being used to establish face-to-face professional learning with ongoing online communities. The use of such blended learning practices were less common than they had anticipated and they found tensions between what was occurring in such centres and what they would like to achieve. Difficulties encouraging academic staff to use blended learning and the role of professional development centres as the appropriate one for establishing ongoing online communities are discussed. They suggest implications of their study for institutional policy and recommend possible applications of blended learning practices to establish effective communities. Julie Mackey explores the notion of multi-membership of communities through the interaction and intersection of online communities and workplace-based communities of practice that extends the definition of blended learning practices as suggested by Smith, Ha, and Stacey above. She researched a group of New Zealand teachers who were learning in a formal online postgraduate course while also interacting with their school based communities of practice. Through interviews with the participating teachers as well as members of their communities of practice and analysis of their learning communities’ online interaction records, she provides evidence of the importance of the application of contextual learning through the local communities of practice. She suggests a reconceptualisation in designing blended learning to include this blending of communities so that formal learning is more authentic and meaningful and reflects a blending of formal and informal learning. Mackey’s theoretical interpretation of her findings adds a valuable dimension to blended learning and identifies the central role of learners using technology as a tool for blending the social contexts of their learning. In a research study of a long-term professional learning community of Canadian teachers, Suzanne Riverin describes the blended learning processes of an online community established by the provincial education authorities of Ontario for the professional learning of teachers. There were some face-to-face meetings before teachers began communicating online to discuss classroom ICT applications and reflect on their local community of practice. The blending of both online communication and face-to face meeting established a social presence and cohesion in this community and this continued with a blending of asynchronous and synchronous communication to establish a community for collaboration with ICT projects, curriculum resources and professional development through online courses. Riverin analyses the components of the blended learning practices that were effective in establishing the community and describes factors of difficulty experienced by some participants joining the online community. Describing the community’s successful achievement of its objectives for professional learning and support, Riverin discusses the implications of this model of blended learning and recommends aspects of these practices for future online collaborative environments. Section III: Teacher Transitions and Professional Learning, reports research that has been undertaken as universities realize the potential of integrating online learning and ICT-facilitated education into all courses and particularly into traditional campus-based institutions. Though online learning has been increasingly introduced into distance education programs over the last two decades, the flexibility of study that this way of learning provides is becoming more and more attractive to the new generation of technologically literate students as well as more mature students needing new professional learning even
xxii
if they are studying on campus. In the design for both on and off campus courses the blend of online with face-to face modes or at least with ICT-facilitated forms of audiovisual or synchronous communication is being found to be a most effective and flexible way of learning. However, as Mason reinforces in the Foreword of the book, teachers are not always ready to teach to these new modes of learning and they need effective support and professional development based on sound evidence of outcomes of as they transition to blended learning practices. The chapters in this section include research into cases studies of teachers and institutions undergoing this transition. It also includes frameworks and innovative models for designing blended learning courses and for providing professional learning for teachers. In a study comparing the experiences and philosophies of two groups of university teachers in Canada and Australia who had made the transition to teaching in both face-to-face and online modes, Faye Wiesenberg and Elizabeth Stacey found that the teachers had begun to blend their teaching approaches through using the best aspects of both these modes as they became more confident with ICT-facilitated education and reflected on the differences that their new professional learning was making to their teaching philosophies and practice. In this chapter, Wiesenberg and Stacey compare university and course contexts as well as the teachers’ perspectives and practices using methods and validated tools to identify similarity and differences between modes and then relate findings to a model of blended learning to interpret teacher transition to blended learning practices. From their findings they recommend support and professional development for teachers undergoing this transition from traditional university teaching to a blended learning mode to ensure that they have the opportunity to reflect on their teaching philosophies and pedagogical design to achieve the best aspects of both modes in their blended learning practice. Gayani Samarickrema researched the institutional perspective of the transitional process of teachers adopting ICT-facilitated education and developing blended learning practices. Through an insider case study she interviewed academic staff at an Australian university about their reasons for adopting blended learning approaches and identified the supporting and constraining factors in their experiences as well as their motivations for adopting these practices. Though academic staff essentially wanted to teach students in the most effective and engaging way, they were driven by a range of reasons from voluntary adoption to policy driven directives to increase student numbers and course marketability as well as by student demand for ICT use. Samarawickrema identifies important factors for institutions to consider in a move to blended learning such as time and workload allowances supported by funding, rewards and acknowledgement schemes and particularly effective models of professional development and ongoing learning support. The vision and leadership of the institution with supportive infrastructure and policy need to be adjusted for the new blended learning practices to be most effectively adopted. Gail Wilson reports a collective study of research–based evidence of experiences of academic staff adopting ICT-facilitated education and transitioning to blended learning practices in a regional Australian university. She analyses seven dimensions of blended learning environments that these teachers create and provides a valuable framework for practitioners, researchers and policy makers seeking to understand the transition to blended learning. Her framework centres on the teacher and their reasons for the transition, the nature of their blend and pedagogical approach, their perspectives on their role and challenges they encounter. The online dimension includes the media and activities used, online assessment and teacher support and the self-study dimension describes the independent student learning within the blended learning environment. She details the face-to-face dimension, the resource-based learning dimension and the institutional support and organizational context dimensions which all factor in teachers transitions to blended learning practices. The chapter provides case examples of all these dimensions and their basis for a professional development model to support staff in their transition to blended learning environments and can be used in successful institutional adoption of blended learning practices.
xxiii
Many of these chapters have reiterated the importance of careful design and professional learning for blended learning practices to be successfully integrated into programs. The next chapter by Cathy Gunn and Adam Blake addresses both of these aspects by describing their design–based research that is used to integrate a blended learning process into the reconceptualisation of a course in academic practice for New Zealand university teachers. Using a continuous cycle of design, implementation, analysis and refinement and intertwining the development of these course learning environment with learning theory, they devised a blended learning approach through situated learning and describe the application of this approach to the Learning, Teaching and Assessment course. They provide detail of their iterative cycles and refinement of solutions after gathering feedback from stakeholders which will be particularly valuable for other designers of blended learning courses. Within our introductory chapter we made a distinction in our understanding between professional development for skills training and professional learning that involves theoretically-based professional development that includes reflection on teaching practice and philosophies. Though such a distinction is not generally made, the next chapter in the book provides a research-based model that is an example of such a distinction in terms and could be the basis of such reflective professional learning as blended learning is introduced into programs. Brooke Robertshaw, Heather Leary, Andrew Walker, Kristy Bloxham, and Mimi Recker report their research into a process of reciprocal mentoring between student teachers and experienced schoolteachers that enables technologically skilled student teachers to provide the basis for professional learning as the experienced schoolteachers reflect on their technological expertise and provide direction for its effective blended learning practice in their classrooms. Such a model could also be adapted to universities as skilled educational development and technical staff work with teachers with more pedagogical experience who apply a reciprocal mentoring process to their professional learning about blended learning practices. “In the wild” in this case is a naturally occurring phenomenon which is investigated through a retrospective case study method, again a potentially useful model for researchbased professional learning in many educational sectors. The final chapter by Philippa Gerbic and Elizabeth Stacey draws together the main themes identified under the sections of the book and synthesizes the important concepts that have been discussed throughout the chapters of research. Recommendations for practice connect the outcomes of these research studies with practical suggestions in all aspects of blended learning practice. Finally, implications for the future field of blended learning are provided for all its stakeholders and suggestions for further research directions made which will be additionally useful to researchers and strategic planners. This book will be of interest to anyone who is teaching or researching in the tertiary/postsecondary sector wanting to know more about ICT-facilitated blended learning. It is relevant for formal learning settings, for example, universities, polytechnics and private colleges and institutions and for informal settings, for example, workplaces and communities which want to support learning and professional development. The book will be useful for teachers and researchers who are working with a wide range for learners, including undergraduate and postgraduate students, adult learners and people working with those in a variety of occupational and professional roles. These are contemporary research perspectives from substantive research studies, a specialised focus on the use of ICT-facilitated education across a variety of blended settings, a learner-centred focus which covers learning in a wide range of settings and a discussion of implications for teaching and learning so as to support the development of evidence based pedagogies. Elizabeth Stacey and Philippa Gerbic Editors
xxiv
References Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chapter I
Introduction to Blended Learning Practices Elizabeth Stacey Deakin University, Australia Philippa Gerbic Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand
ABSTRACT Blended learning is now part of the learning landscape in higher education, not just for campus-based courses but for courses designed for students studying at a distance as well as for communities of professional learning and practice. The impact of this concept in university teaching and learning can be seen in the appearance of practice focused texts for example, Littlejohn and Pegler (2007) and, more recently, Garrison and Vaughan (2008). Blended learning is now constantly positioned as one of the emerging trends in higher education (e. g. Allen, Seaman and Garrett, 2007; Graham, 2006; Garrison and Kanuka, 2004) and therefore is of particular strategic importance in the future of universities, their students and teachers as well as in the widening community of professional education and training. As an introduction to this book, this chapter will review the growing literature about blended learning and will discuss some of its key issues. The authors begin by introducing the concept of blended learning and its many meanings and attempt to clarify the definitional discussion. Issues in teaching and learning in both campus based and distance settings are then described followed by a discussion of the way blended learning provides a process for establishing communities of learning and practice, particularly for professional learning. Much of the literature about professional learning and learning communities has only just begun to identify aspects of blended learning practices as significant in their field, a gap this book is helping to fill. Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Introduction to Blended Learning Practices
Conceptuaanderpinnings, Definitions and Frameworks When writers attempt to define blending learning in a substantive way, the literature is marked by enormous variety in approaches. One of the simplest representations is that of the combination of physical and virtual environments, for example, Bleed’s (2001) idea of the innovative and interactive combinations of “technology, architecture and people” through the right mix of “clicks and bricks” (2001, p.18). Many definitions refer to combining face-to-face and online learning, for example, Graham (2006) who adds a historical perspective to his working definition when he discusses the convergence of two quite separate learning environments. These are traditional face-to-face environments that are essentially synchronous and based on high fidelity human interaction, and distance environments that are asynchronous and have been traditionally reliant on text driven and independent learning. The advent of information communications technology (ICT) has created the potential for integration of these two systems and hence his preferred and working definition of “combining online and faceto-face instruction” (2006, p.4). This integration enabled blends across four key dimensions that Graham (2006) identifies as space, time, fidelity and humanness. The training sector has claimed the term blended learning for over a decade (Maisie, 2006) and though Cross (2006), also from the corporate training sector, writes that in this context blended learning is only a transitory term, it is a term which has gained ongoing currency and aroused great interest in the higher education sector and appears to be surviving its “buzz word” status and taking “its rightful place as signifying a particular idea or practice” (Mason & Rennie, 2006, p. xvii). Where blended learning was traditionally defined as consisting of a face-to-face component followed by an online component, this has changed even in the training sector where Cross (2006) describes
a local model and a distance model which blend either more or less online interaction with faceto-face meetings with the term denoting flexibility and a range of technology mixes. Littlejohn and Pegler (2006) explicitly acknowledge the role of ICT with their concept of ‘blended e-Learning’ and while they acknowledge historical antecedents similar to those of Graham, they present their concept as one with two different components, being e-Learning and blending. This approach enables them to consider each of these concepts separately, thus avoiding the implicit approaches in much of the literature i.e. the introduction of an e-Learning activity into a face-to-face setting which is considered as a single phenomenon with little effort being made to distinguish between the issue of e-Learning and that of blending. Littlejohn and Pegler’s (2006) identification of these two elements adds clarity to the discussion about blended learning and enables better consideration of the complexities of technologies, different settings and learning. Blended learning can be placed somewhere between fully online and fully face-to-face courses and one of the definitional issues is where this might be on such a continuum. In their report on blended learning in the USA, Allen, Seaman and Garrett (2007) define blended or what is also termed hybrid learning as courses where 30 to 79% of the content is delivered online. While a numeric description seems to offer clarity, this is somewhat dependent on the meaning of “content”. Vaughan (2007) and others argue that where an online element simply supplements a face-to-face course, then this is not blended learning and there must be a reduction in face-to-face time. Littlejohn and Pegler (2007) talk about ‘strong” and ‘weak” blends (p. 29) where courses are, respectively, almost exclusively e-Learning or contain very little e-Learning, but they do not attempt to quantify this in any way. Garrison and Kanuka (2004) argue that the real indicator of blended learning is not the amount of face-to-face or online learning but their effective integration within a course.
Introduction to Blended Learning Practices
Twigg (2003) writing relatively early in the application of blended learning practices to universities, raised the pedagogical issue of the effectiveness of blended learning for all students when she reviewed projects across the United States where institutions were granted large amounts of funding to integrate ICT into their courses. These project outcomes described a range of blended learning practices which varied on a continuum from fully face-to-face to fully online. These projects were categorised as supplemental with traditional class meetings providing additional engagement through online resources and activities, replacement replacing face-to-face classes with online activities and emporium with online resources and activities available on student demand with an expansion of individual instructional assistance particularly through software providing online tutorials, video streamed lectures and other multimedia resources (either mandatory or with open attendance). In the fully online model, instead of a labour intensive approach of individual faculty members creating and supporting all their own small courses, teachers used designed courses and taught with the support of a non academic course assistant so that larger student numbers benefited from the academic teacher (or team of teachers) who was spared the large number of administrative interactions. Assessment was handled by software with immediate feedback provided. Though positive about the changes the projects found such as improved learning outcomes and cost reductions, Twigg acknowledged that despite their redesigning courses, institutions assumed a homogeneity in student needs in these projects apart from the final category the buffet model which offered a range of possible pedagogical choices eg lectures, laboratories, small group sessions, multimedia tutorials, online resources and interaction with students entering an online contract to ensure accountability. Student choices can be supported by online needs assessment and learning style assessment and progress monitored
by the software system. Twigg predicted the value of these blended models but anticipated that if no choice was available, some students would fail. Definitions like Graham’s above are valuable because their genericism gives them broad appeal, however they do not adequately address the intricacies and convolutions of blended learning. One approach that does attempt this is that of Garrison and Kanuka (2004) when they describe blended learning as a simple and complex concept. At the simple level, they describe blended learning as “the thoughtful integration of classroom face-to-face learning experiences with online learning experiences” (2004, p.96). Complexity arises when this idea is put into action and the need to respond to very different settings results in enormous variation in learning design possibilities as Gerbic describes in her cross-case analysis in Chapter II. Successful integration requires an understanding of the special characteristics of the Internet, the most desirable aspects of face-toface teaching and an appropriate mixing of these elements. Garrison and Kanuka (2004) identify particular aspects of the Internet which they regard as valuable for blended learning. These are the asynchronous and text based character of the Internet and the synchronous and human presence of face-to-face conversation which together, through their different characters, can support a community of learners. To achieve meaningful learning experiences, courses therefore need to be reconceptualised or reorganised to produce a meaningful learning experience such as through the study described by Simpson and Anderson (Chapter IV), so blended learning is not therefore an enhancement, an addition or a layering of technology, but a potentially transformative process. Other later definitional discussions of blended learning include the notion of the flexibility offered by blended learning through the use of ICT replacing face-to-face hours on campus. Bleed (2006) reflecting on the research and practice that has occurred since his 2001 article cited above,
Introduction to Blended Learning Practices
comments on the growth of interest in blended learning and adds to his definition the replacement of “seat-time” by technology use, as blended learning is more often being provided for students who are demanding more flexibility from fixed class times and on campus attendance. This too is the definition used by Hartman, Dzuiban and BrophyEllison (2007) and where Garrison and Vaughan (2008) defined blended learning as “thoughtfully” integrating online and face-to face interaction they also included the concept of redesigning courses to reduce on campus classroom hours with replacement online activities (p. 5). The discussion in the literature indicates that it is very difficult to define blended learning and Mason (2005) makes the very commonsense point that teachers have always engaged in various kinds of blending – adding new information to what students already know, combining theory and practice, listening, reading and writing, and more recently, face-to-face or print and web based experiences. In their review of blended e-learning, Sharpe, Benfield, Roberts and Francis (2006), reflect times of transition and change, and also acknowledge that blended learning is difficult to define. They however suggest that this is an advantage because it means that academic staff may develop their own meanings which may include both preserving face-to-face teaching and designing for active learning. They also found that students were developing their own concepts of blended learning which included holistic views of learning and technology, including the use of their own technologies for learning. This now includes the use of Web2 tools. Oliver and Trigwell (2005) go further and critique the blended learning concept which they regarded as “ill defined” (2005, p.17) where “almost anything can be seen as blended learning and consequently, use of the term does not help us understand what is being discussed” (2005, p.18). They identified seven different forms of blending, three of which were likely to involve some form of ICT, however, the authors consid-
ered that they involved concepts that were treated stereotypically and abstractly and did not reflect what occurred in practice. Hence, there were no underlying principles from which to determine what might or might not be blended learning. They also observed that the concept was really focused on what teachers might do pedagogically rather than what students might learn and it was therefore an incomplete account of learning. Oliver and Trigwell (2005) did not consider that the term should be ignored but that it should be reconstructed through the variation theory of learning. This was: …based on the idea that for learning to occur, variation must be experienced by the learner. Without variation, there is no discernment, and without discernment, there is no learning…learning occurs when critical aspects of variation in the object of learning are discerned. Discernment is about the experience of difference (2005, p.21). Oliver and Trigwell (2005) emphasize that what was important for learning was the contrast and comparison that arose from the variation, and not the variation itself. They argued that different teaching media could be used to help students experience variation and that there was a role for blended approaches in creating this learning situation. Garrison and Kanuka’s (2004) concept of blended learning, with its emphasis on the contrasting characters of synchronicity and asynchronicity and communication through text and human presence may be regarded as an example of variation theory. Further support for the role of variation in learning comes from Wallace (2003) who suggested in his review of computer-mediated conferencing (CMC), that the differences between face-to-face and virtual settings might be more influential for learning than any CMC itself. Geer’s framework for Technology-Mediated Interactions (described in Chapter III) can help educators align and design their variation taking into consideration either
Introduction to Blended Learning Practices
the learning processes, interactive pedagogies or the interactive technologies that can be integrated into the blended learning process. As well as definitions, the literature now provides a number of conceptual frameworks for blended learning. Some of these models draw on existing frameworks, for example, Donelly’s (2006) use of Laurillard’s (2002) Conversational model and Motteram’s (2006) use of Salmon’s (2000) five-level model. The application, adaptation and extension of existing frameworks is quite characteristic of an emergent field such as this one, and such works, and those of others like Collis and Moonen (2001) can provide strong foundational support for new thinking about blended learning, particularly within institutional contexts. Kerres and Witt (2003) present their ‘3C-didactic model’ of blended learning which comprises three elements being content (information and its distribution), communication (local or remote and between students, the teacher, individuals or the whole class) and construction (individual or collaborative). In their view, blended learning is about more than combining face-to-face and online learning and they stress the different degrees of synchronicity and its impact on students and their learning and advocate that learning designs be created through consideration of the three Cs in conjunction with the costs and benefits of different synchronous and asynchronous media. This model is valuable because it not only works with the variation inherent in synchronous and asynchronous communication but also takes into account their costs and benefits, especially for students. Shea (2005) provides a more holistic model which is strongly grounded in a discussion of learning, adult learning and learning in technology-mediated environments. The framework has an epistemological foundation (2005, p.31) which directs course designers to begin by considering their values, assumptions and beliefs about learning. This is followed by considering theories of learning and instruction, then peda-
gogical approaches, instructional strategies and finally, acts. The strength of this approach is that it acknowledges the role of teacher epistemologies and their influences on course design and the student experience – and this is an aspect of learning frameworks which is often implicit or ignored in the literature. A different approach has been taken by Littlejohn and Pegler (2006) with their LD_lite framework, which has been developed from a number of empirical studies and aims to enable teachers to work time effectively, reuse their existing resources and share their work with colleagues. The framework operates at three levels; (1) a lesson plan template enables teachers to redesign their lessons by considering the activities, who will carry them out (roles) and the resources needed; (2) a “pattern” (2006, p.87), or high level course descriptor enables a quick overview of the course; and (3) a learning design sequence map enables teachers to plan parallel or iterative cycles of learning, including the integration different media and spaces and timeframes. This framework is very grounded and will be attractive to teachers because of its recognition of the realities of practice. It appears to be highly scalable, but is still sufficiently flexible to enable teachers to share their practice, which will be especially valuable in developing an understanding of good practice in media integration and blending. More recently, Garrison and Vaughan (2008) have presented a comprehensive framework for blended learning which is an application of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) concept in a blended setting. Their educational ideal is of an “engaged community of inquiry” (2008, p.10) based on reflection and discourse which is created through social, cognitive and teaching presences (2008, p.18). They usefully discuss how their framework might be used in three redesign scenarios and it will be reassuring for many to see the way in which they use the face-to-face class to anchor various blending strategies. This framework is valuable because it is derived from a body of substantive
Introduction to Blended Learning Practices
research and has had some empirical evaluation. Its very detailed implementation guidelines and professional development model, discussed later in this chapter, mean that it will be of considerable assistance to practitioners. Macdonald (2006) in writing a practical guide to blended learning for online teachers surveyed other practitioners online and draws from a self -selected international group of blended learning case studies. She categorised the main components of blended learning as either (1) campus based with a blend of asynchronous interaction providing more flexibility, (2) distance education with a blend of networking technologies to provide collaborative and synchronous communication (with occasional possibilities for face-to-face interaction), or (3) blended learning courses that offered interaction between a combined cohort of campus based and distance students. Overwhelmingly the cases she surveyed used learning management systems combined with face-to-face interaction though there were a range of other synchronous and asynchronous technologies included in the blended learning practices. She observed that, from her survey few teachers could clearly articulate what the role face-to-face sessions played in blended learning while she identified the main value of these sessions as targeting advice, focusing content, brainstorming, pacing of studies and enhancing community. Carvalho, Lustigova and Lustig (Chapter V) have reported examples of how new technologies have been integrated into this variety of blended learning contexts though in some cases teachers are using the technologies to provide these valuable aspects of teaching with eg podcasts of advice and feedback and technologies that have more innovative capabilities than learning management systems. Wheeler (Chapter VI), in particular, critiques the imposition of learning management systems (LMS) on the new generation of students who are embracing personalized mobile technologies and social networking for learning and communication and Trentin, also
writing in Chapter VI, suggests ways institutions should support teachers in their introduction of blended learning practices.
Issues in Teaching and La Many of the published studies about blended learning have occurred in campus based courses and have been dominated by student perspectives. Bliuc, Goodyear, and Ellis (2007) characterise this body of research as exploratory, mostly insider research with a predominant use of case study methods, which have provided rich descriptions of the processes, complexities and issues arising in particular settings. When we looked at a sample of 18 accounts from the literature from 2003- 2008, all of them involved the introduction of some kind of virtual learning environment, which provided resources and content, and in fifteen of the accounts, online discussions were part of the course (for example, Molesworth, 2004; Donelly, 2005; Nel and Wilkinson, 2006 and Tabor, 2007). In campus based courses, blended learning was often introduced to improve the quality of learning and student engagement and a typical example is that of Ramsey’s (2003) work. She was concerned about the dominance of teachers in much face-to-face learning and the ensuing passivity of undergraduate students, and argued that the addition of virtual learning environments could reshape learning relations between teachers and students. By reducing lectures, emphasizing web supported materials and activities, and using more social and collaborative activities and assessment she sought to make her students more active and less passive. In her view, learning which worked with the zones of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) provided a far more useful learning framework than andragogy, because development was regarded as a series of performances through different levels rather than
Introduction to Blended Learning Practices
being purely based on a concept of adult maturity, which many undergraduates lacked. Ramsey (2003) illustrates a teacher perspective that is focused on innovation and the scholarly improvement of learning. Like her, Garrison and Kanuka (2004) question the ‘dominance of the lecture’ (p.100), especially if blended learning is to have any transformative impact in universities. However, the literature also indicates other teacher views which are associated with the changes in role and possible identity that arise with blended learning. In a phenomenological study of early adopter teachers of ICT by McShane (2004), the teachers were generally very positive about the inclusion of online learning, however, one of the main findings endorsed the “centrality of lecturing” (p.12). By lecturing, the teachers “kept themselves central to their students’ learning, but they also appeared to be retaining an event which symbolizes and defines the role and authority of the traditional university lecturer” (McShane, 2004, p.12 ). Commeaux and McKenna (2005) document other concerns of staff about the addition of online learning, particularly the impact of the reduction of the richness of the face-to-face learning and deprivation of meaningful interaction with peers. This research identifies significant issues for blended learning which must be addressed by universities in the future. Several studies comparing online and face-toface teaching experiences examined the merits of both (Curtis, 2002; Cragg, Dunning & Ellis, 2008) and some concluded that a blended environment using the advantages of both modes was the best outcome for ongoing practice (Stacey & Wiesenberg, 2007; Heaton-Shrestha, Edirisingha, Burke & Linsey, 2005). These latter studies identified teachers’ reports of the positive influence of online use on their face-to-face teaching but also of the workload increase often involved in using the online medium. Vignare’s (2006) survey of the literature indicates that teacher satisfaction is tied to being able to choose to introduce blended learning as opposed
to being required to do so. The other important factor she identified is teachers’ preparedness to add online learning to their face-to-face course, which was particularly dependent on adequate pedagogical and technological support and sufficient time to develop an understanding of the new environment. Other influential factors were recognition of blended learning developments in promotion and recognition of research in institutional research cultures that valued discipline more than teaching research. Vaughan (2007) supports these points of view in his discussion of faculty perspectives on the benefits and challenges of blended learning. Staff considered that the main benefits were enhanced teacher and student interaction (with reduced face-to-face contact), increased student engagement, more flexibility and an environment of continuous improvement. The challenges were similar to those identified by Vignare (2006) that is, time, professional development and concerns about losing control over the course and the place of blended learning within a university culture. Samarawickrema describes a detailed case study that discusses these aspects in Chapter XII. Many of the teaching and learning accounts have provided insights into the ways in which variation might be used to improve blended learning, especially by documenting how researchers have worked with the differences between the two environments. Osguthorpe and Graham (2003) discuss the ways in which the strengths and weaknesses of the face-to- face paradigm can complement the strengths and weaknesses of the distance paradigm and see the goal of blended learning as a “harmonious balance” (2003, p.228) of the two environments, which is dependent on the course goals, needs of the student, teacher’s focus and the online resources available. A good source of information about the strengths and weakness of the two environments can be found in the online discussion literature. Substantive works in this area are those of Tienne (2000), Arbaugh (2000) and Meyer (2004), all of
Introduction to Blended Learning Practices
which have used survey methods to investigate postgraduate students’ views in the USA. Research by Gerbic (2006) into the differences between online and face-to-face discussions indicates three major areas of difference, which result in strengths and weakness which may appeal to different learning needs and course goals: 1.
2.
3.
The presence or absence of phatic (visual/aural) cues which provides (a) a rich nonverbal communication environment, with high levels of monitoring and feedback, where conversation is competitive and requires confidence, especially to disagree and it is easier to build rapport and trust or (b) a more impersonal medium with reduced phatic, and social cues, where messages are more difficult to understand, where there is less social cohesion eg less responsibility for the conversation, but also freer communication for some participants. Synchronous and asynchronous timing which provide either (a) rapid spontaneous and free flowing dialogue, generally on one subject, at a particular time and place or (b) space to reflect and think at one’s own pace, on multiple subjects, but often taking more time. Speech and text-based communication where (a) the emphasis is on listening and talking, communication is quick and easy for confident speakers of the language and ephemeral and (b) the emphasis is on reading and writing, so there is a record, so messages are often carefully thought out and written, although participation takes time and can result in information overload.
The benefits of working with the special characteristics of both environments was demonstrated in Rovai and Jordan’s (2004) comparative analysis of fully online, blended and fully face-to-face courses. Students in the blended course created the strongest sense of community, as evidenced
by higher connectedness and mean learning scores and the researchers ascribed this to the convenience of fully online courses and the role of face-to- face contact in nurturing community. A further example of this complementarity is found in the work of Lynch and Dembo (2004) who were investigating self-regulation in blended contexts. They found that face-to-face classes improved motivation, and ameliorated the need for high levels of individual autonomy, time management and Internet self-efficacy. Lynch and Denbo therefore recommend face-to-face settings for at risk students. This would suggest that where students may have low self-regulation, for example, first year students, then careful positioning of face-to-face contact within a course could be advantageous. Nel and Wilkinson (2006) provide a six-point action plan which particularly considers the role of face-to-face sessions for undergraduates with little or no online, Internet or collaborative experience. In their evaluation of the introduction of a virtual learning environment (VLE) into a campus based university, Aspden and Helm (2004) argue that the different characteristics of such an environment can change relations between students and their teachers, peers and the university by increasing connectedness, both physically and virtually. It is commonly assumed that campusbased programmes enable high levels of interaction, but for students who work or have family responsibilities or who are shy, this is not always the case and virtual environments offer other opportunities for this. Molesworth’s (2004) study of third year undergraduates offers a critique of this view when he found that while the students liked the flexibility of a VLE, their low participation indicated to him that what they actually liked was the flexibility to do nothing and neglect this mode of learning. One theme that is evident in the blended learning literature is the importance of paying attention to the learning design. In a comparison of four communication settings and four tasks,
Introduction to Blended Learning Practices
Schweizer, Paechter and Weidenmann (2003) found that achievement does not depend solely on the setting and the nature and demands of the learning activity was highly significant. In his description of a blended course, Boyle (2005) advocates for a pedagogically driven model where every element of the blend is justified according to the course outcomes and needs of the learners. Donelly (2005) provides a good example of this with her use of Laurillard’s Conversational model as a basis for blending the face-to-face and online phases of a constructivist and problem-based learning approach. Entwistle and Ramsden (1983) have found that students’ approaches to learning are relational, that is they are dependent on their perceptions of the learning activity and its general context, for example, assessment, workload, the role and actions of the teacher and the course or discipline practices. The challenge for teachers is to ensure that the messages that students receive about a blended course coincide with teachers’ intentions. To enable this, a blended environment needs to be embedded within the learning design and coherent with all aspects of that design in a way that students understand. Gunn and Blake extend this focus on design for blended learning in Chapter XIV describing their design based research. There is less explicit consideration of blended learning in distance settings in the literature. This occurs because it has established history in distance education (Moore, 2005) where it has long been the practice to include periods of residence at a campus for face-to-face interaction, or to provide face –to-face interaction regionally through the use of various local universities or centres. Moore (2005) positions face-to-face as a communication technique and does not endow it with any special mystique. He argues that its relative expense means that it should be carefully used and substituted when there are other effective but less costly approaches. However in introducing Bonk and Graham’s (2006) “Handbook of Blended Learning,” Moore explains how teachers “letting
go” responsibilities in their traditional face-toface role and integrating the pedagogical choices of distance learning can actually provide better learning because through blending text, recorded or interactive audio or visual media with face-to face interaction we are providing a response to the diversity of learning styles of students. The flexibility, access and potential for reduced costs that have been the rationale for distance education for decades are found to motivate the use of blended learning in many cases (Graham, Allen & Ure, 2005). Dziuban, Hartman and Moskal (2004) also noted that in blending online interaction with face-to-face classes, there was a reduction in time spent in the classroom thus describing blended learning as a form of flexible learning –providing students with a means of learning flexibly in the way distance education has provided flexibility in the past. The introduction to university campuses of learning management systems (LMS) or virtual learning systems (VLE) as they are also termed, has meant classes can use this system as a way of extending and replacing their face-to-face interaction with online interaction. Aspden & Helm (2004) are among teachers who have used and researched the use of blended learning to provide such flexibility. They describe such a project at Sheffield Hallam University in the United Kingdom which introduced blended learning and found that it maintained students’ engagement with their courses despite their having part-time employment or being off-campus to participate in a practical placement related to their course. In the literature, there are some accounts of distance education that have specifically focused on blended learning. Denis (2003) provides a description of a postgraduate distance programme which applied Carre and Pearns (1992) self-directed model in fully online, blended and fully face-to-face contexts. Macdonald and McAteer (2003) discuss different learner support models in distance and campus-based courses and then compare approaches with different media blends
Introduction to Blended Learning Practices
for learner support. Dron, Seidel and Litten (2004) discuss the development and implementation of a blended learning course and analyse this process using Moore’s theory of transactional distance. Jelfs Nathan and Barrett’s (2004) paper discusses the introduction of a web based study skills tool kit with the intention of blending (electronic) learning into students busy lives. Ausburn (2004) investigated design elements that adult learners found most useful in blended online environments. What is notable about these reports is the breadth and diversity of their focus, especially their concepts of blending which appear to be much wider than those of campus based courses. This would suggest that the practice of blending is well embedded within distance education and Moore (2006) endorses this when he draws attention to the importance of understanding research and practice in the distance field for application to new forms of practice such as blended learning. The literature to date indicates that attention in the teaching and learning area of blended environments has focused on understanding the aspects of the virtual and physical environments which are valuable for learning and how to integrate them so that they work in a complementary fashion. Recently, Bluic et al (2007) have acknowledged that there is a tension between understanding the different parts of blended learning and viewing it as a whole system. They argue that the focus now should be on coherence and alignment, on creating a more holistic experience for students and understanding the complexity of blended learning from a broader and more systematic. This will require a wider range of research methods, particularly those that are complementary.
Blended Leaaa for Professional Leaa As evidenced above, the literature on blended learning and teaching is growing and being identified more explicitly as its value is recognized.
10
However there appears to be an assumption that teachers will just know how to blend online and face-to-face learning and teaching processes and the emphasis in the professional learning literature has been on ways of teaching the skills of online teaching and reflecting on the changes to learning that this may introduce. Though more studies are describing blended learning practices in more detail with diagrams and formulae of online and face-to-face combinations suggested, models for professional learning are less widely reported in the literature. The concept of community has become popular in researching student collaborative learning online, but is also less specifically reported as a means of introducing blended learning or of using blended learning practices to developing online communities for teachers. The literature about such professional learning that is reviewed below has been more difficult to locate and at times we identified a blended process in reports designated as online learning but which were in fact describing blended learning practices. We view professional learning as having two dimensions, one that we define as theoretically based professional learning that encourages reflection on teaching and learning within philosophical frameworks and particularly through communities of peers, and professional development for skills training which we perceive as more teacher directed, short-term and specific in purpose. The chapters in the second and third sections of this book provide detailed data concerning both dimensions of professional learning that is for blended learning and through the use of blended learning. Though Bonk and Graham (2006) gathered a wide range of examples of the implementation of blended learning practices in corporate training, particularly in the Information Technology industry and relying strongly on web-based learning resources (e.g., Lewis & Orton, 2006; Chute, Williams & Hancock, 2006), Hofman (2006) also writing in their “Handbook of Blended Learning” claimed that the training sector, which
Introduction to Blended Learning Practices
has discussed using blended learning practices over a long period, has not fulfilled its promise. She explains that programs are not necessarily designed specifically for the blended environment and they overemphasised the face-to-face component. This follows from the fact that fewer teachers were trained in facilitating interaction through ICT and there was also little preparation for online learners. Studies of the blended learning model established at the Open University of Shell International Exploration and Production (Margaryan, Collis and Cook, 2004; Collis, Bianco, Margaryan, & Waring, 2005) straddle the training and higher education fields in providing corporate professional learning and accredited academic qualifications through a blended learning process. In discussing their research into the model they acknowledge that a sound blended learning process should include more than use of webbased resources or training modules and should involve an application of learning to the learner’s workplace and a collaborative sharing of this application through social interaction. Their model draws on experienced facilitators and reusable digital objects but stresses the importance of the interpersonal contact between all actors in the blended learning process. As the higher education sector takes up blended learning, there has been an assumption that blended learning practices will involve a blend of the best of face-to-face and online learning but is that necessarily so? To ensure that such competent design and instruction will deliver the best aspects of both, the blended learning process is being used in many institutions as a means of providing professional learning for academic staff involved in teaching in this mode. Fitzigibbon & Jones (2004) at the University of Glamorgan in Wales, described their university’s training of e-moderators which they adjusted, on participants’ advice, from a fully online model to a blended model which they found introduced an important social dimension as a local community
was formed face-to-face. Dziuban, Hartman, Juge, Moskal and Sorg (2006) describe the professional development of faculty members at the University of Central Florida as an “authentic blended learning experience” (p. 199) combining online modules, on campus classes, labs and invidividual consultations. They find this model is transformative as academic staff with instructional designers as their teachers form supportive teams as they develop their technological and pedagogical skills, support which continues as they implement their new blended learning practices. (The reciprocal mentoring process reported by Robertshaw et al. in Chapter XVI could also provide an effective model through a blended learning environment for professional learning in such teams of designers and teachers). Lindquist (2006) describes a process of professional development of teachers at the University of Phoenix who are being prepared to manage blended learning environments through training in a 4-week course in a similar environment. They are encouraged to develop presentation skills in a face-to-face classroom and more reflective skills in their asynchronous online discussions that Lindquist says “capitalizes on the strengths of each” (p. 231), a conclusion which more institutions are drawing from this mode. Vaughan and Garrison (2005) researched the use of blended learning in training the teachers at the University of Calgary through a combination of face-to-face and online learning. They applied the analysis tools developed through the Community of Inquiry model through research into online learning analysing online discussions and the components that made up such online communities (Garrison & Anderson, 2003). Their objective was to “create and sustain cognitive presence in a blended learning context for the development of an effective and meaningful faculty learning community” (Vaughan & Garrison, 2005, p. 3). Through comparing the indicators of cognitive presence in the face-to-face and online experiences, they were able to analyse what was achieved in each aspect of the blended learning
11
Introduction to Blended Learning Practices
process and to develop a successful community of inquiry. Garrison and Vaughan’s (2008) discussion of the transformation of education through blended learning relies on a better model of professional learning by teachers. In acknowledging the importance of professional development for teachers adopting blended learning practices, they have devised their design principles for establishing social and cognitive presence in a blended learning community with sufficient teaching presence to facilitate cognitive inquiry as best learned in a community of inquiry for faculty members. Instead of traditional workshops for learning any new technological or pedagogical skills, they found that establishing a sustained community for ongoing critical reflection and discussion about one’s own practice is a more effective and transformative model. In an interesting change from the usual model of support for curriculum redesign, they describe the University of Calgary’s process of combining successful applicants for course redesign into a community of inquiry that includes a number of other university representatives from library, ICT and learning centres with academic staff as mentors as well as students who can provided a range of perspectives. This mode of blended learning practice involves an initial face-to-face meeting followed by online discussions about project plans and implementation with carefully designed processes, facilitation and resource support. They advise that this community should progress for a minimum of six months with participants experiencing blended learning practices from a student perspective. They describe the face-to-face meetings as helping to “establish the rhythm for the community” (p. 58) with the online discussion for reflective commentary and they suggest that the flexibility of the blended learning process be used to provide ICT facilitated education whether face-to-face attendance is possible or not by recording faceto-face meetings with tools such as Elluminate Live for later streaming and podcasting.
12
In describing their community of inquiry model, their belief that education is most effective through such a community strengthens the value of blended learning which they claim has the capacity to develop an even stronger community through face-to face meetings. In Chapter XIII Wilson supports the notion of a blended learning approach to professional learning as she acknowledges the limited success when online conferencing and web based resources alone are used. The limited purpose and timespan of an educational community means that faster community establishment through face-to-face meeting is a distinct advantage of blended learning. However, as with Wiesenberg and Stacey’s (Chapter XI) findings, teachers are aware of a tendency to dominate in face-to-face interaction whereas in online discussion, this is more learner centred and individually reflective, the cognitive presence that Garrison and Vaughan seek. A faceto-face meeting in the blended learning process allows for social presence and collaboration to be established, online interaction allows for reflection and cognitive critique.
Establishing Communities for Professional Leaa Communities are traditionally groups of people drawn together through face-to-face interaction to meet a common purpose or shared need, particularly in a professional context. Since the advent of information and communication technologies that link people, especially via the internet, the capability of communities forming through virtual networking has been enthusiastically predicted and pursued (Palloff & Pratt, 2005). Research into online communities for education and for professional learning has produced studies advocating the power of online communities (Lewis & Allen, 2005; McConnell, 2006). A subtext to these studies has been the suggestion that such communities form more quickly and set up trust and social presence if participants meet face-to-face at some
Introduction to Blended Learning Practices
stage or at least through a technologically aided meeting, particularly at initial community formation and are able to communicate synchronously as well as asynchronously (Garrison & Anderson, 2003; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008). Such blended communities are being advocated more and more as the most effective model for professional learning. Few communities in current times would not draw on electronic communication and resources as a component of their practice and though the literature has begun to provide accounts of the blended learning practices of these communities, the value of the blended learning processes has not readily been identified or specifically investigated for its impact on professional learning. Though much of the discussion of communities has focused on the workplace, with communities of practice (Wenger, 1998) analysed as powerful informal and formal learning communities that exist amongst workers engaged in common workplaces and enterprises, the more pervasive use of ICT in workplaces has meant these communities have embraced blended learning practices combining face-to-face interaction with technologically mediated communication (Robey, Khoo & Powers, 2000). While transferring the notion of communities to an online environment has been extensively investigated by adult educators (Kimble, Hidreth and Wright, 2000; Rogers, 2000; Bird, 2001), their sustainability for learning has raised some doubts which may well apply to their use for professional learning as when Connery and Hasen (2005) claim that “the continued viable existence of the online community is the most realistic measure of its success” (p.249). Wilson, Ludwig-Hardman, Thornam, and Dunlap (2004) published an investigation into the constraints of forming online learning communities within university courses which could only develop “bounded communities” of a typical semester length course wherein communities are bounded by time constraints of a semester as well as being bounded by the requirements of the course and are therefore unlikely to remain
ongoing. Though there can be a more natural development of communities of practice in the workplaces that Lave and Wenger (1991) observed, in higher education academic teachers are often teaching independently with little opportunity for such communities to spontaneously develop. Time constraints and lack of ongoing purpose after specific learning needs are fulfilled also affect learning communities that are established for professional development and in their chapter describing the attempts of professional development centres to establish communities of practice, Thompson and Kanuka (Chapter VIII) identify the difficulty of sustaining community engagement as one for which a blended learning process may provide a solution. Though in their well designed and recognized study of blended learning compared to face-toface and online learning, Rovai and Jordan (2004) were able to claim that those learning in blended mode possessed a higher sense of community connectedness and, more importantly, learned more effectively than through the other modes of learning, they concluded that “within each type of course, sense of community among students is likely to co-vary based on the values and abilities of the professor” (p. 7). They found that establishing an effective sense of community worked well face-to-face and if teachers were skilled both with supporting students technologically and in communicating and facilitating well online, blended learning practices provided the best process for a sustained environment. Smith, Stacey and Ha (Chapter VII) and Riverin (Chapter X) describe use of communities for professional learning in several different blended settings, both formal and informal, and similarly identified aspects such as quality of facilitation and relevance of community purpose as factors in sustainability and effectiveness. The type and purpose of the learning community, whether forming spontaneously and informally, or through courses bounded by semester timing, would appear to be most important yet
13
Introduction to Blended Learning Practices
discussion of online communities are sometimes grouped together as if they all function similarly. Lewis & Allen (2005) provide what they term a “loose” definition of a learning community that includes formal learning courses and more informal learning communities as well as communities of practice to which they ascribe attributes of a professional context as defined by Lave and Wenger (1991). They define a learning community very widely as “a supportive group of people who come together to collaborate and learn together, they are usually facilitated or guided to achieve a specific outcome or agreed learning objectives” (Lewis & Allen, 2005, p. 9). They describe the growth in use of virtual learning communities that are centred on online communication but they acknowledge that many such communities meet face-to-face in a blended learning approach and claim that participants rate such blended communities more highly than fully online communities and that most of their cited examples of virtual learning communities use blended learning approaches. In describing the explosion in growth and changes in knowledge and knowledge management in the corporate sector, they predict that virtual learning communities are a yet to be fully exploited as a means of continuous professional development. Their book provides a manual for developing and facilitating such communities but though providing advice about online structure and activities it gives little practical advice for the use of the face-to-face component in the blended learning process which seems to be left to the community to devise. Similarly, Preece, Abras and Maloney-Krichmar (2004) “use the term ‘online community’ broadly to refer to all communities that have some kind of online presence” (p. 3) and include blended communities with fully online communities in their broad categorization but Carlen and Jobring (2005) have developed a typology of online communities which carefully differentiates online and blended communities as well as differentiating these communities as either educational, profes-
14
sional or with a common interest as purpose. Most of the communities discussed in the section on Establishing communities (Chapters VII-X) of this book fit the blended professional communities of the typology which Carlen and Jobring claim are “a prevalent form of community using the internet and ICT for their work-integrated learning in connection with educational purposes” (p. 289). Goodfellow (2005), critiques “the ideological dimension” of the marketing of online learning communities which institutions are claiming democratise the learning process and bring an equality to the online community that may not exist in the real community. He, too, places importance on carefully distinguishing between the purposes and structure of communities from the decentralised communities (such as those that arise between computer technologists sharing new information or resources), course related communities and professional development communities within organizations or for civic learning and highlights the inter-relationship between the online community and the localised community of practice of participants that appears to be a positive outcome of its use. Smith, Stacey and Ha (Chapter VII) researched this inter-relationship in several different settings and found that if well facilitated and purposeful it could provide a model for professional learning. Mackey’s research, reported in Chapter IX, suggests ways that the application of professional learning through the online community can be effectively applied to local communities of practice and may provide the blended approach needed. The use of blended learning practices in establishing communities for professional learning and practice are gradually becoming recognized as effective strategies. The possibilities of a blended learning community for departmental interaction and professional learning are described in detail by Chu and Hernandez-Carrion (2005) who diagram a community that can blend ICT with a “physical mode” (p. 78) to develop a more vibrant and cost-effective culture for all aspects
Introduction to Blended Learning Practices
of academic work including research, teaching and service embedded in a web-based resource and communication base. Applebee, Ellis and Sheely (2004) applied a similar approach in their development of a blended community of faculty representatives who acted as leaders in ICT use and met on-campus and online, also drawing on a range of online resources. As Thompson and Kanuka (Chapter VIII) advise, institutional support of blended learning practices in such communities of practice can facilitate their emergence and sustainability.
Conclusion This chapter has reviewed the literature about blended learning and analysed the evidence base through the research conducted and published at the time of writing. In the area of teaching and learning, the literature indicates that there is now a substantial and growing knowledge about pedagogical and associated issues. In the areas of professional learning and establishing communities to support such learning, the blending of face-to-face and online environments has different dimensions. In this introductory chapter we have attempted to review these and to draw out the key issues as they currently stand. The following chapters extend this discussion through their authors’ research and application to practice.
References Allen, K., Seaman, J., & Garrett, R. (2007). Blending in. The extent and promise of blended education in the United states: The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved 4 Jan 2008 from http://www.blendedteaching.org/special_report_blending_in. Applebee, A. C., Ellis, R. C., & Sheely, S. D. (2004). Developing a blended learning community at the University of Sydney: Broadening the
comfort zone. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer, & R. Phillips (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference 5-8 December, Perth. Retrieved 5 April 2007 from http://www. ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/applebee.html Arbaugh, J. (2000). Virtual classroom versus physical classroom: An exploratory study of class discussion patterns and student learning in an asynchronous Internet-based MBA course. Journal of Management Education, 24(2), 213-233. Aspden, L., & Helm, P. (2004). Making the connection in a blended learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 245-252. Ausburn, L. (2004). Course design elements most valued by adult learners in blended online education environments: An American perspective. Educational Media International, 41(4), 327-337. Bird, L. (2001). Virtual learning in the workplace: the power of ‘communities of practice’. Paper presented at the Meeting at the Crossroads. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, December 9-12, Melbourne. Bliuc, A., Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Research focus and methodological choices in studies into student’s experiences of blended learning. Internet and Higher Education, 10(4), 231-244. Bleed, R. (2001). A hybrid campus for the new millennium. Educause, Jan/Feb, 17-24. Bleed, R. (2006). The IT leader as alchemist: Finding the true gold. EDUCAUSE review, January/February, 33-42. Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (Eds.). (2006). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
15
Introduction to Blended Learning Practices
Boyle, T. (2005). A dynamic systematic method for developing blended learning. Education Communication and Information, 5(3), 221-232. Carlen, U., & Jobring, O. (2005). The rationale of online learning communities. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 1(3), 272-295. Chu, C. M., & Hernandez-Carrion, J. R. (2006). Harnessing ICT to develop community and identity: a model for academic departments. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 2(1), 70-80. Chute, A.G., Williams, J.O.D. & Hancock, B.W. (2006). Transformation of sales skills through knowledge management and blended learning. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 105-119). San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons. Collis, B., Bianco, M., Margaryan, A., & Waring, B. (2005). Putting Blended Learning to Work: a case study from a multinational oil company. Education, Communication & Information, 5(3), 233-250. Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world. London, UK: Kogan Page. Comeaux, P., & McKenna-Byington, E. (2003). Computer-mediated communication in online and conventional classrooms: Some implications for instructional design and professional development. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(4), 348-355. Connery, A., & Hasan, H. (2005). Social and commercial sustainability of regional web-based communities. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 1(3), 246-261. Cragg, C. E., Dunning, J., & Ellis, J. (2008). Teacher and student behaviours in face-to-face and on-line courses: dealing with complex concepts. Journal of Distance Education, 23(3), 1-13.
16
Cross, J. (2006). Foreword In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. xvii -xxiii). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Curtis, R. (2002). Teaching research methods online: course development and comparison to traditional delivery. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2002 pp.141-145). Norfolk VA: AACE. Denis, B. (2003). A conceptual framework to design and support self-directed learning in a blended learning programme. A case study: the DES-TEF Journal of Educational Media, 28(23), 115-127. Donelly, R. (2006). Blended problem-based learning for teacher education: Lessons learned. Learning. media and technology, 31(2), 93-116. Dron, J., Seidel, C., & Litten, G. (2004). Transactional distance in a blended learning environment. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 12(2), 163-174. Dzuiban, C., Hartman, J., Juge, F., Moskal, P. & Sorg, S. (2006). Blended learning enters the mainstream. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 195-208). San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons. Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J.L. & Moskal, P. D. Blended learning. EDUCAUSE Research Bulletin 7, 1-12. Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. Croom Helm Ltd, Kent. Fitzgibbon, K.M. & Jones, N. (2004). Jumping hurdles: challenges of staff development delivered in a blended learning environment. Journal of Educational Media, 29(1), 25-35. Garrison, D. R. & Anderson T. (2003). E-learning in the 21 century: A framework for research and practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Introduction to Blended Learning Practices
Garrison, R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105. Garrison, R., & Vaughan, H. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles and guidelines. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Gerbic, P. (2006). On-campus students’ learning in asynchronous environments. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Deakin University, Australia. Goodfellow, R. (2005). Virtuality and the shaping of educational communities. Education, Communication & Information, 5(2), 113-129. Graham, C. (2006). Blended learning systems. Definitions, current trends and future directions. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3-21). San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons. Graham, C. R., Allen, S. & Ure, D. (2005). Benefits and challenges of blended learning environments. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of information science and technology (pp. 253-259). Hershey, PA: Idea Group. Heaton-Shrestha, C., Edirisingha, P., Burke, L. & Linsey, T. (2005). Introducing a VLE into campusbased undergraduate teaching: Staff perspectives on its impact on teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(6), 370-386. Hofmann, J. (2006). Why blended learning hasn’t (yet) fulfilled its promises: Answers to those questions that keep you up at night. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 27-40). San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons. Jelfs, A., Nathan, R., & Barrett, C. (2004). Scaffolding students: Suggestions on how to equip students with the necessary study skills for
studying in a blended environment. Journal of Educational Media, 29(2), 85-96. Kerres, M., & De witt, C. (2003). A didactic framework for the design of blended learning arrangements. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 101-112. Kimble, C., Hidreth, P., & Wright, P. (2000). Communities of practice: going virtual. In Y. Malhotra (Ed.), Knowledge management and business model innovation (pp. 216-230). Hershey: Idea Group Publishing. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lindquist, B. (2006). Blended learning at the University of Phoenix. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 223-234). San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons. Littlejohn, A., & Pegler, C. (2007). Preparing for Blended e-Learning. London: Routledge. Ludwig-Hartman, S., & Dunlap, J. (2003). Learner support services for online students: scaffolding for success. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(1). Retrieved on 10 February 2008 from http://www.irrodl.org/index. php/irrodl/article/view/131/211 Lynch, R., & Dembo, M. (2004). The relationship between self-regulation and online learning in a blended learning context. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2). Retrieved on 1 February, 2008 from http://www. irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/189/271 Lewis, D., & Allen, B. (2005). Virtual leaning communities: A guide for practitioners. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. 17
Introduction to Blended Learning Practices
Lewis, N. J., & Orton, P. Z. (2006). Blended learning in business impact: IBM’s case for learning success. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 61-75). San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons. Mason, R. (2005). Guest editorial. Education, Communication and Information, 5(3), 217-220. Mason, R. & Rennie, F. (2006). Elearning: The key concepts. London: Routledge. Macdonald, J., & McAteer, E. (2003). New approaches to supporting students: Strategies for blended learning in distance and campus-based environments. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 129-146.
students’ experiences of using a virtual learning environment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 41(1), 79-92. Moore, M. (2005). Editorial. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 129-132. Moore, M. (2006). Foreword. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Fransisco: John Wiley and Sons. Motteram, G. (2006). ‘Blended’ education and the transformation of teachers: A long-term case study in postgraduate UK Higher Education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(1), 17-30.
Macdonald, J. (2006). Blended learning and online tutoring: A good practice guide. Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing Limited.
Nel, L., & Wilkinson, A. (2006). Enhancing collaborative learning in a blended learning environment: applying a process planning model. Systems Practice Action Research, 19, 553-576.
Margaryan, A., Collis, B. & Cooke, A. (2004). Activity-based blended learning. Human Resource Development International, 7(2), 265-274.
Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can ‘blended learning’ be redeemed? E-Learning, 2(1), 1726.
McConnell, D. (2006). E-learning groups and communities. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Osguthorpe, R., & Graham, C. (2003). Blended Learning Environments. Definitions and Directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-233.
McShane, K. (2004). Integrating face-to-face and online teaching: Academics’ role concept and teaching choices. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(1), 3 -14.
Palloff, R. & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Maisie, E. (2006). The blended learning imperative. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 22-26). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Preece, J., Abras, C.,& Maloney-Krichmar, D. (2004). Designing and evaluating online communities: research speaks to emerging practice. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 1(1), 2-18.
Meyer, K. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussion: The role of time and higher order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55-65.
Ramsey, C. (2003). Using virtual learning environments to facilitate new learning relationships. The International Journal of Management Education, 3(2), 31 - 41.
Molesworth, M. (2004). Collaboration, reflection and selective neglect: Campus-based marketing
Robey, D., Khoo, H. M., & Powers, C. (2000). Situated learning in cross-functional virtual
18
Introduction to Blended Learning Practices
teams. IEEE Transaction on Professional Communication, 51-66. Rogers, J. (2000). Communities of practice: a framework for fostering coherence in virtual learning communities. Educational Technology and Society, 3(3), 384-392. Rovai, A., & Jordan, H. (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) Retrieved on 2 February, 2008 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/192/274 Salmon, G. (2000). E-Moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page. Schweizer, K., Paechter, M., & Weidenmann, B. (2003). Blended Learning as a strategy to improve collaborative task performance. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 211-224. Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G., & Francis, R. (2006). The undergraduate experience of blended learning: A review of UK literature and practice. Retrieved on 1 February, 2008 from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/projects/detail/ lr_2006_sharpe Shea, P. (2006). Towards a conceptual framework for learning in blended environments. In A. Picciano & C. Dziuban (Eds.), Blended Learning. Research Perspectives. United States of America: The Sloan Consortium. Stacey, E. & Wiesenberg, F. (2007). A Study of Face-to-Face and Online Teaching Philosophies in Canada and Australia. Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 19-40.
Tabor, S. (2007). Narrowing the distance: Implementing a hybrid learning model for information security education. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 47-57. Tiene, D. (2000). Online discussions : A survey of advantages and disadvantages compared to face-to-face discussions. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(4), 371-384. Twigg, C. (2003). Improving learning and reducing costs: models for online learning. EDUCAUSE review (September/October), 29-38. Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 81-94. Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2005). Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty development community. Internet and Higher Education, 8(1), 1-12. Vignare, K. (2006). Review of literature. Blended learning: Using ALN to change the classroom - will it work for you? In M. Pittinsky & C. Dziuban (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives. United Sates of America: The Sloan Consortium. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wilson, B., Ludwig-Hardman, S., Thornam, C. & Dunlap, J. (2004). Bounded community: Designing and facilitating learning communities in formal courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(3), 1-22.
19
Section I
Strategies for Blended Teaching and Learning
21
Chapter II
Including Online Discussions Within Campus-Based Students’ Learning Environments Philippa Gerbic Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand
ABSTRACT Online discussions are now available as a pedagogical option in blended learning environments in universities. Much of the research to date has focused on the characteristics of this computer-mediated environment and its potential for learning and there has been less examination of wider contextual factors. This chapter presents case study research which investigates online discussions as they occur within the broader framework of the learning design or curriculum within a blended environment in a campus-based degree programme. The chapter provides insights into influential factors for undergraduate student learning and makes recommendations for teachers who wish to advance the educational potential of the new communication medium.
INTRODUCTION When students arrive at universities to attend campus based programmes, they have expectations about their learning experiences. While they may have looked at the university website for information about their courses and enrolled online, they often do not seem to be ready for a learning environment where various kinds of ICT
are blended with traditional face-to-face activities such as lectures, tutorials, and small group learning. This may be for various reasons. Mature students may lack confidence to go into the new virtual spaces which demand technical skills and the ability to create an online presence or identity. Younger students, particularly those that have grown up in technology rich environments, may consider that virtual environments are for social
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Including Online Discussions Within Campus-Based Students’ Learning Environments
networking and not for learning and, paradoxically, expect that all forms of learning with others will occur on the physical campus. Many campus-based universities have introduced asynchronous online discussions in their learning environments. This technology, as a new learning domain, offers a different interaction medium from that of face-to-face discussions; for example, text-based rather than spoken exchanges, time to read and think about messages, and compose a response, and space for everyone to make a contribution, at the same or different times and from different places (Harasim, 2000). These characteristics indicate the potential that online discussions have to complement, enhance and extend the traditional types of learning that have occurred in campus-based environments . However, the use of online discussions in undergraduate settings has met with varying success and their pedagogical benefits are yet to be clearly established (Laurillard, 2002). While a body of research is now available about online discussions, less is known about their role in campus-based environments and their interaction with other aspects of that environment, especially the learning design or curriculum. In order to develop good practice, more knowledge is needed about online discussions, and the way in which they may support learning in blended environments. If universities wish to create student-centred learning environments, then more insight is also needed about student perspectives of online discussions when they are part of campus-based study and the ways in which they help or hinder their learning. Online discussions present a new learning space for students and the characteristics of this space (for example, text based, interactive) suggest that learning in this setting is different from face-to-face learning. The study discussed in this chapter was designed to investigate what this new reality entailed for students, to develop descriptions of their learning from their perspective and examine the interdependencies between the
22
online and face-to-face environments. The study was interpretive and described student perspectives of the influence of the computer-mediated conferencing (CMC) environment and broader environmental factors, such as the curriculum design on their learning. The research project comprised four case studies and a cross-case analysis. This chapter presents the results of a comparative analysis of the four case studies and discusses the overall findings with particular reference to one of the cases (named throughout the chapter as the Debate case).
B Blended learning practice in campus-based education is marked by enormous diversity, and this is also reflected in the literature. The introductory chapter to this book acknowledges the wide variety of definitions and frameworks, however most writers have referred to a mixture of face-toface and ICT based environments. Littlejohn and Pegler (2007) emphasized the role of ICT in their concept of ‘blended e-learning’ which prompts readers to consider the ideas of e-learning and also its introduction into campus settings as two separate concepts. The increase in the use of the term blended learning has been accompanied by a commensurate decrease in references to the term ‘flexible learning.’ Graham (2006) identified access and flexibility as one of the major reasons for blended learning but did not explore the connection to flexible learning in any depth. The dominance now of the new idea of ‘blends’ rather than flexibility within universities, raising questions concerning the philosophical and pedagogical differences between them and their impact on learning.
The Learning Context The literature indicates that blended learning essentially offers a contextual approach to learn-
Including Online Discussions Within Campus-Based Students’ Learning Environments
ing. The importance of the learning context was identified by Entwistle and Ramsden (1983) who found that students used either deep or surface approaches to learning depending on their interpretation of what was required by the learning activities and their context. Their work has provided a framework for this research by placing blended learning within a broader context, and for investigating student perceptions of online discussions when they were added to face-toface courses. Entwistle and Ramsden (1983) identified three influential contextual features for students which were the learning activity and the student’s previous experience and interest in it, assessment, and the teacher and teaching. Ramsden (2003) acknowledged ICT as part of the modern learning context, however ICT has not been directly investigated as such, and that was part of the aim of this study. Garrison and Anderson (2003) did not accept that CMC should be regarded simply as a communication carrier. Their view was that “what is learned is inseparable from how it is learned” (2003, p.19) and therefore, CMC was an important contextual influence. The four contextual features are discussed next in the context of CMC.
The Learning Activity Discussion has been a longstanding feature of educational settings and has been recognised for its ability to develop intellectual skills such as analysis and synthesis, dealing with ambiguity and complexity, and other skills such as empathy, respectful listening, communication and collaboration (Brookfield & Preskill, 1999). There is also strong theoretical support for the role of discussion in learning. From a Vygotskian (1978) perspective, dialogue with more knowledgeable people was a mechanism through which learning occurred. Laurillard (2002) extended this idea into educational media and developed a teaching strategy of ‘iterative dialogue’ (2002, p.77) comprising discursive, adaptive, interactive and
reflective processes in what she has named a ‘Conversational Framework’. In her research on online discussions, Dysthe (2002) attributed high levels of dialogue to the curriculum design, including the activity. The key characteristics of the activity which encouraged interaction were a provocative text, the absence of right and wrong answers, a complexity that required students to think first, a connection to the real world and “an interesting and challenging assignment, so there is a certain curiosity about the input from different voices” (2002, p.346). If discussion activities are to be part of the learning context, then students need to understand how they are related to the learning outcomes. Ellis, Goodyear, O’Hara and Prosser (2007) identified this as a critical insight arising from their research and observed that if online discussions are to be added to a course then teachers must ensure that students know how to discuss things face-to-face.
Assessment Ramsden (2003) identified assessment as one of the most central influences on students’ learning, and expressed the view that students’ behaviour was often not concerned with understanding a subject, but working out what the teacher wanted from them in the assessment. He endorsed Snyder’s (1971, in Ramsden, 2003) concept of the hidden curriculum, where, through assessment, especially the activity and the marking criteria, teachers demonstrated to students what they really valued. The other factor that influenced students’ approaches to assessment was workload and where students felt pressure due to too much work then they tended to adopt surface approaches. Laurillard (2002) expressed similar views on the role of assessment and argued that new technologies must be embedded within the learning design e.g. through assessment, otherwise students regarded them as unimportant. Garrison and Anderson (2003) regarded assessment as an
23
Including Online Discussions Within Campus-Based Students’ Learning Environments
integrating mechanism where external measures of performance could be matched by students with their own internal perceptions of self-development. They advocated incorporating CMC into the assessment program because what was rewarded was valued, and in the face of competing demands on their time, any activity that was marginal or supplemental was unlikely to be prioritised.
The Role of the Teacher The dominant view of teacher involvement in online discussions is that of close and active teacher moderation. For example, Laurillard (2002) argued that the success of CMC was “totally dependent on a good moderator” (2002, p.151). Garrison and Anderson (2003) similarly thought that teacher presence was needed to ensure that the online discussions developed new understandings and knowledge. Despite the predominance of the constructivist philosophy in universities, there are few studies which have considered CMC where there is little teacher involvement. Dysthe (2002) attributed a high level of interaction, not only to the activity but also to the teacher’s role which was limited to monitoring the discussion, and not intervening. She argued that this created a symmetrical discussion where all of the participants were of equal status and power. This fostered dialogue because it gave each student’s contribution an equal authority, and students had to develop their own ideas and take responsibility for the discussion rather than wait for the teacher to intervene. Rourke and Anderson (2002) reported a study of postgraduate distance students where peers led the online discussions instead of the teacher. They noted that “one consistently cited issue is the authoritarian presence that the instructor brings to the discussion” (2002, p.4). They identified the cognitive and affective benefits of freer discussion, which produced increased student satisfaction as well as depth of understanding. The researchers found that the students preferred the discussions
24
which they led themselves and criticised the other teacher-led discussions for not being sufficiently critical or challenging, although the latter discussions concerned subjects that were technical rather than discursive.
Te CMC Environment Laurillard (2002) described CMC as a conferencing system which “supports an online discussion environment in which remote users send and receive text messages, usually reading and creating messages offline, and then connecting to the system to upload their messages and download new ones” (2002, p.147). Her description suggested an asynchronous mode, being one where participants can send and receive messages at different times. Harasim (2000) called CMC a ‘new learning domain’ (2000, p.49) with five distinguishing characteristics being time independence, place independence, many-to-many communication ability, computer-mediated interaction and its textbased nature, and these have provided a conceptual framework for practitioners and researchers in the design and evaluation of CMC. One of the things that has attracted teachers and researchers to the CMC environment is its potential to support constructivist learning. A comprehensive explanation of the way in which the CMC environment might support constructivist approaches was described by Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campbell and Haag (1995). They identified four interrelated elements; as much real world context as possible, an active process of articulation and reflection to assist learners can make their own meanings, collaborative opportunities, so that learners can articulate their tacit knowledge, develop and test their different beliefs and build new understandings and conversations because the meaning-making process is mediated by language. In their view, these facets have the potential to develop new collaborative ‘mental models’. There was also a potential to reduce the presence of the teacher and to increase interaction
Including Online Discussions Within Campus-Based Students’ Learning Environments
between students. This section of the chapter discusses three characteristics of the CMC medium that may promote a constructivist philosophy in learning being its text-based nature, the ability to support interaction and time independence.
Text-Based Nature This aspect of the CMC environment has received less attention than other features. Reading and writing in this text-based medium creates qualitatively different discussions from those in speech. Reading messages can support learning. Parry and Dunn (2000) found that students benefited from reading CMC messages because they could compare their postings with those of other students. This form of benchmarking enabled students to make knowledge comparisons and to observe successful learning strategies, for example, to observe other students applying theory and providing reasons and evidence. The role of writing in online discussions and its connection to learning is an important factor that deserves to receive greater attention in the CMC literature. Mason (1993) differentiated writing from speech as a visual, rather than aural, phenomenon, where meaning was taken from the language itself, rather than from its immediate context and where its main functions were logical rather than interpersonal. CMC had fused together these differences and had moved writing from an individual and private activity to one which was interactive and public. Mason regarded this as one of the strengths of CMC, because it could support active and socially-based learning in a written format which imposed greater cognitive demands. Warschauer (1999) has drawn on the work of Wells and Chang-Well’s (1992, in Warschauer, 1999) and their concept of cognitive amplification where learners developed their thinking by using written texts as learning devices. “By making a record of text of thought available for reflection, and if necessary, revision, a written text serves
as a cognitive amplifier, allowing the reader or writer to bootstrap his or her own thinking in a more powerful manner than is normally possible in speech” (p.122). In Warschauer’s (1999) view, the CMC environment was able to draw on the strengths of social constructivist concepts of both text mediated learning through reading and writing, and the development and refinement of understanding by iterative layers of reflection and interaction. Lea (2001) also acknowledged the role of CMC in supporting the development of knowledge through written argument. Her research highlighted the value of the permanent texts, new opportunities for reflexivity, the depth of thought that came from writing and access to other students’ ideas and the ways in which such activities could build disciplinary knowledge. Undergraduate students have also raised concerns about the text-based nature of CMC; the absence of body and facial expressions made communication more difficult, and increased the likelihood of misunderstanding, Harasim (2000); postings might be regarded as deficient in their content, grammar or structure, and this suppressed argument and debate (Light & Light, 1999); the discussion metaphor was confusing because of the text-based interaction and this confusion inhibited students’ interaction (Thomas, 2002).
Interaction There is a large CMC literature on the potential for interaction and dialogue in CMC, however this study focused on one issue, being the different levels of interaction, because of their association with the learning potential of the text-based nature of the CMC environment. While interaction has been endorsed as a fundamental requirement for university learning by many researchers, for example, Harasim (2000), Laurillard (2002), the literature indicates overall that there are difficulties in developing high quality CMC interaction in practice.
25
Including Online Discussions Within Campus-Based Students’ Learning Environments
Henri (1995) found low levels of interaction and she reconceptualised the CMC learning process as two distinct interactive processes: “(1) a learning process using CMC, characterised by individual endeavour supported by the groups’ exchanges and (2) a group work process using CMC, characterised by collective endeavour, directed towards the accomplishment of a task and reaching a shared objective” (1995, p. 160). Similarly, in a study of a predominantly undergraduate campus-based students, Pena-Shaff and Nicolls (2004) found that students developed their ideas in a social context, but the discussion was characterised overall as “a reflective soliloquygenerating process” (2004, p.260) because of its monologic, rather than dialogic, character, despite an explicitly constructivist course design. Thomas (2002) has critiqued the interactive potential of CMC. He regarded interaction as significantly impeded because CMC dialogue lacked the features of ‘normal discussion’ which were necessary for collaborative learning to take place. Its highly technology-mediated nature meant that its threaded structure obstructed coherency, so no real accretion of knowledge was possible and the asynchronous nature of the environment.
Time Flexibility This CMC characteristic has two dimensions – that of time flexibility and time for reflection and writing. The benefits of time flexibility for learning have been widely acclaimed in the academic and popular literature, but this flexibility is somewhat contradictory because it creates significant time management demands for students. Palloff and Pratt (2003) recognised the importance of time and commitment in devoting an entire chapter to this in their text on virtual students. Arguably, this is equally applicable to campus-based students. They drew attention to the need to accommodate online learning with other commitments to family, work and a social life and recommended that students set goals for their study, for example,
26
their final grade, and then plan and prioritise demands on their time. Time flexibility offers other benefits for students. In Fabro and Garrison’s (1998) study of higher order thinking in postgraduates, students recognised that a benefit of asynchronicity was the better quality of their discussion. In her research, Dysthe (2002) supported this concept and considered that when the time factor was eliminated, all students could express their ideas in relation to other entries and, then, multivoiced perspectives appeared which were important for individual and collective meaning-making (2002, p.349). There is also some research which has identified the benefits of asynchronous communication for ESL students. Yildez and Bichelmeyer (2003) found that ESL students participated more in Web-based discussions because they did not have to worry about facets of face-to-face discussions like listening, understanding, making a comment on the spot, pronunciation and turn taking. One critic of this view is Thomas (2002) who argued that the time and place separation created a level of abstraction where students were not interacting with each other, but with pieces of text. Messages were not contributions to a collaborative effort but bits of data which might be selected by students for attention. In his view, online discussions lacked the flow of an ongoing face-to-face dialogue, because of their time and place independence.
Areas for Further Research Given the widespread application of constructivist principles in universities, it is somewhat surprising that Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of language as a mediating tool has not been more widely investigated within the CMC medium. More work is needed to find out how students might be convinced to interact rather than using CMC as a noticeboard, and how time flexibility can improve the quality of discussions and widen participation, especially for ESL students. While
Including Online Discussions Within Campus-Based Students’ Learning Environments
researchers are now recognising the importance of the learning context, there is little substantial research which examines the way in which such factors influence students’ actions in online discussions. Given the potential of CMC to support dialogic learning, and the difficulty of achieving this, there is a need to understand better what kinds of online discussion activities will support dialogue and interaction, what the role of the teacher might be in campus-based discussions, how assessment might influence student behaviour and how to integrate online discussions with the face-to-face elements of a blended environment. This study aimed to do so from an undergraduate student perspective
THERESEPRO Aims The aim of this research project was to investigate how undergraduate students learned in online discussions. The main questions were: •
•
•
What was the influence of the online discussion environment, particularly its text based nature, time flexibility and independence and interaction opportunities? What was the influence of the learning context, including the learning activity, and assessment? What was the relationship for student learning between the online discussions and face-to-face classes?
Context This research was situated within a large urban New Zealand university which offered a wide range of professional degree programmes. Its courses were mostly campus-based and from 2000, the university had engaged in extensive technology driven development which included
embedding online learning within its strategic direction and developing the associated capacity and infrastructure, including a learning management system. One of the first programmes to introduce online learning was the Bachelor of Business. The goal of this programme was to prepare graduates for business practice in a variety of disciplines. The degree had a student-centered philosophy and focused on addressing authentic business problems and the development of professional capabilities. Students learned in small classes of 25 to 30 students where there was an emphasis on active learning, discussions and teamwork. Classes were multicultural and a significant number of students spoke English as a second language (ESL). Online learning was introduced to the programme in 1999 as an enhancement to face-toface teaching, however, by 2004, courses were offered in ‘flexible mode’ where face-to-face classes were reduced from three to two hours a week and substantial online activities were added, especially those that were discussion based. The four case studies in this research were drawn from these courses.
Methodology A qualitative case study design was chosen because of its ability to investigate the research questions from a grounded and situated perspective. This design was able to tackle situational complexity, and to support in depth examination of issues that were based on “complex, situated problematic relationships” (Stake, 2003, p.440). Data came from the students (their thoughts and perspectives) and also from sources external to the students (on their actions). This provided multiple viewpoints which triangulated the evidence to support the trustworthiness of the findings. Data was therefore collected from paper and online course documentation, transcripts of the online discussions, the learning management system,
27
Including Online Discussions Within Campus-Based Students’ Learning Environments
student interviews, and the academic records of the students. Data was managed and analysed using NUD*IST(NVivo). Analysis of the course documentation and the online environment provided a description of the course setting. Content analysis of the online discussions, using a framework derived from Entwistle’s and Ramsden’s (1983) deep and surface approaches to learning (Gerbic & Stacey, 2005) provided further description of the students’ online postings. After participant checks, a thematic analysis of the interviews was carried out, with constant refinement of the nodes to conceptualise the data and identify patterns. Several layers of matrix-based analysis across the different data sources were then effected to develop integrated interpretations of what was occurring in the cases. Peer debriefing, and detailed process notes and reflections within NVivo were also used to support the trustworthiness of the findings. While the individual cases could provide detailed pictures of the students’ perceptions and actions in various learning environments, the identification of broad principles and general themes in such an emergent area was also valuable and a cross case analysis was included within the research design to achieve this. Miles and Huberman (1994) identified the benefit of cross case analysis for improving the strength and relevance of findings to other situations and did not regard this as inappropriate for qualitative studies. They identified a second benefit which was to deepen understanding and explanation by looking at similarities and differences across cases. This second benefit was very persuasive, because it enabled an investigation and comparison of different curriculum models and contexts within this study. The comparative analysis was carried our using a meta-matrix approach (Miles & Huberman, 1994) where the cases were ‘stacked’ to allow comparison of similarities and differences. The findings were then analysed in the meta-matrix row by row, on a case by case basis
28
(see Gerbic, 2006b). An unexpected advantage of this approach was the opportunity to refine and sharpen the individual case analyses, as issues arose in the meta-analysis which required further clarification from the individual cases. Four cases were chosen on a convenience sampling basis from the business degree, which was also the researcher’s workplace. The cases were situated in four different business disciplines which were offered in flexible mode. Three of them were second year subjects and one was a final year subject. The teachers were predominantly experienced with online discussions and the numbers of participants varied from seven to twenty-five in each case and totalled fifty-five. One of the courses, the debate case, was a second year compulsory general business course where students were required to apply a variety of theoretical concepts to business issues. The course was highly discursive and regarded as challenging by the students. The online discussion activity was based on a moral dilemma, where students had to take up a position and justify it with theory and research. It was a debate of the whole class, which lasted for five weeks and was very structured, with every student being required to make a minimum of three postings and respond at least once to another student. Fifteen Kiwi1 and nine Chinese ESL students participated in this case study. The Kiwi students (nine females and six males) were mostly in their early twenties, liked learning by discussions and were experienced with online discussions. The Chinese students (six females and three males) were older and they emphasized the importance of direct instruction from the teacher.
RESULTSOFTHEse ANSIS The cross case analysis indicated that in three of the cases (including the Debate case), which included fifty of the study’s participants, students
Including Online Discussions Within Campus-Based Students’ Learning Environments
acknowledged that the online discussions helped them to learn. The fourth case was situated within a subject that was regarded as technical, difficult and not easily discursive. Here, the students had a preference for teacher led classes. There was low participation in the online discussion activities and consequently only seven students participated in the research. The case was however valuable because it often confirmed findings from a converse position. Evidence of learning was found in the content analysis of the online transcripts which indicated predominantly deep approaches to learning. In three of the cases, there was a close alignment between the main characteristics of the deep approaches and the requirements of the online discussion activity and its marking criteria. In the debate case, 94% of the units were coded to deep approaches which were characterised by maximising understanding and meaning, evaluation and critique, asking questions to understand, relating theory to the real world, relating the discussion to the course, relating to other students’ comments and justifying statements. Many of these characteristics of deep approaches were reflected in the marking criteria, for example, reflection, making an argument and justifying it, incorporating research and reading, and were therefore required as part of the activity. Apart from the nature of the activity and its assessment, analysis indicated other influential design features in three of the cases. These were the absence of the teacher in the online discussions, and connection between the face-to-face classes and the online discussions. The three courses were compulsory and they were all applied (rather than theoretical) courses and discursive in nature. Sixty percent of the participants positively affirmed the value of learning by discussion and interaction, but also liked learning in more structured and directed ways with a teacher in class.
The Influence of the Online Dscussion Environment, Particularly its Text Based Nature, Time Flexibility and Independence and Interaction Opportunities Text-Based Nature One of the strongest findings across the case studies was the value of the text-based environment for the student’s learning. Students identified several benefits of reading others’ messages and these included accessing a pool of information and new perspectives, using the messages to start their own thinking and to check their understanding. I tried to open my mind, and like, accept new opinions and read them and seeing where they were coming from and why they were saying what they were saying… and when I read someone, and you’re like, ohhhh that’s a bunch of rubbish, but then, I kind of forced myself to read on a bit more and try and work out why. (Nicola) It was the act of writing which mainly developed students’ understanding and this occurred at two levels. Initially there was an internal focus where students engaged in making their own meaning, with some students recognising the way in which their tacit knowledge became more explicit: It [writing] makes you kind of get all your thoughts and condense them and actually realise what you think…cause I think very much, up in your brain it is all a big mess of thoughts and things…so actually condensing it and going ‘this is what I really think’ …helps you to learn. (Mavis) Next, the focus became external, and this often involved students clarifying, reasoning and structuring their ideas in order to best communicate with their peers:
29
Including Online Discussions Within Campus-Based Students’ Learning Environments
So you might rephrase it just so people understand what you’re talking about a bit more, so obviously you want to create an argument, you want yours to be the strongest, so you’ve got to get it, you know, as clear as possible. (Jorg) The permanent record and public nature of the CMC environment resulted in communication anxiety for some students, although this was less so for ESL students, who regarded classroom discussions as far more difficult because of their lack of language competence and confidence. By contrast, many students enjoyed the freedom of the text-based online environment to say what they thought and surprisingly, this included Kiwi students who were too shy to talk in class.
Interaction The case studies illuminated the difficulties of moving students through different levels of interaction, that is from observing by reading others’ messages, to participation though making a posting of their views, through to interacting in a dialogic fashion, where texts were used as thinking devices. The highest levels of interaction occurred when it was structured into the activity, for example, in the Debate case, when students were directed to respond to another posting.
Time Flexibility Most students regarded time flexibility positively, but where participation was voluntary, prioritizing by time pressured students resulted in minimal participation. The time management issues raised by online discussions had resulted in a new perception of the value of the time and place boundedness of face-to-face classes by some students and these are presented below in Table 1. This study indicated that online discussions provided a new comparative lens for students when they evaluated face-to-face classroom learning, and the cases indicated that there was
30
a new recognition by participants of the value of absolute time and place of the classroom in determining priorities. Many students recognised that time independence resulted in a better quality of discussion, and this was especially valued by the Chinese ESL students who were able to participate more substantially in the online discussions.
The Influence of the Learning Context, Including the Learning Activity, and Assessment There was a close alignment of the main characteristics of deep approaches to learning in the online discussions to the activity descriptor and assessment criteria, and the influence of both of these factors was consequently confirmed by the students.
Assessment All of the case studies confirmed the influence of assessment on student perceptions and their consequent actions in the CMC environment. In the debate case, assessment of the online discussion was motivational. Everyone was required to make three postings, and this created a substantial body of messages (80-100 over five weeks) to fuel the debate. As a result, the whole class was involved through expressions of their opinions and this seemed to create a sense of ownership of the debate: I found this [debate] positive because everyone had to have an opinion. You couldn’t hide in the corner. A lot of students are, like, ‘I don’t want to have my say, cause its hard, or cause I’m scared I’ll get it wrong or something’… Because it was assessed, students were actually forced to examine the way they thought of things….To have their say, they were forced to make a rational argument… so they had to do some learning to get to this point…The interactive classroom environment is
Including Online Discussions Within Campus-Based Students’ Learning Environments
Table 1. Time and place perceptions of the classroom and online discussions Classroom
Time and place bounded
Easy to get there, but easy to go off task and stop listening or focusing (not your own time)
Online discussions
Time and place flexible
Time management needed to get there, but once there, always on task (your own time)
optional. It’s not assessable, it’s not compulsory, whereas this was assessable and compulsory. They had to do it. (Joel)
The requirement to respond was also identified by students as motivational:
Because the debate was assessed, students thought more deeply, clarified their positions, made their arguments carefully and spent time preparing their postings. All of this attention by the students resulted in an online discussion that was superior to that of their classroom discussions.
it gets you out of your kind of, like, comfort zone, because… you can sit there and talk all you want, and it doesn’t matter…but you know people are going to respond to you, and if you have to respond to someone else…you’re a bit more conscious of what you’re writing rather than just waffling on. (Nicola)
The Learning Activity
The Role of the Teacher
The cross case analysis confirmed that the discussion activity itself was an influential factor, and all of the case studies identified the importance of the dialogic power or potential of the activity that is, an activity that was genuinely discursive and capable of multiple view points and interpretations. The debate activity was an example of this, especially the topic, which the students liked, because it was controversial and, therefore, truly discursive:
In three of the case studies, including the Debate case, the teachers rarely entered the online discussions although they actively discussed them in the face-to-face sessions. This may have resulted in more interaction and dialogue due to the symmetry of the discussion where students had freedom to comment and had complete responsibility for the discussion. This is an alternative view of the role of the teacher as much of the literature advocates for strong online teacher moderation. However, in a blended environment, teacher support may be provided in the face-to-face classroom.
It [the debate] really sparked everybody’s interest… how selfish some people can be and how unrealistic some suggestions were and it started up this big sort of argument thing. (Molly) Students also liked the debate because the activity was essentially an argument where everyone had to take up a position and justify and/or defend it: It wasn’t just a wishy washy point of view you were coming up with. You had to say why, as a utilitarian or a cultural relativist, that it was relevant. (Ronald)
The Relationship for Student Learning Between the Online Dscussions and Face-to-Face Classes The Pedagogic Connection All of the case studies endorsed the need for a strong integrative relationship and good pedagogic connections between online discussions
31
Including Online Discussions Within Campus-Based Students’ Learning Environments
and face-to-face classes. Analysis indicated that this occurred in three ways: 1. The weekly topics or course content connected directly to the online discussions. 2. The role of the teacher was very important. The activity that was regarded as most significant by the students was providing feedback on the discussion progress, especially the quality, content and general standards of the messages. Students identified other activities like the teacher’s clarifying requirements and expectations, explaining benefits and encouraging participation, but these were not that influential. 3. The class activities could develop knowledge and skills which were needed for the online discussion, for example, in the Debate case, students practised applying theoretical concepts in the face-to-face class.
A Complementary Connection Students identified major differences between the face-to-face and online environments which related to the verbal and text-based communication modes, their physical and virtual character, and their synchronous and asynchronous character. What emerged from the students’ discussions was an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each discussion mode. For many students, it was not a contest between one or the other, rather each mode was regarded as complementary in relation to their learning.
Chinese (ESL) Students The Debate case provided insights into how Chinese students learned in online discussions. They generally liked the CMC environment because it helped them to interact with their peers. They could join in the online conversations, whereas they often felt excluded from face-to-face discussions because their rapid speed made it difficult
32
for them to think immediately about the topic and to compose a response. Also, many of the Chinese students were shy because they lacked confidence in their language skills. In the CMC environment, reading and writing were easier for them than listening and speaking and the permanent record meant that they could revisit comments. The virtual environment meant that it was a person’s ideas and not their identity that was important, and other people’s reactions, especially negative ones, were not visible to the receiver. The slower speed meant that the students had plenty of time to think, construct their arguments, make use of a dictionary if needed and then write their posting.
DISCUSSION This research has identified some of the ways in which the CMC environment can create a qualitatively different learning space, so that students can learn in ways that are not available in face-to face classrooms. In particular, the text-based nature was highlighted - where the acts of reading and writing engaged undergraduate students and assisted them to learn as they formulated and communicated their ideas to their peers in a public forum. This modern illustration of Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of the role of language and sociocultural processes in learning demonstrates how CMC messages may be used as thinking devices (Dysthe, 2002), and how text may act as a cognitive amplifier in the learning process. However, it is not the features of the CMC environment alone that support deep approaches to learning and this research has identified other influential factors which relate to the context. These include assessment, the activity, and the role of the teacher, were all highly influential in providing messages to students about course expectations. This research indicates that in blended environments, Entwistle and Ramsden’s (1983) concept that students’ approaches to learning are
Including Online Discussions Within Campus-Based Students’ Learning Environments
relational, that is, they carry out learning activities according to their perceptions of what is required, continues to apply. One further contextual element can now be added, and that is the importance of connection or integration of CMC with the course, especially its face-to-face classes.
Emerging and Future Trends The future will see a steady increase in the variety of discussion-focused technologies that appear on campus, for example, voice-based technologies and those activated through mobile technologies. These will continue to change the nature of the blended environment, but changes in the character of the student population and teachers’ familiarity with technology are likely to be more significant for the future. The student population is becoming more divergent in character. Undergraduate students will come from wider socio-economic backgrounds and comprise a greater age range. Multicultural classrooms will include students with a range of English language abilities and learning culture perspectives. Increasingly, young people study and work at the same time and are constantly balancing between their personal, occupational and educational commitments (Wyn & Dwyer, 2000). Increasingly, these students will be ICT literate and will demand more flexibility in their study and learning support. Teachers will become more comfortable with and more knowledgeable about online technologies. Currently, in campus-based universities, there is still a sense of contest (amongst teachers) between online discussions and face-to-face learning. This research indicated that this is not a student view. They appeared to be more experienced with online discussions and viewed them as complementary to their campus-based studies. University teachers will soon include NetGen students, who may be more attuned to the ways in which blended environments can support constructivist learning. In the meantime,
other teachers will continue to build knowledge through research, reflective practice and professional development.
Social Implications and Potential to Change Educational Policy and Practice This research identified the enormous time pressures that many students continue to face, as described above. The time and place flexibility of the online discussions was contradicted by the time cost of study and the need for connection through face-to-face classes. Many students were clearly studying to get a well paid job, however they were highly assessment-driven and their attitudes were highly instrumental and often expressed as surface approaches to learning. Students are often criticised for these kinds of views – however, deep and surface approaches to learning originated in a time when fewer people went to university and those that did were more affluent and had the time to value learning for its own sake, rather than for vocational reasons (Harris, 1993). Students’ focus on relevant skills and a qualification are a strategy to develop economic security in volatile employment markets. These are all rational and competent responses from students to the world as they see it. Biggs (2003) comments that rather than criticize such a view, a better approach is to redesign the learning context and his response is that of ‘constructive alignment’, which was reflected in the learning design of the Debate case. This study has provided new information about the way in which Chinese students learn in online discussions (see Gerbic, 2006a) and found that Chinese students, like Kiwi students, are responsive to their learning context and act according to their perceptions of what is required. The value of the CMC environment for the Chinese students arose from its ability to ameliorate their language issues, to provide a benchmark for them for their contributions, and to participate in discussions
33
Including Online Discussions Within Campus-Based Students’ Learning Environments
with their peers in a far more enjoyable manner than in the classroom. The modern global environment of universities means that many students today are ESL speakers and are often unfamiliar with more active and student-centred learning activities. The insights from this research about Chinese students might be applied more broadly to other contexts where language or adaptation to a learning culture is an issue for students. The expansion of online discussions and learning in campus-based environments has the potential to create different blends, with different proportions of face-to-face teaching. Much of the current practice involves models of teaching and learning which is based on assumptions about the supremacy of face-to-face learning where it is the dominant part or anchor of the teaching and learning model. This study indicated that, from a student perspective, campus-based classrooms have a legitimacy that is not currently accorded to online discussions and on line learning generally. This has been supported by a tradition of a strong teacher presence in campus-based settings which is yet to manifest itself in online discussions. We are currently in a period of technology change and transition and in future, as students and teachers become more comfortable with virtual environments, the proportion and position of face-to-face teaching within courses may reduce. One factor which is likely to influence this decision is that of changing funding policies. Moore (2005) points out that face-to-face is an expensive technology for many learning outcomes and may not suit the increasing number of adult learners who are coming to universities. Less face-to-face teaching may increase cost-effectiveness and better meet the ends of some learners, however, such an approach needs commitment from academics, professional development, changes in university infrastructures and responsive pedagogies. One of the major issues that now faces universities is how best to integrate virtual technologies, like online discussions, into campus-based programmes. Much of the research to date in blended learning has focused on the differences 34
between the physical and virtual environments. Oliver and Trigwell (2005) have discussed the role of variation in learning and argue that it is not the variation per se that is important but the impact of the contrast and comparison that arose from the variation. Different teaching media can be used to help students experience and learn from this variation and frameworks which articulate this (for example, Gerbic, 2006b) will assist with this development in blended settings. Garrison and Vaughan (2008) provide a framework for online discussions and Littlejohn and Pegler (2007) do likewise in relation to online environments. However, there is a further issue beyond working with variation, which is that of integrating the two environments. Bliuc, Goodyear and Ellis (2007) have argued that the focus of research in blended learning should be on the student experience as a holistic concept, that is, understanding how well the components fit together and what that means for learning. The student perspectives in this research confirm the importance of integrative relationships and pedagogic connections and emphasize the role of the teacher in creating these, for example, through assessment and also through classroom activities and feedback on the online discussions. Littlejohn and Pegler (2007) provide another example with ‘wraparound activity blending’ (p.30) which includes considering how the resources relate to and complement each other. Another strategy might be that of using an approach like problem based learning where the overarching concept acts as an integrative framework for both aspects of the blend, for example, Donelly (2006).
RECOMMEND This chapter closes with a number of recommendations which arise from this study, which emphasize integrative mechanisms for online discussions in blended settings. In considering these suggestions, some features of the research context need to be considered. Three of the subjects were
Including Online Discussions Within Campus-Based Students’ Learning Environments
discursive, so online discussions were a natural match for the course. None of the courses were for first year students and most of the students were experienced with online discussions. There were no large lectures and the small classes of 25 – 30 students facilitated various student-centred approaches including discussions.
Assess the Oline Discussions This integrates the online discussions into the course and, from a student perspective, indicates their value within the course and creates some motivation for students’ attention and participation. Duffy and Cunningham (1996) have observed that, in a constructivist context, the distinction between learning and assessment may become blurred or nonexistent and this approach may be a way of aligning student motivation via assessment with the benefits of learning by online discussions.
Ceate an Online Discussion Activity which Draws on the Strengths of the Medium and is Genuinely Discursive Activities which draw on the strengths of reading, writing and reflecting will complement class discussions and provide opportunities for analysis, synthesis ands critique which are more difficult to achieve in class. The presence of dissonance and controversy can motivate online engagement. If the activity requires responses or feedback to peers, then this may increase interaction, and develop deeper understanding and professional skills.
Introduce Students to the Role of Oline Discussions within the Curse Use early classes to discuss the value of dialogic learning (Dysthe, 2002), how this will occur in the online discussions and the importance of
independent learning and time management. Where students have not had previous discussion experience, then the role of interaction and dialogue in learning should be discussed and opportunities to practice in class should be created. This is important, because where students are only familiar with didactic approaches, then they will not believe that they can learn from other students and need to build their experience with this. One of the case studies within this project found that small groups were an ideal way to introduce students to online discussions in a way that was manageable and secure for them.
Ue the Strengths of the Face-to-Face Discussion Evironment Class discussions can take advantage of the aural and visual cues and synchronous timeframe to rapidly build familiarity and trust within the class and mental pictures of its members. The face-to-face sessions can also be used to build dialogic skills in a low risk setting, for example, opportunities to practice giving and receiving feedback, especially that related to critique. The synchronous communication mode also facilitates instantaneous and fast flowing discussions which are valuable for brainstorming and building a corpus of ideas for the ensuing online discussion. This might include developing the skills needed for interacting online, for example, problem solving, conceptual understanding.
Monitor (only) the Online Dscussions and Consistently Include them within the Face-to-Face Sessions This research indicates that the absence of the teacher may be influential in creating more democratic online discussions where all opinions are equal and all participants have responsibility for maintaining the discussions. Monitoring the
35
Including Online Discussions Within Campus-Based Students’ Learning Environments
online discussions then enables the teacher to connect them in face-to-face sessions by providing feedback on them, and synthesizing them in class or asking the class to do so. The use of Internet connections within the classroom enables the teacher to work with the postings in class as discussion devices and to model good practice. The attention given to online discussions in the face-to-face class by the teacher provided an important message for students of its significance and such actions will in time build the legitimacy of the CMC medium.
CONCLUSION The potential of online discussions, especially to support constructivist and dialogic learning at universities has long been noted. This chapter has discussed a case study investigation into their role in undergraduate learning where they were a significant part of campus-based programme. The study described the ways in which deep approaches to learning may occur in CMC in a blended learning setting. It identified the value of features of the CMC environment for supporting learning in a constructivist sense, particularly the text-based nature of the environment and the way in which it provides a place for undergraduates to read, write and think in a fashion that is not available in face-to-face campus-based activities. The study also provided a new perspective of the CMC environment by examining the influence of its broader learning context, and found that assessment, the online discussion activity, and the role of the teacher, were all highly influential in influencing the students’ perceptions of what was required of them, this providing a new dimension to Entwistle and Ramsden’s (1983) relational concept of learning. A further aspect of the blended learning context was identified and that was the need for pedagogic connections between the online and face-to-face environments.
36
Blended learning in campus-based settings is still in its infancy and the research into online discussions indicates that there are difficulties in introducing this more socially-based form of learning. Perhaps this is to do with the complexity that the addition of the CMC environment has created for campus-based students and teachers as they both adapt and adjust to its different character. More research is now needed into mechanisms which can better integrate online discussions into blended settings. Teacher perspectives are also needed on the development of new blended curricula, and in future, the increasing presence of Net Genner teachers will add new and productive insights to this emerging learning ecology.
REFERENCES Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed.). Berkshire: Open University Press. Bliuc, A., Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Research focus and methodological choices in studies into student’s experiences of blended learning. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 231-244. Brookfield, S., & Preskill, S. (1999). Discussion as a Way of Teaching. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. Donelly, R. (2006). Blended problem-based learning for teacher education: Lessons learned. Learning. media and technology, 31(2), 93-116. Dysthe, O. (2002). The learning potential of a web-mediated discussion in a university course. Studies in Higher Education, 27(3), 339- 352. Duffy, T., & Cunningham, D. (1996). Constructivism : Implications for the Design and Delivery of Instruction. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 170-198). New York: Simon &Schuster.
Including Online Discussions Within Campus-Based Students’ Learning Environments
Ellis, R., Goodyear, P., O’Hara, A., & Prosser, M. (2007). The university student experience of face-to-face and online discussions: coherence, reflection and meaning. ALT-J, 15(1), 83-97. Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. Croom Helm Ltd, Kent, United Kingdom. Fabro, K., & Garrison, D. (1998). Computer conferencing and higher-order learning. Indian Journal of Open Learning, 7(1), 41-53. Garrison, D., & Anderson , T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century. A framework for research and practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Garrison, R., & Vaughan, H. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles and guidelines. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Gerbic, P. (2006a). Chinese learners and online discussions: New opportunities for multicultural classrooms. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(3), 221-237. Gerbic, P. (2006b). On-campus students’ learning in asynchronous environments. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Deakin University, Melbourne. Gerbic, P., & Stacey, E. (2005). A purposive approach to content analysis: Designing analytical frameworks. Internet and Higher Education, 8, 45-59. Graham, C. (2006). Blended learning systems. Definitions, current trends and future directions. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: John Wiley and Harasim, L. (2000). Shift happens: Online education as a new paradigm in learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 3, 41-61. Harris, D. (1993). Effective ‘teaching’ and ‘study skills’: the return of the technical fix. In Evans, T and Murphy, D (Eds) Research in Distance Education (RIDE) 3, 1993, Geelong, Australia.
Henri, F. (1995). Distance learning and computermediated communication : Interactive, quasiinteractive or monologue? In C. O.Malley (Ed.), Computer Supported Collaborative learning (pp. 145-161). Berlin: Springer Verlag. Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7- 26. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching : a framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge. Lea, M. (2001). Computer conferencing and assessment: New ways of writing in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), 163-181. Light, P., & Light, V. (1999). Analysing asynchronous learning interactions. In V. Littlejohn & P. Light (Eds.), Learning with Computers : Analysing Productive Information (pp. 162-178). London: Routledge. Littlejohn, A., & Pegler, C. (2007). Preparing for Blended e-Learning. London: Routledge. Mason, R. (1993). The textuality of computer networking. In R. Mason (Ed.), Computer conferencing: The last word. Beach Holme Publishing Ltd, Victoria, British Columbia. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. An Expanded Sourcebook. (Second Edition ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Moore, M. (2005). Editorial. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 129-132. Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can ‘blended learning’ be redeemed? E-Learning, 2(1), 1726.
37
Including Online Discussions Within Campus-Based Students’ Learning Environments
Pallof, R., & Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual student: A profile and guide to working with on line learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Parry, S., & Dunn, L. (2000). Benchmarking as a meaning approach to learning in online settings. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 219-234. Pena-Shaff, J., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analysing computer interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers and Education, 42(3), 243-265. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education (2nd ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2002). Using Peer Teams to Lead Online Discussions. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1, 1 - 21. Stake, R. (2003). Case Studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Landscape of Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications. Thomas, M. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures : the space of online discussion forums.
38
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 351 - 366. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Proceeses. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Warshauer, M. (1999). Electronic Literacies. Language, Culture and Power in Online Literacies. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Wyn, J., & Dwyer, P. (2000). New patterns of youth transition. International Socal Science Journal, 52(164), 147-159. Yildez, S., & Bichelmeyer, B. (2003). Exploring electronic forum participation and interaction by EFL speakers in two web-based graduate-level courses. Distance Education, 24(2), 175-193.
E
1
An informal term for New Zealanders.
39
Chapter III
Strategies for Blended Approaches in Teacher Education Ruth Geer University of South Australia, Australia
ABSTRACT This chapter describes an investigation of strategies for fostering higher order cognition in a blended learning environment. The exploration, which utilised a qualitative case study approach, highlights the critical nature of effective instructional design. The study extends the educator’s understanding of the complexities of online and blended learning environments through an analysis of the discourse of computer-mediated communication in a first year teacher education course. The investigation resulted in the development of a pedagogical framework which outlines the relationship between pedagogies, technologies and their related learning outcomes. Critical indicators, which are potentially important as strategies and early warning signs of “students at risk”, become evident in the analysis. This research had led to notions of imprinting and cognitive tracks which can be used to inform strategies for teaching and learning using a blended approach.
INTRODUCTION Education has undergone a dramatic transformation in recent years. This is evident in both the beliefs about how students learn and the type of technologies that are evolving and are available to support and enhance student learning. Higher education has undergone many modifications
with the foundations of universities shaken by new and emerging Internet technologies and by increased numbers and diversity in the student population and demands for new learning approaches that will provide learners with flexible and personalised learning. There is a need to rethink and restructure learning experiences and explore the transformational potential of a blended learning approach.
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Strategies for Blended Approaches in Teacher Education
Blended learning is a popular term which is used in the literature to describe a wide variety of teaching and learning strategies, but as Garrison and Kanuka (2004) suggest, understanding blended learning involves both the simple and the complex. They explain that in its simplest form, it is a combination of face to face learning with online experiences, integrating synchronous (classroom) and asynchronous (text-based) activities. On the other hand, there is complexity in the integration of deliberate, effective and innovative design implementations that can support deep and meaningful learning. Information and communication technologies (ICT) have provided tools which offer limitless design possibilities and applications (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004). The effectiveness of blended learning approaches will be in the merging of the design components which are essentially synchronous and asynchronous, face to face and online. There is now the opportunity to enhance learning through a focus on two main forms of communication – oral and written, while improving the effectiveness of each form. One of the strengths of blended learning is its capacity to develop learning communities outside of the classroom through its potential to support and enhance the development of higher order cognition by providing the opportunity for reflection. The online environment through the use of tried and emerging technologies can provide such an opportunity. Garrison and Kanuka (2004) acknowledged that “a blended learning context can provide the independence and increased control essential to develop critical thinking” (p 98). The focus of this study was to consider the following research question. How might educators build effective learning communities that: •
•
40
Take into account the type of interactive activity, the use of appropriate technologies and their potential to achieve desired learning outcomes? Support the development of critical thinking in blended learning environments?
Based on the research study and the literature, a pedagogical framework was developed to help inform effective blended learning practices. In addition to this, the study aimed to identify factors that drove students’ approaches to learning and the development of new concepts for explaining the learning processes and their resultant impact on the instructional design. It investigated the research potential of digital archives for assessing the quality of the learning in a blended learning environment.
T Constructivism provides a theoretical basis for explaining how students learn and the consequential principles that guide the instructional design in the development of higher order cognition in blended learning environments. The focus shifts to the acquisition of knowledge rather than its transmission. The popularity of constructivism in the teaching and research literature has resulted in disparities among educators who often have their own interpretation of terms leading to individual variations in meaning. Despite numerous constructivist perspectives, a common thread is the belief that learning is an active process, unique to the individual, where knowledge is constructed from information and prior experiences (Cooper, 2004). This chapter briefly discusses constructivist learning perspectives based on two particular views of constructivism which have relevance to this study: cognitive and social. Cognitive constructivism has been strongly influenced by Piagetian cognitive development approach which suggests that the construction of knowledge focuses on the individual and the thought processes of their mind. Piaget recognised the existence of sociocognitive conflict which created disequilibrium among participants and resulted in the co-construction of new conceptual structures and understanding (Lipponen, 2002). Learners pose
Strategies for Blended Approaches in Teacher Education
contradictions and address misconceptions in order to come to an understanding. On the other hand, the social constructivist approach, which was influenced by the Soviet school of thought of Vygotsky, Leont’ev and Bakhtin, stresses that co-construction takes place through an increased ability to take into account other people’s perspectives (Salomon, 1998). Of all the theorists, Vygotsky (1978) is most frequently associated with social constructivism where his emphasis is on the impact of social and cultural contexts in learning. The social nature of cognition emphasises social interaction. A debatable issue is whether the processes of the individual are superior to sociocultural processes or vice versa (Bereiter, 1994; Cobb, 1994; Salomon, 1998). Cobb (1994) argues that ‘the sociocultural perspective informs theories about the conditions for the possibility of learning, whereas theories developed from the cognitive perspective focus on what students learn and the processes by which they do so’ (p.13). In cognitive constructivism the learning focus is on active cognitive reorganisation, while in social constructivism, the social interaction setting leading to an established community of practice is important. The adoption of both perspectives has strengthened this study where cognitive processes are analysed as well as the social behaviour of the learners engaged in interactive learning environments. These perspectives can readily be entwined while their differences are accommodated through different goal outcomes and the adoption of differing pedagogies. For the cognitive constructivist a learning environment is created that supports the learner, while for the social constructivist a learning community emerges which envelops the learner. These two theoretical views provide a foundation not only for the face to face situations but also for online collaborative learning environments. The use of technology provides additional opportunity for learners to revise and reconstruct their views and make substantial changes to the
way they interpret their world through frequent conversations (Laurillard, 1995). Communicative technologies have the ability to collaboratively facilitate the construction of new and meaningful knowledge. However, collaboration is not an assumed quality in online constructivist environments, but is dependent on clearly designed activities that incorporate the appropriate use of the technologies. Hence constructivism is not just about students constructing their own knowledge as individuals but about meaningful interactions where social interactions can offer different perspectives, which enable advances on their own level of understanding. Blended learning opportunities have increased the possible ways that students can learn, with learning occurring across different mediums and at various times. Face to face classes offer assistance in the development of social presence or ‘social comfort’ which is more difficult and often takes longer in the online environment. In virtual learning environments the intrinsic motivation of learners is particularly important in sustaining the collaborative interactivity within the community, while the blended approach brings groups together physically, reminding them of their obligations. The design of the environment becomes critical as individual characteristics and learning styles must be catered for within a supportive social context. The instructional design must take into account the benefits of both learning modes and the suitability and capacities of the technologies to improve benefits for learners. A number of themes from the literature, such as interaction, collaboration and cognitive development, help to inform the dynamics and complexities associated with student learning and assist with the instructional design, particularly of online communities. The amount and quality of interaction in a student-centred environment plays a key role in the learning process while also having a significant impact on the learning outcomes (Gilbert & Moore, 1998; Sims, 1997; Susman, 1998).
41
Strategies for Blended Approaches in Teacher Education
When reflecting on the design of blended learning environments, consideration should be given to what makes interactions successful and what can be learned from such interactions. Interactivity, which must be an intentional part of the design, is critical in determining the structure and depth of the interaction, and in promoting active learning through frequent exchanges and reflectivity. Online communication therefore has the potential to offer more in terms of reflective interaction than does a classroom situation. A strength of the online medium is its ability to allow distance learners to interact both synchronously and asynchronously while providing them with both flexibility and convenience. Pelz (2004) suggests that while face to face interactivity which requires listening and talking is ‘good’, asynchronous interactivity, which necessitates reading and writing is even ‘better’. He suggests that reading and writing are superior to listening and talking in terms of learning. Learners have time to reflect and think about what they want to say. Despite the considerable advantages of asynchronous communication, some hindrances include a lack of verbal cues that can assist the ‘bouncing off’ of ideas that occur with face to face interaction, and the lack of an immediate response to queries, or corrections to misunderstandings. Face to face interactions may help to alleviate some misunderstandings and assist participants to feel comfortable with each other in the online environment. The online community caters well for diversities, such as gender, age and disability. Certain diversities, such as cultural variables require particular attention in a learning design to accommodate cultural differences in learning needs, preferences and styles of the learners (McLoughlin & Oliver, 2000). Blended learning environments also help to accommodate the varying needs of students, offering increased interaction through the integration of other types of activities which can contribute to the overall achievement of learning objectives. It is important to also realise that
42
technology itself is also permeated with particular cultural values. However technology provides a medium that may help to reveal underlying practices and cultural values at play. In this study, archives provided a useful tool for analysing the interactions that had taken place and the constructs used to arrive at meaning. Hence different types of interaction lead to different learning outcomes. This has particular implications in designing a pedagogical framework which must accommodate various types of interaction and perceived learning outcomes influenced by the activity and the chosen interactive technology. Collaboration, identified as a desirable type of interaction in blended learning environments, encourage learners to move to higher levels of cognition which are made possible by the intensity of the exchanges in arriving at consensus around meaning. Collaboration is an ingredient that helps to form a community of learners whereby the learner becomes enveloped in the learning process. Students can benefit from collaborative learning whether they are low, average or high achievers (Susman, 1998), while designed student support and interdependence help to shift students in their understanding. Collaboration attempts to draw learners, who may be at different stages in their understanding, up to the same level for the particular task. In collaborative situations, higher achievers benefit through having to articulate and rationalise their own arguments. Information from individuals is shared with the group while supporting the development of higher order thinking skills resulting in consensus through negotiation. Graham and Scarborough (1999) understood collaborative learning as differing from other types of group work; while requiring interdependence within the group, it still maintained individual accountability. Cooperation, rather than collaboration, is evident where there is no synthesis. Collaboration makes stronger interactive demands on the learning processes than does cooperation (Hartley, 1999). Collaborative learn-
Strategies for Blended Approaches in Teacher Education
ing becomes an important instructional goal in supporting the development of higher order thinking skills leading to quality learning outcomes. This is indicated by students who demonstrate the ability to articulate, critically analyse, reflect, hypothesise, synthesise and construct newly acquired knowledge whether in face to face or online environments. Researchers recognise social interaction as another critical element in the creation of online learning communities. While it is a common feature of traditional classroom environments, social interaction presents a challenge in online environments where students may feel disconnected from other learners. Researchers have considered whether physical presence is important, or whether other factors can bring about trust, comfort and familiarity between learners leading to effective interactive learning communities. In blended learning communities, students may have an opportunity to familiarise themselves with other learners in the face to face classes, although in higher education settings this cannot be assumed. Students often do not have time to socialise within and outside the classroom while juggling many other commitments. Social interaction, however, appears to underpin many types of interaction that occur in learning environments, and is particularly critical in collaborative activities. Learning communities are based around relationships; yet anonymity and distance are two of the barriers online learners face. Using a blended learning approach, some of these barriers may be overcome. Social dimensions are critical in blended learning communities and thus must be accommodated in the design of such communities. When analysing how learners construct meaning, social presence, as defined by Short, Williams and Christie (1976, cited in Rourke, Anderson, Garrison & Archer, 2001), was postulated as a critical factor of computer-mediated communication. They described social presence as ‘the degree of salience of the other person in
the mediated interaction and the consequent salience of the interpersonal relationships’ (p.65). They suggested that social presence varies with the media and affects the nature of the interaction. Gunawardena and Zittle’s research (1997) demonstrated that social presence is both a factor of the medium and of the participants. This suggests the need to understand students’ perception of the media and how it impacts on their behaviour. Rourke, Anderson, Garrison and Archer (2001) further recognised its importance and expanded on its value as a critical element in a model of teaching and learning transactions which they referred to as the Community of Inquiry. The model highlights the importance of learning through interaction, with social presence being one of the core components. Social presence has, therefore, become a popular theme as researchers strive to understand the complexities of online learning communities. In any learning community, a foundation of trust and respect, where learners can feel comfortable about sharing their ideas is critical (Stacey & Rice, 2002), whether in face to face settings or online. Social presence forms the basis for supporting cognition and metacognition, while increasing the feeling of belonging and enhancing enjoyment with increased motivation and interaction. Social interdependence provides a theoretical foundation when discussing the types of interactions occurring in effective online learning communities. Social presence increases the potential for collaborative interactivity and successful attainment of quality learning outcomes. Interpersonal relationships are core to a collaborative learning community, where higher self-efficacy and confidence are promoted. Social exchanges also give students a sense of belonging and friendship that help motivate them in their studies (Stacey, 2002a). Social presence must be established to sustain cognitive presence (Stacey, 2002b). Closely associated with the promotion of social presence is the role played by the educator
43
Strategies for Blended Approaches in Teacher Education
in the overall instructional design. The challenge lies not only in evaluating the appropriateness of instructional trends and the learning needs of the students, but also in the judgment of suitable and emerging technologies. The teaching role then becomes one of instructional design and organisation, facilitating discourse and direct instruction (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison & Archer, 2001). Instructional design and organisation implies identifying suitable pedagogies, establishing expectations, implementing discussion strategies and selecting authentic and meaningful topics. Teaching presence is ‘the design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realising personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes’ (Anderson et al., 2001, p.7). In face to face settings much of the teaching may be carried out by an individual; however particularly in the online environment, there is opportunity for instructional designers, facilitators and the learners themselves to be part of the teaching process. Students have the opportunity to support and teach each other. The educator too should have a presence in guiding and supporting, while modelling ways that learners can support each other. Just as social presence supports other types of interaction, so teaching presence also influences the type of interaction. Students are likely to adopt the style and interactions of the educator where good modelling is provided. The teaching presence of the educator within the online learning community determines the interactive technologies used in supporting the development of quality learning outcomes. An aim in higher education is to develop in students the ability to think critically. Although individuals can think critically about something on their own, much more can be learned from interactions with others. Where the interaction is dynamic, learners are able to contemplate differing perspectives and reflect on their own views, thus building new meanings. Learning collaboratively provides a suitable educational context
44
for critical thinking processes and deep learning styles (Newman, Johnson, Webb & Cochrane, 1997). McLoughlin and Luca (2000) propose that according to socio-cultural theory, dialogue is instrumental in helping learners to internalise their ideas and knowledge. Based on the belief that learning occurred in a social context, the notion of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) has emerged. Vygotsky (1978) defined the ‘zone of proximal development’ as the distance between the actual developmental level of a person and the level of potential development as determined by guidance from an expert or collaboration with more capable peers. It is the area that lies beyond the learner’s independent problem solving and critical skills but still within reach depending on the right support (Bonk & Kim, 1998). Learning is then advanced ‘as tasks are pitched just beyond the learners’ ZPD’ (McLoughlin & Luca, 2000), while interactions with other learners provide the scaffolding that supports their cognitive development. Higher order cognition is the ability to think critically and creatively, and to be able to investigate, problem solve and synthesise the information. The development of higher order cognition enables learners to undertake complex, challenging and demanding tasks. Cognitive development is dependent on the educator promoting inquiry and exploratory strategies of learning through a diverse range of resources that support the higher levels of learning, rather than directing the learners to prescribed resources (Oliver & McLoughlin, 1999). An analysis of cognitive development provides insight into the quality of learning outcomes. When `contemplating the cognitive development of learners, consideration should be given to strengthening metacognitive and reflective skills which can assist in adopting strategies and reflective processes (Hollingworth & McLoughlin, 2001). Active interaction is an essential component in the development of critical thinking, as
Strategies for Blended Approaches in Teacher Education
interaction encourages thinking that leads to reasoning and the revision of ideas (McLoughlin, 1997). Cognitive presence is the participants’ ability to construct meaning through sustained communication. It is a vital element of critical thinking (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000), and therefore becomes an essential element of any learning community. Sustained interaction triggers the processes of argumentation, negotiation and joint construction of knowledge (Garrison & Archer, 2000; Laurillard, 1995), while collaboration fosters social interdependence leading to reflection on progress and process (McLoughlin & Luca, 2000). The online environment provides a medium for students to continue their reflections and discussions on issues raised in the face to face classroom. In this environment learners have time and are encouraged to explain their ideas to each other with explicit understanding bringing about changes in cognition as learners co-construct their new understanding. Critical elements in effective, dynamic and sustainable online learning communities have been identified in the research. These elements have informed the development of the author’s own pedagogical model. Different types of interaction result in varying learning outcomes. Hence the type of interaction that will meet the required learning outcomes should be considered. Learning environments do not become communities without the influence of social presence which is crucial for many types of interaction. Teaching presence, which may manifest itself in various ways, should be evident if interaction, collaboration, social interaction and cognitive development are to occur. Ultimately online learning communities strive to develop students’ higher order cognition in a collaborative environment supported by social and teaching presence. The integration of the above elements highlights the complexity of designing blended learning communities where quality learning outcomes are required.
A Fraaor Tchnology-Mediated Interactions (TMI) in Eucation The following framework has evolved in conjunction with this research study to assist educators working in both blended and online environments and to provide practical guidance on possible learning processes arising from the implementation of certain learning strategies, and the use of various technologies. This framework, based on the literature, has also been influenced through a reconceptualising of key elements in the development of higher order cognition. The Technology-Mediated Interaction framework addresses the learning processes expected from particular types of interactive activities and their associated technologies. The framework shows that online learning is not necessarily synonymous with higher levels of learning but that differing learning processes are evident from particular activities and certain technologies. Therefore educators require knowledge of educational methods, learning strategies and an understanding of how to utilise the technologies for learning (Kanuka & Garrison, 2004). The framework integrates the development of higher order cognition as a primary goal in higher education (Garrison et al., 2000) with interaction, reflection and collaboration being key ingredients (Archer, Garrison, Anderson & Rourke, 2001; Bonk & Cunningham, 1998; Fahy, 2002; Garrison, 2003). Higher order thinking skills are more likely to be evident in quality interactions. The quantity and quality of the interactions with particular activities and through the use of certain technologies determine the achievement of particular learning processes. The development of higher levels of cognition is evident in the accomplishment of various learning outcomes. In resynthesising the issues outlined above, a framework has been devised in the shape of a pyramid, depicting various levels, with the
45
Strategies for Blended Approaches in Teacher Education
Figure 1. Framework of technology-mediated interactions (TMI)
highest level of interactivity being collaboration, placed at the apex. Each level represents a targeted interactive pedagogy for the online community that leads to particular learning processes through the mediation of corresponding communication technologies. The framework helps to align three critical components ‑ learning processes, interactive pedagogies and interactive technologies ‑ and provides guidance on their use. Any component from the various levels can be used as a starting point. Once educators determine one of the components, they can move horizontally across the level to determine possibilities for the other two
46
components. For example, educators may have particular learning processes in mind. In this case they would identify the desired outcomes in the framework and from there move horizontally to select an appropriate interactive pedagogy and technology. On the other hand, if the educator has a desired activity in mind, such as general discussion, then it is unrealistic for the educator to expect learners to develop critical thinking skills unless other factors are built into the design to ensure the development of higher cognition. Learning processes are not discrete, as the lower levels may be used as building blocks that allow learners to effectively achieve at higher lev-
Strategies for Blended Approaches in Teacher Education
els. However not all learning processes need to be achieved before moving to higher level outcomes. In some courses, such as postgraduate courses, students may automatically enter the framework at one of the higher levels. Technologies that have been recommended at lower levels may also be appropriate at some of the higher levels. The progression upwards recognises the benefits of more integrated or specialised software to support higher levels of collaborative interactivity. As new communicative tools are constantly emerging, it will be necessary to determine the level at which they support the learning processes. This framework is designed to be context-free. That is, it does not include the educational context of a particular course or learning experience, the institutional and physical environment, the fine detail of pedagogical activities, the detailed characteristics, traits and differential performance of students, nor the capacities and talents of the educators. While the framework connects pedagogies, interactive technologies and learning processes, many other factors influence the nature of the activities and student performance. Some of the variables that affect the way learners behave and interact are more than just factors that influence the learning; they actually determine and drive the interactivity that mediates the learning process. Within this framework some variables are structural, such as type of task and the type of technology, while others become drivers of the learning processes. Such drivers which may affect the attainment of learning outcomes by either increasing or impeding interactivity include learner characteristics, cultural differences, prior knowledge and assessment. These factors or drivers impact on the frequency and quality of interactions leading to learning outcomes and are more likely to be evident within particular contexts. The development of a pedagogical framework helps to inform educators of critical elements that are present in successful online learning communities. These frameworks provide guidance
on expected learning processes and indicators of higher order cognition.
The Study A core, semester length, first year teacher education course which adopted a blended learning approach was used in this study to investigate evidence of cognitive development and quality learning outcomes from participation in the course. The archives from email discussion forums over four consecutive years were investigated to explore the learning processes of the course participants. Discussion forums as an integral part of the course provided students with the opportunity for a richer and more active engagement with the course content beyond the normal workshop times. Students were organised into tutorial groups of approximately twenty students and allocated to an e-mail discussion forum. Every three weeks students were required to contribute a 300-400 word response to a topic that addressed issues associated with the use of information technologies in the school classroom. This resulted in each student contributing at least four responses to the four topics posted over the semester. An example of the topics was “In relation to the research literature what are the major issues surrounding the use of the word processor in the junior primary classroom?” Students were provided with initial readings on the topic but were also expected to locate their own readings. Although the responses were not assessed as such, they were a requirement of the course. Students felt an obligation to provide a meaningful response as it was posted to all discussion members in their forum and the lecturer in a permanent form. An underlying intent of the discussion forums was not only to encourage greater individual engagement with the topic and related course content but also to encourage students to support each other in enhancing their own knowledge
47
Strategies for Blended Approaches in Teacher Education
construction of the topic. Students in the course were expected to interpret, analyse and explore the topics by articulating their research in the responses. They were encouraged to reflect on the responses of others while bringing into consideration their own experiences. Such outcomes reflected the learning processes identified in the framework of Technology-Mediated Interaction at the topic-focused discussion level. In an effort to encourage further interaction, students were also assigned to a small group (3-5 students) which had responsibility for encouraging electronic interaction, identifying and summarising the main arguments arising from the online discussion, as well as presenting these in a face to face workshop session. Student learning was enhanced through the required clarification of their own understanding and that of their peers, and through further resource recommendations. Lecturers had very little input into the actual discussion forum, as support and guidance by the lecturer occurred in the weekly face to face workshops. This feature further suited the design, as the focus was on student-led discussion forums which were a constant element over the four years. Approximately 200 on-campus students enrol in the course each year with roughly 54% being school leavers (school leavers are students who come directly from secondary into tertiary edu-
cation). There are approximately 12 discussion forums each year. Table 1 outlines basic statistical data on the participants over the four years of data collection: The teaching teams chose email discussion lists rather than conferencing software for a number of reasons. Firstly, the teams wanted students to learn how to subscribe to discussion groups, as many professional discussion lists exist that can support students in their learning and later in their teaching, but students must subscribe to them. Secondly, discussion lists are a ‘push’ technology which means the messages from the discussion forum arrive in their email accounts. This acts as a reminder and hopefully encourages students to read the contributions regularly. Students would also develop skills in managing and organising their email; this is an important skill as email is used extensively for communication. Contributions were archived to the web which allowed students to view the full discussion forum in one place. They could also use the forum for revision purposes for their examinations. Hence, email discussion lists provided flexibility that could benefit the students in many ways. In this study, the discourse analysis of 15 discussion forums (275 students) out of 47 discussion forums, selected randomly over the four years in this first year teacher education course, was examined for insight into student learning processes and evidence of higher order cognition.
Table 1. Participants of the study Year
Student Total
Female
Male
Mature-age
Average Age
Message Total
2003
212
156
56
85
22.7
1221
2002
218
169
49
51
20.9
1125
2001
219
173
46
68
21.8
1188
2000
192
163
29
40
20.1
904
Note. (a) Mature age will be regarded as students 21 years and over. (b) Message total is the total number of messages sent in any one year
48
Strategies for Blended Approaches in Teacher Education
Table 2. An evaluative tool for supporting interactive analysis with ICTS exploring Social behaviour, Cognitive development and Interactive Analysis (SCIA) at the group level was developed in the context of email discussion forums S. Participation and social behaviour S1 Individual disclosure
S1-a Basic introduction.
S1-b Extended revelation
S1-c Self evaluation
S2 Social behaviour
S2-a Courtesy
S2-b Level of dominance/authority
S2-c Seeking help
S2-d Willingness to initiate
S3 Mutual Consideration
S3-a Identifying mutual interest
S3-b Willingness to exchange
S3-c Valuing others’ views
I. Cognitive behaviour analysis at individual level: I1 Elementary clarification
I1-a Observing/studying a problem
I1-b Identifying its elements
I1-c Observing/studying their linkages
I2 In-depth clarification
I2-a Analysing a problem
I2-b Identifying assumptions
I2-c Establishing referential criteria
I2-d Seeking out specialized information
I3 Synthesis and application
I3-a Drawing primary conclusions
I3-b Proposing an idea based on links and relevant information
I3-c Value judgment on relevant solutions
I3-d Making final decisions and deciding on the action(s) to be taken
G. Interactive behaviour analysis at group level: G1 Planning
G1-a Organizing work/planning group work/setting shared tasks
G1-b Initiating activities/setting up activities for group work
Note: Learner orientation: S-Social; I- Individual; G- Group
continued on the following page
49
Strategies for Blended Approaches in Teacher Education
Table 2. continued G2 Sharing/comparing/contributing of information
G2-a Defining and identifying a problem
G2-b Stating opinions regarding the problem
G2-c Asking and answering questions to clarify details of statements
G2-d Sharing and exchanging knowledge, resources and information
G2-e Corroborating examples provided by one or more participants
G2-f Challenging others to engage in group discussion
G2-g Help and feedback giving
G3 Inconsistency of ideas, concepts or statements
G3-a Identifying and stating areas of disagreement G3-b Asking and answering questions to clarify the source and extent of
disagreement
G3-c Restating the participants’ position and advancing arguments or considerations supported by references G4 Negotiation of meaning/co-construction of knowledge G4-a Negotiating or clarifying the meaning of terms, areas of agreement and disagreement
G4-b Proposing new statements embodying compromise and co-construction
G4-c Integrating or accommodating metaphors or analogies
G5 Testing and modification of proposed synthesis or co-construction of knowledge
G5-a Testing against existing knowledge and information
G5-b Testing against personal experience
G5-c Testing against formal data collected
G6 Agreement statement(s) and application of newly constructed knowledge
G6-a Summarization of agreement(s) G6-b Application of new knowledge
An Evaative Tool for Discourse Analysis An adaptation of Gunawardena, Lowe and Anderson’s, Interaction Analysis Model (1997) for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing, provided a basis for developing an effective evaluative tool for analysing archived discourse. Adaptations to this tool also drew on Garrison, Anderson and Archer’s Community of Inquiry model (Garrison et al., 2000) and Henri’s five dimensions of learning (Henri, 1992). The model used for this study achieved a measure of validity as the coding scheme of
50
Henri’s critical reasoning skills (Henri, 1992) had provided the foundations of a number of well known researchers in the area (Gunawardena, Lowe & Anderson, 1997; Hara, Bonk & Angeli, 2000; Henri, 1992; Kanuka & Anderson, 1998; Newman, Webb & Cochrane, 1995). This evaluative tool (Table 2) which was developed out of the research supported an investigation of the discourse at three levels. These levels are referred to as learner orientations (social, individual and group) which identified the interactive behaviour of the participants. Within each orientation there were phases that characterised the cognitive activity, while the indicators within
Strategies for Blended Approaches in Teacher Education
Figure. 2. A group oriented forum
Figure. 3. An individually oriented forum
the phases showed the approaches to learning that were being adopted. As the course used a blended learning approach and students had face to face classes, there was less need for them to focus on establishing a social presence, as they already knew one another to a certain degree from their workshops. Providing time for students to familiarise themselves would have been more critical in a purely online course and additional time would have to be given for this to occur. Thus the students were encouraged to engage immediately, rather than spend time communicating socially, and provide their response to the topics posted based on readings that were recommended or that they had located themselves. Students were given the opportunity to construct and co-construct their own knowledge based on their research, prior knowledge and contributions from their peers. However, they tended to adopt one of two approaches, where they saw themselves either as making an individual contribution to the topic (individual orientation) or they thought of themselves as members of a group and tried to draw others into their response (group orientation). It was found that the approach adopted by the first students to post to the topic determined the ongoing orientation, whether individual or group, for that topic as well as subsequent topics.
Over 1500 responses were analysed with the paragraph or more specifically the development of an idea used as the unit of analysis for coding against the cognitive indicators of SCIA. Analysing the discourse can be a very arduous task and interrater reliability was used to compare the indicator ratings of the primary researcher and a trained research assistant to ensure reliability of the researcher. Correlations were compiled using Pearson and Spearman procedures with a high level of agreement being achieved (Pearson product moment – 0.98 and Spearman rank correlation – 0.86). Using the evaluative model, all responses were coded and using quantitative methods the items were firstly aggregated for each of the phases against social (S), individual (I) and group (G) orientations at both the individual and forum level.. Cognitive indicators were also recorded for each topic as well as their aggregates for each student. The data as illustrated in the figures below (Figures 2 and 3) show two examples of forum aggregates with a strong level of consistency across the four topics in the individual (I) and group (G) indicator aggregates and a weaker but still positive level of continuity in the case of social aggregates across topics using the indicators from the evaluative tool (SCIA).
51
Strategies for Blended Approaches in Teacher Education
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS I An analysis of the discourse showed that certain indicators were more populated than others. Minimal variation occurred in the indicators across topics. A patterning of indicators emerged, suggesting that influences during the initial interactions may be critical. Further examination of the cognitive indicators from the discourse analysis showed that students appeared to exhibit particular interactive and cognitive behaviours over time. The cognitive levels achieved in the first response were predictors of cognitive levels achieved in later responses. Thus the first response becomes critical in determining communicative patterns in subsequent exchanges and the learning outcomes likely to be achieved. Canonical correlation analysis was used to explore the powerful influence of Topic 1 on subsequent topics by examining the relationship between cognitive indicator aggregates. A canonical correlation analysis was performed, between the aggregated indicators on Topic 1 (latent variable 1), and aggregated scores on the other three topics (latent variable 2). Based on the individually oriented cognitive aggregates, the canonical coefficient was 0.51, accounting for 26% variance. Wilks lambda = 0.74 and was significant at p.04). See Table 2. The Canadian participants’ strongest teaching preference for both modalities was Developmental, followed by Nurturance and Apprenticeship, then Transmission, with Social Reform a significantly lower fifth preference. The Australian participants’ strongest teaching preference for both modalities was Developmental, followed by Apprenticeship, Nurturance, Transmission, with Social Reform also a significantly lower fifth preference. The finding that teaching preferences did not differ significantly between these two modalities (for both groups) is inconsistent with research literature that describes considerable differences in teaching approaches between face-to-face and online classrooms for those teachers who have successfully made this transition (Comeaux & McKenna-Byinton, 2003; Palloff & Pratt, 2000; McShane, 2004). This literature describes teaching beliefs and actions that contain aspects of Pratt’s Developmental/Apprenticeship/Nurturance perspectives as more effective in online classes than the traditional teaching beliefs and actions that contain aspects of Pratt’s Transmission perspective. This latter teacher-centered perspective is more typical in institutions of higher education that offer primarily traditional face-to-face programs (Garrison, 2006; McShane, 2004; Palloff & Pratt, 2000).
On the other hand, this study’s participant profile of Developmental/Apprenticeship/Nurturing teaching perspective preferences for both modalities does appear to describe the three key elements of the Community of Inquiry framework in the active encouragement of open communication, collaboration and camaraderie within a carefully designed curricula that is structured to facilitate focused critically-reflective and knowledge-building discourse. The finding that Social Reform is the least preferred teaching preference for Canadian teachers is consistent with others’ observations that this perspective stands “outside the mainstream of educational philosophy” in North America (Elias & Merriam, 2005, p. 147). Rather, the literature describes strong underlying nurturing and socially supportive teaching beliefs and actions in North American institutions of higher education. The finding in this study that the Canadian Social Reform scores were significantly higher than the Australian Social Reform scores may be explained by the fact that this Canadian group of teacher teach graduate level classes only, which tend to emphasize a more critical analysis of the literature and its application than do undergraduate classes, which were more typical of the Australian participant groups’ teaching load. The fact that the TPI main scores for both participant groups were not significantly different by modality may be explained by the possibility that the TPI tool, developed for face-to-face teaching contexts, does not translate into online teaching contexts. The analysis of the survey data did reveal that there was a great deal of conscious application by both groups of their newer online teaching approaches to their face-to-face teaching contexts. This may have resulted in a growing similarity in approaches to both modalities (Stacey & Wiesenberg, 2006) that, in effect, is an evolving new blended learning and teaching approach. This, combined with the possible inability of the TPI items to take differences in these two modalities into account, may have reduced any
213
Blended Learning and Teaching Philosophies
real differences between their face-to-face and online Beliefs, Intentions and Actions scores. The initial paired t-tests of TPI sub-scores revealed a significant difference within the Action sub-score indicating that what the two participant groups actually did within their classrooms differed. Further analysis revealed three distinct sub-scores differences between the two participant groups. The Canadian participants appeared to be significantly more nurturing in their actions online than were the Australian participants (2.17; p>.043), as well as significantly more social reform oriented in their actions in both face-to-face (2.10; p>.048) and online (2.02; p>.058) classrooms. See Table 3. This finding is consistent with the previous discussion of the TPI main scores, perhaps pointing to real cultural differences in teaching beliefs and intentions between the two participant groups. The authors’ experiences within both cultures indicates that North American teachers tend to believe that building students’ self-esteem is the key to successful classroom learning, while Australian teachers may tend to place more emphasis on developing students’ cognitive skills. Australian teachers’ communication style also tends to be more direct than Canadians’, which can be interpreted as less nurturing or supportive. Though this social aspect of teaching is considered important to student learning in both cultures, it
may be communicated differently in each culture, as well as differently in face-to-face versus online classrooms. Another possible factor that may help explain these differences is the different institutional cultures within which these two groups of academics teach. The Canadian group’s university, while encouraging teachers to adopt the use of advanced communication technologies in their classrooms, had not mandated it. Teachers in this university who move voluntarily into online or blended classrooms have a great deal of professional development support available to them. The Australian group’s university had recently mandated that teachers provide a blended learning model by integrating advanced communication technologies into their face-to-face classrooms, as well as requiring them to teach some online programs that rely only on learning technologies. This has resulted in teachers who might not otherwise volunteer to move into blended classrooms being compelled to do so, perhaps resulting in the professional development support not being as readily accessed. These two distinct institutional cultures may result in different cognitive (type and level of conceptual discourse) and teaching (design, organization and facilitation of discourse) presences evident in these different universities’ virtual classrooms.
Table 3. Independent-samples T-test results for TPI sub-scores by university TPI
University
N
Mean
Standard Deviation
t
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Nurturing OnlineAction
Canadian Australian
12 10
11.83 9.90
1.95 2.18
2.17
20
.043
Social Reform- Faceto-face -Action
Canadian Australian
12 10
9.92 7.80
2.57 2.15
2.10
20
.048
12 10
9.42 7.80
2.31 1.40
2.02
20
.058
Social ReformOnline-Action
Canadian Australian
Note: alpha levels were corrected to account for number of t-tests performed
214
Blended Learning and Teaching Philosophies
Correlations Between TPI and Dmographic Data When both participant groups were combined a number of TPI main scores and demographic variables were moderately to strongly correlated. Overall teaching load and online Social Reform were negatively correlated (r = -.48; p>.05), perhaps reflecting the enormous administrative and managerial demands of a larger class size on the part of teachers, which would leave them with less time to take on an energy intensive advocate role. Number of years taught face-to-face and online Developmental (r = .47; p>.05) was identified as correlated for Australians only when participant groups were separated, perhaps reflecting a carryover of this group’s history of a Developmental perspective in face-to-face classrooms to their new online classrooms. Percentage of time teaching online and online Nurturance (r = .43; p>.05), identified as significant for Canadians only when participant groups were separated, may reflect this group’s longer opportunity to more thoroughly adapt their Nurturance preference from their face-to-face to their online classrooms. When participant groups were separated by university to detect additional within group correlations, these moderate to strong negative correlations were found between the percentage of time that Canadian participants taught faceto-face and a number of main and sub-scores: online (r = -.66; p>.05) and face-to-face (r = -.69; p>.05) Developmental; online Nurturance (r = -.64; p>.05); online Beliefs (r = -.69; p>.05); face-to-face Beliefs (r = -.63; p>.05); online Intentions (r = -.62; p>.05); face-to-face Intentions (r = -.72; p>.01); and online Actions (r = -.58; p>.05). Together these correlations may imply the more time that this group taught face-to-face, the less time they have to express their Developmental and Nurturing perspectives. It may also imply that higher face-to-face teaching loads may result in less internally consistent teaching perspectives in either modality, perhaps due to less time available
to reflect on one’s philosophy. The two strong negative correlations found between the average class size that Canadian participants taught faceto-face Transmission (r = -.65;p>.05) and online Apprenticeship (r = -.59;p>.05) tend to support this interpretation. Two strong positive correlations were found between the percentage of time that Canadian participants taught online: online Nurturance (r = .75; p>.01), and online Beliefs (r = .60; p>.05). This may indicate that a longer history of online teaching, and resulting growth in competence in this modality, enables the more consistent expression of beliefs within this teaching perspective. A number of strong negative correlations were found between the average class size that Canadian participants taught online: online (r = -.83; p>.01) and face-to-face Apprenticeship (r = -.68; p>.05); face-to-face Developmental (r = -.59; p>.05); face-to-face Intention (r = -.66; p>.05); and online Intention (r = -.73; p>.01). Together these findings, along with the previously discussed set of correlations regarding face-to-face class size, point to a reverse relationship between class size and the opportunity to express teaching perspectives that demand more time and expertise, and between one’s ability to consistently act on one’s teaching intentions. Two strong positive correlations were found between the percentage of time that Australian participants taught face-to-face, with face-to-face Nurturance (r = .66; p>.05), and with face-to-face Action (r = .76; p>.05). These are expected, as more experience teaching in a modality tends to result in more expertise in it. A strong positive correlation was found between the number of years that Australian participants have taught face-to-face and online Developmental (.70; p>.05), perhaps indicating a transfer of this favored teaching perspective from face-to-face to online classrooms may be at least partially a function of one’s level of face-to-face teaching competence.
215
Blended Learning and Teaching Philosophies
In summary, the data analysis offers a complex picture of teachers transitioning from the traditional face-to-face classroom to an online one within two different cultures, as they move towards the development of a new blended mode of teaching and learning. These two small samples of teachers appear to have adopted theoretically sound teaching philosophies and practices that act as guides in this professional journey, while juggling a number of workplace contextual variables that sometimes work against them. This confirms the observations of these two researchers who have been studying this phenomenon for several years (Wiesenberg & Stacey, 2005; Wiesenberg, 1999, 2002; Stacey, 2002, 2005). The overall findings that both participant groups were unified in their teaching perspectives was a surprise, suggesting that the TPI needs to be revised in order to effectively assess online blended teaching perspectives.
Conclusions and Implications for Teaavelopment There is no longer a debate about whether or not online learning is a legitimate and effective approach to delivering higher education. The new key issues challenging educators and institutions of higher education are pedagogical (how to design) and technological (how to deliver) with regards to such programs. While Garrison and Vaughan’s Community of Inquiry framework offers a pedagogical guide for teachers, an empirically validated technological framework has not yet appeared in the research literature. More and more experts in the field (Brown, Murphy & Wade, 2006; Chickering & Ehrmann, 2004; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Lin et al, 2005; Litosseliti, Marttunen, Laurinen & Salminen, 2005; Schweizer, Paechter & Weidenmann, 2003; Zhao et al, 2005) are pointing to the superiority of blending elements of face-to-face and online technologies to create pedagogically sound online learning environments. 216
Overall, the results of this small exploratory study, explained in terms of the small existing body of the literature on this issue, both support and challenge what we know already about this exciting new paradigm in higher education. In terms of current challenges, it points to the importance of a closer examination of key workplace variables (such as length of time teaching face-to-face and online, overall teaching load, class size, and institutional context) and how they may effect teachers’ motivation to move from traditional face-to-face to newer online or blended classrooms. As more and more institutions of higher learning commit to distance delivery of their programs, it is important to make sure that those who decide to make this transition are encouraged to do so by an accompanying reduction in their teaching load and classroom sizes, at least as they gain expertise in this new modality. Ultimately, teachers who are positively challenged and stimulated by this teaching transition will encourage others to take up this challenge. It remains for a future study to create and validate a tool that will reliably assess online or blended teaching philosophies. In the meantime, this study suggests that while a significant shift in teaching philosophy does not appear to be necessary in order to transition from traditional to blended classrooms, at a certain point in their experiences teaching in the newer modalities, most teachers begin to successfully adapt effective face-to-face teaching strategies to their online classrooms to create a blend of the “best of both worlds” teaching approach in both. As well as presenting an opportunity to gain new teaching skills, moving from face-to-face to online teaching contexts for these two participant groups thus resulted in benefits to classes taught in both modalities; causing them to reflect on how to apply what works well in one (i.e., more formal structure required in online classrooms such as explicit assignments, deadlines, grading criteria as well as innovative learning design) to the other. This supports Pratt’s (1989) developmental model
Blended Learning and Teaching Philosophies
of increasing competence that moves from initial mastery to ongoing critical reflection on one’s application of theory to practice. Ruth (2006), for example, in describing his experiences as a struggling new academic required to learn to teach online, also reviewed and reflected on his face-to-face teaching. He found that “online teaching has revolutionized all my teaching” (p. 237) forcing him to discard all his previous pedagogical assumptions and taking a more learner-centered approach. Ellis, Steed & Applebee (2006) wrote of university teachers taking a cohesive and holistic approach to blended learning and teaching based on the best aspects of online and face-to-face teaching for enhancing their students’ learning outcomes.
Recommendations for Improving Practice The results of this study also suggest that institutions that require teachers to teach in either fully online or blended classrooms are obligated to offer professional development support to teachers making this transition. Garrison and Vaughan (2008) suggest that the most effective way to do so is within a faculty community of inquiry (i.e., based on the Community of Inquiry framework) that offers opportunities for them to reflect and discuss course re-design with peers (social presence), experience a blended learning environment from the student perspective (cognitive presence), with ready access to instructional design and evaluation support (teaching presence). The results of this study also point to the need for institutions of higher education to reexamine their policies about how teaching, learning and scholarship are conducted (Collis, 1998; Cox, 2005; Wallace, 2007). Collis states that there are at least three compelling sets of reasons for institutions to re-think their instructional approaches: an emerging clarity about what constitutes quality teaching and learning; increasing diversity in student populations and their needs; and the need
for a more flexible education system generally. Putting traditional face-to-face courses online however, is not a simple exercise and requires a different approach to the professional development of academic staff, to academic role definitions, and to course conceptualization and development (Cox, 2005; Wallace, 2007), if advances in the way communication technologies are used to optimize student learning.
REFERENCES Bliuc, A., Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Research focus and methodological choices in studies into students’ experiences of blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(4), 231-244. Brown, L., Murphy, E., & Wade, V. (2006). Corporate e-learning: Human resource development implications for large and small organizations. Human Resource Development International, 9(3), 415-427. Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. (2004). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. Assessed May 5th, 2004 at http://www.tltgroup. org/programs/seven.html Collis, B. (1998). New didactics for university instruction: why and how? Computers & Education, 31, 373-393. Comeaux, P., & McKenna-Byington, E. (2003). Computer-mediated communication in online and conventional classrooms: Some implications for instructional design and professional development programs. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(4), 348-355. Cox, R. (2005). Online education as institutional myth: Rituals and realities at community colleges. Accessed January 25th, 2008 at http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=12095
217
Blended Learning and Teaching Philosophies
Curtis, R. (2002). Teaching Research Methods Online: Course Development and Comparison to Traditional Delivery. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2002. Norfolk, VA, AACE: (pp. 141145). Elias, J. L., & Merriam, S. B. (1980). Philosophical Foundations of Adult Education. First Edition. Malabar, Florida: Krieger. Elias, J. L., & Merriam, S. B. (2005). Philosophical Foundations of Adult Education. Third Edition. Malabar, Florida: Krieger. Ellis, R. A., Steed, A. F., & Applebee, A. C. (2006). Teacher conceptions of blended learning, blended teaching and associations with approaches to design. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(3), 312-335. Fisher, K., Phelps, R., & Ellis, A. (2000). Group processes online: Teaching collaboration through collaborative processes. Educational Technology & Society, 3(3). Retrieved April 30, 2006, from http://ifets.massey.ac.nz/periodical/vol_3_2000/ f06.html
Graham, C. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends and future directions. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3-21). San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Heaton-Shrestha, C., Edirisingha, P., Burke, L., & Linsey, T. (2005). Introducing a VLE into campusbased undergraduate teaching: Staff perspectives on its impact on teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 370-386. Hubbal, H., Collins, J., & Pratt, D. (2005). Enhancing reflective teaching practices: Implications for faculty development programs. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, XXXV 30, 57-81. Jacobsen, M. (2000). Excellent teaching and early adopters of instructional technology. Presented at ED-MEDIA: World Conference on Educational Multimedia/Hypermedia & Educational Telecommunication, June, 2000. Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Jarvis, P. (1999). The practitioner-researcher: Developing theory from practice. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gallini, J. K., & Barron, D. (2001). Participants’ perceptions of web-infused environments: A survey of teaching beliefs, learning approaches, and communication. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(2), 139-156.
Lin, L., Cranton, P., & Bridglall, B. L. (2005). Psychological type and asynchronous written dialogue in adult learning. Retrieved January 25th, 2008 from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content. asp?ContentID=12096
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105.
Litosseliti, L. Marttunen, M., Laurinen, L., & Salminen, T. (2005). Computer-based and faceto-face collaborative argumentation in secondary schools in England and Finland. Education, Communication & Information, 5(2), 131-146.
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Garrison, D. R. (2006). Online collaboration principles. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 25-34.
218
McShane, K. (2006). Integrating face-to-face and online teaching: Academics’ role concept and teaching choices. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(1),1-10. Mott, V. (1996). Knowledge comes from practice: Reflective theory building in practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, #72, 57-63.
Blended Learning and Teaching Philosophies
Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can ‘blended learning’ be redeemed? E-Learning, 2(1), 1726. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2000). Making the transition: Helping teachers to teach online. Proceedings from EDUCAUSE 2000, Nashville, TN, October 10-13. Retrieved 30 April, 2006, from http://www.educause.edu/conference/e2000/ proceedings.html
Stacey, E. (2005) A constructivist framework for online collaborative learning: adult learning and collaborative learning theory. In T. Roberts (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning in higher education, (pp. 140-161), London: Idea Group Publishing. Stacey, E. (2002). Social presence online: networking learners at a distance. Education and Information Technologies, 7(4), 287-294.
Pratt, D. (1989). Three stages of teacher competence: A developmental perspective. In E.R. Hays (Ed.). Effective Teaching Styles. New Directions in Continuing Education, #43, 77-87.
Stacey, E., & Gerbic, P. (2007). Teaching for blended learning –research perspectives from on-campus and distance students. Educational and Information Technologies, 12(3), 165-174.
Pratt, D., & Associates (1998). Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education. Malabar, Florida: Krieger.
Stacey, E., & Wiesenberg, F. P. (2006). A crosscultural study of face-to-face and distributed teaching philosophies in Canada and Australia. Paper presented at the Conference of the Canadian Association of Distance Education, Montreal, Canada. 23-26 May.
Pratt, D., & Collins, J. (2006). Teaching Perspectives Inventory Website. Retrieved 30 August, 2006, from http://www.teachingperspectives. com/ Rogers, E. (2003). Rogers, E. Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press. Ruth, L. (2006). Converting my course converted me: How reinventing an on-campus course for online environment reinvigorated my teaching. Teaching Theology and Religion, 9(4), 236-242. Samarawickrema, G., & Stacey, E. (2007). Adopting web-based learning and teaching: A case study in higher education. Distance Education, 28(3), 313–333. Shovein, J., Huston, C., Fox, S., & Damazo, B. (2005). Challenging traditional teaching and learning paradigms: Online learning and emancipatory teaching. Nursing Education Perspectives, 26(6), 340-343. Schweizer, K., Paechter, M., & Weidenmann, B. (2003). Blended learning as a strategy to improve collaborative task performance. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 212-224.
Stake, R. (2000). Case studies. In N. L. Denzin (Ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stephenson, J. (Ed.) (2001). Teaching and learning online: Pedagogies for new technologies. London: Kogan Page. Torrisi, G., & Davis, G. (2000). Online learning as a catalyst for reshaping practice – the experiences of some academics developing online learning materials. The International Journal for Academic Development, 5(2), 166-176. Van Schaik, P., Barker, P., & Beckstrand, S. (2003). A comparison of on-campus and online course delivery methods in southern Nevada. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 40(1), 5-15. Wallace, L. (2007). Online teaching and university policy: Investigating the disconnect. Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 87-100.
219
Blended Learning and Teaching Philosophies
Wiesenberg, F. P. (1999). Teaching online: one instructor’s evolving ‘theory of practice’. Adult Basic Edcation, 9( 3),149-161.
based courseware as a supplement to face-to-face instruction. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 281-297.
Wiesenberg, F. P. (2002). Quality online participation: Conceptualizing my practice. Chapter 12 in Research in Distance Education, 5. Deakin University, Melbourne, Au.
Zhao, Y., Yan, J. L., Lai, C., & Tan, S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://www. tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=12098
Wiesenberg, F., & Stacey, E. (2005). Reflections on teaching and learning online: quality program design, delivery and support issues from a cross-global perspective. Distance Education 26(3), 385-404. Woods, R., Baker, J., & Hopper, D. (2004). Hybrid structures: Faculty use and persception of web-
220
Zinn, L. (1998). Identifying your philosophical orientation. In M.W. Galbraith (Ed.). Adult Learning Methods: A Guide for Effective Instruction, (pp. 37-72 ). 2nd Edition. Malabar, Florida: Krieger.
Blended Learning and Teaching Philosophies
Appendix: University of Calgary-D eakin University Teaching Perspectives Study Survey Instructions: Please complete the questions below within this WORD document, then save your responses and return this completed survey to me using the function. These questions ask for information about what you: believe, try to accomplish, and do in your teaching role in both face-to-face and online courses. When responding to each question, please answer with one speci. c course in mind (i.e., a specific f2f and/or online course) and provide the name of this course in the space provided. It should take no more than 30 minutes of your time. 1. Describe any significant differences between what you believe about teaching face-to-face and what you believe about teaching online? This f2f/online course(s)’s name & calendar code: 2. Describe any significant differences between what you try to accomplish in your teaching faceto-face and what you try to accomplish in your teaching online? 3. Describe any significant differences between what you do when teaching face-to-face and what you do when teaching online? 4. Describe how your face-to-face teaching influences or relates to (if you think that it does) your online teaching? 5. Describe how your online teaching influences or relates to (if you think that it does) your faceto-face teaching? 6. Describe how your face-to-face teaching affects your online teaching (and vice versa) in any manner that you think significant to your overall philosophy and effectiveness regarding teaching in general. Information about your teaching role: What is your average overall teaching load per academic year? What would that translate into in terms of average hours spent teaching per week? What percentage of your time and/or teaching load is spent teaching online? What percentage of your time and/or teaching load is spent teaching face to face? What is the average number of students you teach in your online classes? What is the average number of students you teach in your face to face classes? Is there any difference in the way that your online courses are counted as teaching load compared with your face to face courses? (ie, do online courses count for 1, 1.5, or 2 face to face courses?). h. How many years have you been teaching face to face? i. How many years have you been teaching online? a. b. c. d. e. f. g.
NOTE: Please remember the specific online and face to face courses that you kept in mind when answering these questions, as you will be asked to keep these same one(s) in mind when completing the Teaching Perspectives Inventory. 221
222
Chapter XII
Blended Learning and the New Pressures on the Academy: Individual, Political and Policy Driven Motivators for Adoption Gayani Samarawickrema Deakin University, Australia
ABSTRACT This chapter focuses on the factors relating to adopting blended learning by teaching academics and the associated social world around technology adoption in a large Australian university. Set up as an institutional case study, the findings are interpreted through two theoretical frameworks: diffusion of innovation theory and actor-network theory to reveal the complexities of innovation adoption. The chapter examines teaching academics’ individual motivations including the institution’s political and policy drivers, and shows how technology is shaped to fit a context, and how the context in turn shapes the use of technology. The closing discussion considers new work systems and processes that facilitate and accommodate change precipitated by technology adoption, and suggests how the transformation process might be supported.
INTRODUCTION The adoption of blended learning approaches has increased dramatically over the past two decades as universities, especially in the developed world, have adopted learning management systems. Staff have ‘recognised the opportunities for using e-learning and teaching on its own are far
fewer than where e-learning is integrated into other approaches as a form of blended learning’ (Littlejohn & Pegler, 2007, p.1). Using case study research data as evidence, this chapter explores the multifaceted complexities that teaching academics encountered in a large multi campus university as they adopted blended learning that was supported by a learning management system. It discusses
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Blended Learning and the New Pressures on the Academy
the challenges and opportunities teaching staff experienced as they navigated through the adoption process. It also exposes the readiness of the institution to embrace and accommodate change and describes the social world that surrounds that adoption. The chapter closes with a discussion on how higher education institutions could remain current and responsive to innovative approaches to learning and teaching. The ‘innovation adoption’ described in the rest of this chapter includes the adoption of the learning management system as a technology as well as adoption of the blended learning and teaching approach it enabled.
technological environment of a modern university ‘must be recognised as a process with political implications’ where tensions are high, time for evaluation and reflection is limited and financial investment in technology is huge’. The adoption and integration of blended learning at Monash University was no different. The institution has its own unique culture, politics, values, goals and its own perspective on innovation, change and technology adoption. The political landscape of any organisation is unique to that organization and its influence on innovation adoption, promotion or failure is therefore equally unique.
Ba
Theoretical Fraa
This case study was conducted at Monash University which is considered to be Australia’s largest university. It has nearly 3500 teaching staff and more than 58000 students (Monash University, 2008) taking courses from ten faculties across six Australia-based and two overseas campuses. As information technology adoption and use are integrated in the University’s strategic plan, the University has made significant investments at institutional level in technology infrastructure, staff and student support services and institutional development to facilitate e-learning. Adopting WebCT Vista™ (now known as Blackboard Vista™), a commercially developed learning management system (LMS) allowed the University’s strategic plan to integrate its educational and technological opportunities into its courses. This was a specific initiative of the University’s technology policy. Prior to this, Monash University employed multimedia, print resources, face-to-face workshops and residential sessions in its blended learning and teaching approaches. In recent years with the adoption of the LMS, the blended learning opportunities have extended to e-learning environments. Whitworth (2005, p. 685) aptly pointed out that integrating blended learning in the cultural and
This study draws on two theoretical frameworks, Rogers’ classical diffusion of innovation theory (Rogers, 2003) and actor-network theory to interpret the findings. Rogers listed five characteristics that influence the uptake of an innovation and listed them as: •
•
•
•
•
Relative advantage: Which is viewed in terms of time, costs, effectiveness, convenience, quality, results or social prestige, over what the innovation replaces. Compatibility: Which refers to alignment with existing values, practices, needs, past experiences and social norms. Complexity: Which refers to perceptions regarding the innovation which is seen as being difficult to understand, learn and use. Trialability: Which relates to the possibility to trial, experiment and reduce uncertainty and to learn by doing prior to adopting. Observability: Which refers to the visibility of the results of adoption which stimulate discussion, interest and uptake.
These influencing factors in Rogers’ theory of diffusion of innovation are used in the current
223
Blended Learning and the New Pressures on the Academy
study to describe staff motivations for innovation adoption as has been done in previous studies related to the adoption of learning technologies (Jacobsen, 1998; Li & Lindner, 2007; Shea, Pickett, & Sau Li, 2005; Sherry, 1998; Wilson, Sherry, Dobrovolny, Batty, & Ryder, 2000). Critiques of this theory have pointed to its limited technology focus and its exclusion of external environmental conditions (Ely, 1990, 1999; Sadler-Smith & Tsang, 1998; Stockdill & Morehouse, 1992; Surry, 1997; Wilson, Sherry, Dobrovolny, Batty, & Ryder, 2002). Hence the theory of diffusion of innovation is regarded as inadequate as it is only capable of describing innovation diffusion from the perspective of technology attributes of the innovation. Since its key deficiency is that it does not take into consideration social, political and contextual factors, actor network theory is used to satisfy these very factors. Scholars who developed actor-network theory (Callon, 1986; Latour, 1987; Law, 1992) assume that the production of scientific knowledge is influenced by social factors and therefore accommodates social, political and contextual factors of the study environment. It provides a way of understanding the ‘co-evolution of society’ with technological artifacts and knowledge of nature (Callon, Law, & Rip, 1986a) and has been used to describe technical innovations (Callon, Law, & Rip, 1986b), including the introduction of multimedia products in Australian primary schools (Bigum, Green, Fitzclarence, & Kenway, 1993). Others have used it as a theoretical framework to examine innovation in education (Bigum, 2001; Gilding, 1996; Rowan & Knight, 2001; Simpson, 2000, 2001) and to study adoption of e-learning technologies and e-commerce by older people (Tatnall & Burgess, 2004; Tatnall & Lepa, 2003). Actor-network theory assumes that the world is materially heterogeneous (Law, 1992) consisting of complex networks of humans and non-humans who interact and negotiate among themselves and impose roles on each other (Tatnall & Lepa, 2003) through their shifting alliances and interactions.
224
Actor-network theory treats all actors whether they are human or non-human as equal (Latour, 1992). All outcomes are also treated in the same way and so they are studied in the same way (Klecuń, 2004). In this study at Monash University, some of the human actors were teaching academics, IT support persons, policy makers and students and the non-human actors included the faculties in which the teaching academics were based, faculty policies, individual workloads, discipline based research, funding grants, technology, work practices, rewards, training programs, time and the learning management system. The study involved understanding the dynamics of change and its relationships among these different actors as the social world around the innovation is important. The interaction between these actors is the process the technology goes through to shape and fit the context and in turn, the process the context goes through to shape the technology use. The study findings discuss this process.
METHOD This study was conducted as an insider case study investigation using in-depth interviews. The workplace-based institutional case study approach was selected because it provided for the exploration of individual teaching academic’s reasons for adopting blended approaches including constraints and factors that contributed to innovation adoption at a particular time. The method accommodated the examination of real life situations together with social and contextual conditions including teaching academics’ motivations. It also accommodated a focus on the individual academic and consequently, an appreciation of the multifaceted influences on adoption. The cumulative data gathered from all the participants composed the larger case which was the institution. Case study data is a snapshot of a situation at a given time and therefore fails to capture the developments and dynamism of an evolving situa-
Blended Learning and the New Pressures on the Academy
tion. It must be noted that the teaching academics in this study were particularly innovative, and have progressed and developed their work since participating in the interviews, and consequently, the data represents their position at the time of the study.
S Twenty-two participants who taught in on- and off-campus settings and used blended learning approaches were selected for the study. Table 1 maps out the details of the study sample. Though participant ‘selection’ is not typical of actor-network studies, it was essential that participants had some experience to discuss in their interviews. Therefore, criteria for participant selection were that each participant was using a website in their teaching and was able to comment, was an early adopter of blended learning in their faculty, and represented all ten faculties and the six Australia based campuses. Participants were purposively selected from a mailing list of all those who had undergone learning management system training provided by the university’s e-learning training team and were invited by email to contribute to the study. This purposive selection was to ensure that innovative teachers were included and that the study had maximum variation and multiple perspectives. Individual case studies told how the participants individually perceived the organisation in which they worked as they had everyday knowledge of the situation and had a first-hand experience of the challenges. Their conversations therefore prioritised issues that were relevant to them. Since the study was on the adoption of blended learning approaches by teaching academics, the study sample had no students.
DATA Three types of data were collected from participants.
Interviews Face-to-face interviews were held with all participants using standard, semi-structured, openended questionnaires. While similar information was gathered from all participants, the open-ended questions permitted the flexibility to follow up additional information unique to each participant as it surfaced in the conversation. The questions specifically explored methods and processes of adoption; the way in which adoption changed their teaching; their view of those changes; the impact of adoption on their work; opinions on teaching online in comparison to face-to-face teaching; and frustrations and successes. All interviews were audio taped, transcribed and transcriptions were verified and accepted by participants before analysis.
Examination of Artefacts All related artefacts such as printed learning materials, handouts, supporting websites and CD ROMs were examined and reviewed after each interview. This data were used only to support interview statements and comparisons were not made between different participants’ artefacts as the artefacts themselves were not part of the enquiry.
Field Notes These consisted of demographic data, descriptive portraits of participants and reflective notes recorded during the course of the interview. Using NVivo™ software, the data were organised and analysed into categories and tree structures to generate patterns. Though category generation is not a part of actor-network studies, as explained previously, this study was not conceived as an actor-network study and only used actor-network theory to interpret the findings. Consequently this study draws on the advantages of category generation and actor-network theory to deduce the findings. 225
Blended Learning and the New Pressures on the Academy
FINDINGS
A Diffusion of Innovations Perspective
Broadly, the study findings showed that the teaching academics faced considerable challenges in their effort to provide effective, efficient blended learning. These are analysed and discussed in relation to the two theoretical frameworks: theory of diffusion of innovation and actor-network theory.
The findings of this study show that characteristics identified by Rogers (2003) as relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability have played a significant role in adoption. Each participant experienced a range of influences in varying combinations and with varying degrees of pressure, resulting in a highly individualistic
Table 1. Study sample Faculty
Participant
Subject taught
Technology used
Level taught
Student group
*Years as a university teacher
**Years teaching online
Arts (n = 2)
Senior Lecturer (F)
Media communications
WebCT
U/G
On+off campus
18
4
Lecturer, (M)
Indonesian language
WebCT
U/G & P/G
On+off campus
12
8
Art and Design (n = 1)
Lecturer/course manager (M)
Multimedia design
Faculty server
P/G
Oncampus
7
-
Business and Law (n = 2)
Lecturer (F)
Business law
WebCT
U/G
On+off campus
14
6
Lecturer (F)
Industrial law
WebCT
U/G
On+off campus
13
4
Web manager (M)
None
WebCT
-
On+off campus
3
8
Lecturer (F)
History methods
WebCT
U/G
Oncampus
9
5
Lecturer (F)
Early childhood education
WebCT
U/G
Oncampus
2
2
Senior Lecturer (M)
Counselling
WebCT
U/G
Oncampus
8
1
Engineering (n = 1)
Lecturer (M)
Reliability engineering
WebCT
P/G
Offcampus
18
2
Information Technology (n = 2)
Lecturer (F)
Information systems
WebCT
U/G
Oncampus
11
7
Research Fellow (M)
Quality and reliability
WebCT
P/G
Oncampus
46
2
Associate professor (F)
Administrative justice
InterLearn
P/G
Offcampus
12
2
Lecturer (F)
Property law
Portal
U/G
Oncampus
6
2
Education (n = 4)
Law (n = 2)
continued on following page 226
Blended Learning and the New Pressures on the Academy
Table 1. continued Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences (n = 4)
Lecturer (F)
Healthcare systems
WebCT
U/G
Oncampus
3
2
Senior Lecturer (F)
Food science and nutrition
WebCT
U/G & P/G
Oncampus
34
2
Senior lecturer (M)
Mental health nursing
WebCT
U/G & P/G
Offcampus
15
10
Lecturer (F)
Psychiatric nursing
WebCT
P/G
Offcampus
11
6
Pharmacy (n = 1)
Assistant lecturer (F)
Pharmaceutical chemistry
WebCT
U/G
Oncampus
4
2
Science = 3)
Senior lecturer (M)
Introductory biology
InterLearn
U/G
Oncampus
18
4
Lecturer (F)
Astronomy
WebCT
U/G
Oncampus
20
2
Research fellow (M)
Physics in radiography
WebCT
P/G
Offcampus
38
4
(n
U/G = Undergraduate P/G = Postgraduate M = Male (9) F = Female (13) * Years as university teacher – at the time of the interviews (2004) ** Years teaching online – at the time of the interviews (2004) (Samarawickrema & Stacey, 2007; Samarawickrema, (In Press))
blended/hybrid approach combining web-based approaches with CD ROMs, video, audio, lectures, textbooks and tutorials as appropriate to each individual teaching academic’s student cohort. The investigation also showed that adoption by some teaching academics was voluntarily while for others (nearly half the participants), adoption was a top-down directive, though all were keen to provide effective, efficient, relevant, interesting learner-centred blended learning experiences. In addition, ‘authority innovation-directives’ made by people in positions of power were strong adoption stimuli, with which teaching academics as employees had to comply. One teaching academic commented: ‘there was a big push to go online and we were all madly scrambling’. Funding grants awarded to four teaching academics encouraged them to explore potentials of and create blended learning resources that were complex hybrids consisting of streaming
video, audio, and custom made tools embedded on their learning management sites. This was in stark contrast to sites of several other teaching academics which were developed in response to top-down authority innovation directives, and only included unit outlines, calendar, email and links to additional resources. Some teaching academics in this study were faced with threats of school closures and offering blended learning options was seen by them as a necessary way to boost student numbers and extend the life span of the school and their tenure at the university. A few teaching academics adopted blended learning for political reasons such as giving their units and courses a ‘web presence’, as administrators viewed this ‘web visibility’ as being innovative and improving the Faculty profile. Student demand was also a strong reason to adopt blended learning indicated by comments
227
Blended Learning and the New Pressures on the Academy
such as ‘I think there are expectations from students, they start asking you: is that on the web, are the lectures going to be taped etc etc’. Since student satisfaction is an important driver in an era when universities compete for students, requests for blended learning approaches were an important force driving adoption. Blended learning was attractive to teaching academics for its communication possibilities and greatly influenced some adoption decisions because it provided practical methods of keeping in touch with off-campus learners, and other learners who moved around Australia (and worldwide) on their professional placements. This increased reach offered the additional benefit of increased flexibility which was valuable to a university that had a large off-campus student enrolment. Universities want students who graduate to be job-ready, able to use virtual systems and operate in a globalised world. The need to prepare students for future professional needs motivated some study participants to adopt the learning management system. As one participant observed, ‘[Y]ou can’t be a translator if you don’t use the web. You just have to deal with it because people are moving . . . monitoring news, giving news briefs’. A few participants adopted blended approaches because the learning management system offered convenient administrative advantages such as marks management, group assignment management, tutor management and an avenue to provide resources to students who had timetable clashes. The possibility of streamlining and facilitating administrative activities encouraged adoption by some because it helped them with the organisation and management of large classes. In addition, the economic advantage of delivering resources free (allowing students to download at their own cost), also influenced adoption decisions. Teaching academics saw opportunities and pedagogical advantages in adopting blended approaches. They were pressured and challenged to think and act in new ways in response to technology and its implications for pedagogy. ‘I
228
want to make learning experiences much richer. There is no satisfaction for me in just preparing the print materials, no matter how good they were . . .’. Pedagogical reasons such as the ability to address specific learning needs, make learning experiences richer and more dynamic, provide hyperlinking possibilities, and provide students with their own sites and their own web pages, were some of their cited reasons for adoption. Some teaching academics were influenced and encouraged by colleagues’ work and were supported by peer networks in their faculties. Supportive and nurturing environments encouraged adoption while a minority had previous experience with other learning management systems and therefore their confidence in blended learning influenced their adoption decisions. While a minority of participants were influenced by the research literature, pedagogy related to the web was one person’s area of research and this contributed to a strong theoretical understanding in the area. A few teaching academics admitted to the uptake of blended learning approaches for their personal satisfaction, and one did it for personal strategic reasons admitting that: ‘I got offered an extra loading for it and on top of that, I know that getting involved with flexible learning practices is something that will be useful for me in terms of strengthening my CV’.
An Actor-Network Perspective Understanding the adoption of blended learning in a higher education setting is not possible without understanding the power and politics related to that background and the actor-network analysis was used in this study to bring these factors to the fore. As stated previously, actors are not only people but include physical objects such as machines and funding and intangibles such as time, policies, workloads, training opportunities, reward structures, discipline-based research and professional development. There was unanimous agreement from all study participants that actors
Blended Learning and the New Pressures on the Academy
such as time constraints, heavy workloads, the demand for research outputs, training and policy issues (and, at times, the lack of policy) impacted on teaching academics’ uptake of blended learning. There were other actors such as acknowledgement and reward schemes, unstable technology, threats of school closure and lack of exposure which impacted on some participants only. These were all contextual factors that heavily influenced the participants. Time was a powerful actor that regulated and made commanding impositions on all study participants. As one participant described, ‘[T]eaching [online] I have to say, takes a lot of my time. Not only does it take a lot of my time, it’s a bit like gas where it expands, whatever room you put it in, it will expand, whatever time I give it, it’ll just take . . . . Almost every aspect of blended teaching from developing learning resources for web environments to maintaining communication through email and discussion boards to maintaining resources, and learning the new technology, significantly impacted on teaching academics’ time and constrained adoption. Workloads associated with adopting blended learning were a pressing issue with all study participants as they found that course maintenance, keeping up with constant technology upgrades, student emails, learning new skills, including developing sustainable strategies to address these, escalated an individual’s workload. Adopting all forms of blended learning required extensive preparation and extended working hours and consequently powerfully impacted on adopting such learning environments. Resources development for blended learning environments required upfront investment in time for planning, organising and designing, including setting up websites, uploading files (eg. past examination papers, lecture notes) and maintaining their currency. Two participants mentioned that writing for the medium was time consuming, and one participant pointed out that designing a well integrated blended learning environment
and project managing resources development was time consuming. All teaching academics in the university were acutely aware that discipline-based research and related scholarly publications held the key to their individual career advancement. Two participants declared that because they undertook materials development for teaching in blended environments, their doctoral studies were delayed. Seventeen participants were convinced that discipline-based research was ‘more highly rewarding’. For the participants, it was therefore a continuous and conflicting negotiation between time spent on discipline-based research or developing blended learning resources and this conflict continued to impact on their adoption decisions. All participants admitted to undertaking new work practices as a result of adopting blended approaches. These new roles were described as follows: ‘You become an administrator and a teacher and a multimedia developer and you are a researcher and whatever else that I’ve left out’. Developing multimedia resources and websites required participants to work with and obtain assistance from professionals outside academic circles. It was obligatory therefore that teaching academics articulate their requests accurately to those professionals helping them and project manage resource development, which were all new work practices that imposed an additional burden on them. Several participants indicated their lack of theoretical understanding in the area and were therefore not convinced of the value of blended learning prior to adoption. In addition, the inability to estimate the time needed to develop blended resources (unlike preparing for a lecture), the absence of the required skills, and the many unknown factors deterred adoption. Since innovation adoption is often risky, participants sought support from trusted peers and colleagues. Learning with colleagues provided support and encouraged adoption of blended learning approaches as confirmed by the following
229
Blended Learning and the New Pressures on the Academy
statement: ‘I go to research seminars and I talk a lot to Jenny. Actually that taught me a lot. Through my colleagues, you know because some colleagues are concerned about the things I’m concerned with’. In this study, participants who had strong connections with faculty networks and learning groups demonstrated higher levels of adoption. Two faculties in particular had established hierarchical formal support structures which had a powerful adoption enabling impact. All participants had apprehensions related to copyright and ownership of the materials they created. Resolving these issues to the satisfaction of both teaching academics and the University would be an adoption enabler, but while matters remained inconclusive as in this study, it deterred developing blended learning approaches. Another strong actor was unstable technology resulting in breakdowns, anxious students and frustrating situations which make an unforgettable negative impact on future adoption decisions. Robust technology is necessary to win confidence of both teachers and students, particularly in adoption situations. Political climate in some schools and faculties was a powerful actor that forced three of the participants to adopt blended learning approaches. They were required to boost student numbers in order to address dwindling class size or face the threat of school closure followed by redundancy. Though negative in tone, these actors were a powerful influence and forced adoption. A funding injection powered and promoted innovation. The general belief was that developing blended learning resources were prohibitively costly. Four fortunate study participants received funding grants which enabled them to buy out their time from regular teaching to work on developing resources and to pay for professional services of graphic artists, educational designers and multimedia developers. One participant had received the Vice Chancellor’s award for her innovative teaching efforts. Actors such as institutional rewards and
230
acknowledgement schemes that recognise good teaching, cultivate a strong enabling environment for teaching academics to adopt blended learning. Policy is part of the organisational support structure that contributes to adopting blended learning. Policy conveys management’s vision and interests including objectives to achieve it. The study found that at an institutional level, strong supporting policies for the uptake of blended learning were included in the university’s Learning and Teaching plan and the educational technology policy. In addition, supporting policy enablers such as training workshops to assist teaching academics to use the learning management system, induction programs, mentoring schemes, and the appointment of associated deans responsible for teaching and learning to take responsibility for the technology supported learning in their faculties were in place. Despite the presence of these policy structures at the institutional level, the study found that they were less well articulated at the faculty level and left room for a great deal of interpretive flexibility because of the distance between policy formulating administrators and the policy executing teaching academics. Study participants pointed out that there was no clear policy directive from their faculties in areas such as off-shore delivery, anonymity in discussion forums, individual teaching academics’ quota of online teaching, time release and funding for online developments, copyright and intellectual property. As one participant explained, ‘[P]olicy tends to be catching up to where we are at. So sometimes you’re left in the dark and we’re kind of making it on the run’. The lack of clearly resolved policies (at the time of the study) worried participants and made them hesitate before further adopting blended learning approaches. There was also policy variance between faculties and according to the participants, none of the faculties demonstrated a strong, strategic plan for adopting blended learning. Participants were unable to identify key policies within their faculties
Blended Learning and the New Pressures on the Academy
that supported career paths, work guidelines and workloads which had a direct impact on them as individual teaching academics. Complementary training and professional development promotes and facilitates the adoption of blended learning making it meaningful and relevant. The study participants received technical learning management system training (Weaver, 2006) but its timeliness, appropriateness, applicability and relevance increased its value. The study participants had limited time, limited help and limited space to think about changes to teaching and implications for pedagogy related to technology use, few models of good practice to follow, inadequate technical support and unclear policy to direct their work. Once staff mastered the technology, they were more ready to focus on its curriculum integration. As participants gained confidence, they were ready to explore and customise their blended approach to suit their students and the specific teaching need. Their professional development was a continuum and training that responded to this continuum was a significant adoption enabling actor. Many teaching academics in this study had gone through stages of learning the technology, adopting it and working with it, and some of them had gone on to assist and build capacity among fellow colleagues, giving presentations, sharing experiences, serving on technology planning committees and becoming peer trainers. While these teaching academics evolved and grew in competency and confidence, the University evolved and grew with them. The teaching academics’ networks expanded and other colleagues followed, and some progressed to being leaders. Though on a small scale, this demonstrates acceptance of blended learning as it happens from within, through individuals in faculties. Each of them developed an individualistic model of adoption which included aspects of the web via the learning management system, as well as using textbooks, readings, CD ROMs and classroom sessions.
These constraints and difficulties exerted varying degrees of pressure on the participants. Consequently, the issues they prioritised and marginalised were also reflective of the power relations between these pressures and the participants’ individual agendas, the politics of their faculties and the particular stage of their careers they had reached. (For instance the one participant nearing retirement was less interested in his personal research output and was keen to use his time on innovations while the participants who were younger early career academics were conscious of obtaining that PhD and building up their research profile in their discipline indicating that participants had different priorities at different stages in their career.)
Discussion and Recommendations The study found that adopting blended learning approaches introduced a fresh order that imposed a range of new pressures on the institution and its teaching academics. As discussed in the previous section, each imperative was complex and interacted with other imperatives, and imposed varying degrees of power. The study found that Monash University had both vision statements as well as institution level strategic plans in relation to learning and teaching. Its vision statements, like most vision statements were broad, limited in their specificity, and consequently limited in their meaning and relevance to the individual teaching academic. Similarly, its information technology strategic plan set out the framework for the application and use of information technology and spelled out the strategy for an e-Monash (Monash University, 2005). This ensured significant investments at institutional level in technology infrastructure, staff and student support, institutional development and adoption and use of the learning technologies.
231
Blended Learning and the New Pressures on the Academy
Overall, the study revealed that new approaches to learning and teaching in universities are unlikely to be successful unless a strong and enabling organisational infrastructure and supporting frameworks are in place and are managed by those with vision and leadership. According to Morrison (2003 p. 112) ‘The vision needs to be compelling. Doing the same thing better isn’t enough. The vision should present a picture of doing what you’ve never been able to do before.’ Therefore, for successful implementation of blended learning, there is a need for systems within the University to adjust, with a vision to do things that were not done previously. It is evident from the findings in this investigation that the existing organisational structure required review (with such a vision in focus) at individual, group, faculty and institutional level. These are discussed next.
Workload and Time The workload and time pressures, as a consequence of adopting blended learning, were a pressing problem in all faculties. These needed to be considered in relation to the multi-campus international nature of Monash University’s operations, if a supporting institutional infrastructure and policy framework was to be constructed. This suggested that the full nature and the impact of workload involved using blended learning approaches across multiple campuses and multiple time zones, common to many Australian institutions of higher education, needs to be explored further. Some of the responsibilities of teaching in a global classroom were identified as workloads associated with developing blended learning resources of different levels of complexity, moderating virtual discussion groups, managing online assessments, course maintenance, managing and supporting globally distributed students, in addition to managing tutors and administering the teaching. Workload and teacher engagement must also be reviewed in relation to student levels such
232
as first-year undergraduates versus postgraduates, student numbers and diversity. This is an indication that strong and supportive organisational structures are necessary for blended learning to be embraced and to be practical, so that all these contemporary approaches will not be additional work, which is how it is currently perceived. A starting point would be to ask some basic questions and identify necessary changes. Questions such as: What are the new roles and responsibilities and what are the expectations of those new roles? What is the current understanding of and expectations from the teaching academic, the tutor, the faculty administrator, the senior managers, the deans responsible for teaching and learning and the support staff? How are the institutions dividing up the different tasks and responsibilities? How ready are all groups to take on new responsibilities and have they been trained to do so? Responses to these questions are not easy but nevertheless necessary if the new pressures on the academy are to be understood and accommodated through a common policy understanding. The lack of a policy framework in this area can lead to a nightmare of overwork and a lack of support for teaching academics, and consequent reduction in morale.
Intellectual Property The study suggested that policies related to intellectual property need to be clarified. Some teaching academics in this study were not enthusiastic about creating blended learning resources because they believed they did not receive adequate credit for this and would not be able to use them in another institution if they were to leave Monash University. Results suggested that ownership and policy related to teaching academics’ materials on a university website needs to be clear so that protection of learning materials is not the only goal, and sharing and reuse of them is accommodated and valued. Therefore, structures that will encourage the use of materials prepared elsewhere,
Blended Learning and the New Pressures on the Academy
if they suit objectives, and reciprocal arrangements for sharing, need to be considered. Answers to questions related to intellectual property on the web and the ethical considerations concerned with open access and free exchange of information are critical or teaching academics will be easily disillusioned, feel uncertain, unprotected and insecure. Without an explicit policy framework which provides relative security within which teaching academics can work, and guidelines to operate and make decisions, they will do the basic minimum and will not be innovative. Copyright, intellectual property, confidentiality, plagiarism, data protection and other e-legal risks have proved to be problems for teaching academics and different institutions choose to address these issues in different ways. A starting point would be a consideration of national legal frameworks and their application to the requirements of the institution, individual teaching academics and eventual use by students, and the mapping out the rights management at each level. Digital content management is an emerging area, and providing teaching academics with assistance in understanding and managing intellectual property related to digital content, and putting in place relevant staff development in the area, will pre-empt problems and misunderstandings. Making available such information in simple and easy-to-understand formats will provide staff the quick, precise answers on what is legally possible or not. Bell and Bell (2005) confirm that institutional level policies that address issues, present best practice and audit risks are important and support teaching academics.
Rewards and Incentives The study findings showed that the teaching academics valued rewards and incentives related to blended learning. The rewards stimulated adoption and contributed to job satisfaction and similar to findings by Collis and van der Wende (2002),
teaching academics in this study felt they were doing more, but with no reward. Although the institution offered an annual Vice Chancellor’s award for excellence in teaching (won by a study participant) which recognised and rewarded exemplary teaching, there was no organised structure to relate reward to tenure, time release, research time or even conference participation, all of which were valuable rewards for teaching academics. It is a complex process for an institution to evaluate and measure teaching academics’ initiatives in adopting blended learning. Staff efforts may be rewarded through promotions, bonuses, payment of conference registrations, travel and research stipends, laboratory and office space, laboratory equipment, and reduced teaching load in return for time to develop resources. Yet, to make rewards meaningful, it is necessary to evaluate work in digital scholarship and develop processes and standards for open access to such scholarship. For example, websites with peer reviewed learning technology efforts such as MERLOT (Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching, www.merlot.org, an open resource designed for teaching academics in higher education consisting of annotated peer reviews and links to resources), credit teaching effort in a way similar to crediting discipline related research and would be useful to support promotions and tenure. Such showcasing of scholarship would also contribute to elevating the status of teaching to the level of discipline-based research, giving it the institutional recognition and visibility, which in turn will be a motivating factor to staff.
FUNDING The study revealed that adoption was greatest when funding was made available to buy out teaching time to develop blended learning resources or to pay for professional services such as web, graphic, and educational designers. Consequently, recipients of funding grants integrated
233
Blended Learning and the New Pressures on the Academy
blended approaches into their teaching earlier than others, were more convinced of the value of the resources they developed and their adoption decisions. They integrated blended learning more confidently in their teaching, and rated them as compatible with the curriculum they taught. The innovation adoption process when supported by funding allocations, occurred with greater ease and satisfaction. An award of a funding grant (of whatever size) was confirmation of the extra effort required to develop resources. Unfortunately funding has always been limited, often encouraging experimentation and an initial iteration, and resulting in short term effort, with no opportunity for long term sustainability or further iterations and developments or further integration and embedding of the learning designs. Current funding formulae to allocate resources based on the number of on-campus students, classroom space from 9am-5pm does not provide for telecommunication facilities for e-learning, 24X7 learner support and resourcing for e-learning facilitation. Rethinking new funding formulae no doubt will be a challenge, but new funding approaches will need to be explored.
P Following the first step of understanding the way in which the technology worked, staff development on pedagogical aspects of blended learning approaches strongly encouraged adoption. Ongoing just-in-time training is the next important stage. Continuously updating skills and reflecting on the potential and affordances of learning technologies, application of pedagogy to suit the technology type, and selecting appropriate blends for learners, are critical areas for consideration by teaching academics. Participation in professional development in the area is a necessary ongoing activity for all teaching academics. Crediting those who participate in those programs and allocating resources for training endorses the value that the institution places in professional development.
234
SUPPORT Technology uptake is also associated with a sharp learning curve and the provision of prompt, reliable technical support has a direct impact on teaching academics’ confidence and willingness to experiment with blended learning. Participants who came from those faculties that had prominent and easy access to technical support were more comfortable with technology use. The institution needs to support the use of the technology at different levels and take on the roles of providing support and problem solving. The institution has to provide similar support for learners as it is not a role teaching academics can shoulder. Necessary support structures including helpdesks must be in place for staff to feel confident. More broadly, support should accommodate staged incremental change giving teaching academics the opportunity to learn as well as refine and realign strategies. Teachers generally adopt new technology incrementally and slowly and it is good to understand this slow process. They adopt, use it in their teaching, often in an experimental or supplementary way before making it more mainstream. Innovative use of technology generally depends on a few enthusiastic persons who have worked through the technology barriers and incrementally experimented with different pedagogical approaches surrounding the technology. Ideally, support should take into consideration all this.
POLICY Supportive policy provides a safe environment for teaching academics to function, experiment and be innovative. While these regulatory structures in a broad sense were present in the study context, the study exposed the absence of policy in key areas such as workload and time, intellectual property, funding, rewards and other areas related to organisational infrastructures.
Blended Learning and the New Pressures on the Academy
A university policy that is then articulated at a faculty level can provide direction and support for learning and teaching approaches of teaching academics related to developing blended learning resources and teaching online, time related to teaching and research, ownership, intellectual property of learning resources developed by teaching academics and professional development. Policy guidance in these areas appears to be currently absent. Such a faculty policy that is guided by a strong institutional vision and is aligned with teaching needs, facilitates the take up of blended learning approaches. For institutional policies to be of value, they must cascaded down from the top organisational level and articulate into faculty goals, and rules, to then further assist faculty-based teaching academics. This is a necessary second level (a faculty level) set of goals and policies which act as a framework to provide teaching academics with direction in their teaching activity. These would need to be formally established as policy. Such a structure was not obvious in the context that was studied. It is also clear from the study that once the institution has decided to adopt blended learning, implementation does not happen smoothly across the entire organisation and involves many groups of people, including teaching academics, who both champion as well as oppose this new approach. Drawing all these groups into a policy-related conversation moderated by a central institute, would be useful to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the thinking of teaching academics across the institution. A formal policy change or the introduction of a new policy can come only from the institution’s managerial leadership. Policy should not be viewed only as managerial leadership providing guidance and pathways but also addressing direction, setting boundaries to protect individuals and setting the general intended outcomes and acceptable solutions. Teaching academics in turn need to take responsibility for and participate in developing those policies, become critics and analysts of those
policies, implement them in their practice, and contribute to refining them. Unless they become active in these roles, policy will be top-down and one-way which often makes teaching academics resentful and frustrated. Some study participants in this investigation were members of user groups and active users of technology and were involved in discussions related to policies for their faculties that they believed would be useful to guide their own practice. Therefore, the collegial and participatory experience of involvement in the guiding and steering function of policy, and sharing the responsibility for those policy structures and their outcomes, increases the confidence to adopt blended learning. It is also important to listen to comments about all possible problems and reservations and therefore low-users and non-users, in addition to innovators, must also be involved in the dialogue and policy making procedures. Policy formulation must also be informed by an evidence base leading to a supportive framework that operates at both micro and macro levels. Since policy makers do not operate at the level of grass-roots teaching academics, the requirements of such teachers need to be explained and communicated to those with institutional roles. This is an important role of senior faculty staff such as deans and professors that is to understand and communicate the needs and concerns of their teaching staff to senior university administrators at relevant forums. Involving all stakeholders in the policy dialogue and drawing on their experiences and rich tacit knowledge to shape policy and reach consensus is difficult but important. It requires a high level of institutional focus and the need to frame issues in a way that will promote learning, appeal to good decision making, common sense and the urge to do the best and to be the best. Policy which is appropriate for the new electronic age must be dynamic. There is no ‘right’ policy and therefore there will be variances between institutions and even within one institution. One clear policy within one institution is easy to
235
Blended Learning and the New Pressures on the Academy
follow but it may not necessarily suit all faculties, schools and departments. What is important is that everything the institution does and the image it projects is dictated by its policy. It is also important to constantly renew and refresh policy in order that it stays in step with the demands and changes made by the higher education environment and everything else that impacts on it. Attempting to fit new blended learning systems into existing structures that were constructed to facilitate the traditional on-campus delivery will not work. The issue now is to identify and consider those aspects of the structures, concepts and processes that will continue to be useful and helpful and bravely develop others that accommodate and endorse the new. Change will be slow and there will be failure, frustration and a return to some of the old familiar practices. This will occur because there will be many previously unrecognised factors that will come into play and will be visible only when they obstruct the task. Creating a policy framework will be slow, ongoing and the change will be subtle. It is about an iterative process that draws on tacit knowledge and experience, and provides for an environment that accommodates new approaches to teaching and learning.
C Technology changes rapidly and individuals embrace technology and adapt faster than institutions. Teaching academics in this study moved ahead but the institutional policy lagged behind, not unusual in new groundbreaking areas. In this study, existing policies have mostly supported print based distance education or on-campus students and have largely tended to recognise teaching as an individual act that happens in a physical classroom. Introduction of blended learning is disruptive, imposing change at all levels across the institution. The imbalances and variances related to technol-
236
ogy adoption within and between faculties are not encouraging but are often the reality and will be outside the control of many staff in universities. What would be assuring for staff would be to have an accepted and recognised institutional leadership to drive innovations in blended learning together with an established operating model to facilitate it, and people with a defined role to execute the jobs. For teaching academics, learning the art of blended teaching is ongoing. This study investigated teaching academics adoption of blended learning using the ‘read only’ web and the instructor managed courses in the learning management system, which most teaching academics are familiar with. However, e-learning and teaching is now evolving to accommodate the read-writepublish-edit-publish environments of social software which is changing the way students engage, collaborate, explore topics of common interest and publish information (Dron, 2007) and is having a significant impact. The next wave of innovative teaching academics has already embraced these software, extending their blended learning approaches. It is a complex environment where change is multi faceted and does not occur in a linear path. Change will be constant precipitating new pressures on the academy.
R Bell, M., & Bell, W. (2005). It’s installed . . . now get on with it! Looking beyond the software to the cultural change. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 643-656. Bigum, C. (2001). Actor-network theory and online university teaching: Translation vs diffusion. In L. Rowan & B. A. Knight (Eds.), Researching futures oriented pedagogies (pp. 7-22). Flaxton, Qld: Post Press. Bigum, C., Green, B., Fitzclarence, L., & Kenway, J. (1993). Multimedia and monstrosities: Rein-
Blended Learning and the New Pressures on the Academy
venting computing in schools again? Australian Educational Computing, 8, 43-49. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Callon, M., Law, J., & Rip, A. (1986a). How to study the force of science. In M. Callon, J. Law & A. Rip (Eds.), Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: Sociology of science in the real world (pp. 3-18). London: Macmillan Press. Callon, M., Law, J., & Rip, A. (Eds.). (1986b). Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: Sociology of science in the real world. London Macmillan Press. Collis, B., & van der Wende, M. (2002). Models of technology and change in higher education: An international comparative survey on the current and future use of ICT in higher education Netherlands: Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies, Universiteit Twente http://www.utwente. nl/cheps/documenten/ictrapport.pdf. [accessed 15 August 2008] Dron, J. (2007). Control and constraint in elearning: Choosing when to choose. Hershey: Idea Group Publishing. Ely, D. P. (1990). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Journal of Research in Computing in Education, 23(2), 298 - 305. Ely, D. P. (1999). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Educational Technology, 39(6 November/December), 23-27. Gilding, A. (1996). Student construction of a knowledge-based system as an actor network. Unpublished PhD thesis, Deakin University, Melbourne.
Jacobsen, D. M. (1998). Adoption patterns and characteristics of faculty who integrate computer technology for teaching and learning in higher education. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Alberta, Calgary, Alberta. Klecuń, E. (2004). Conducting critical research in information systems: Can actor-network theory help?. In B. Kaplan, D. P. Truex III, D. Wastell, T. A. Wood-Harper & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Information systems research (pp. 259-274). Manchester: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Latour, B. (1987) Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artefacts. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/Building society: Studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of actor-networks: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(4), 379-393. Li, Y., & Lindner, J. R. (2007). Faculty adoption behaviour about web-based distance education: A case study from China Agricultural University. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(1), 83-94. Littlejohn, A., & Pegler, C. (2007). Preparing for blended e-learning. London: Routledge. Monash University. (2005). Technology and services to manage information: Information technology strategic plan - 2005 update. http://www. monash.edu.au/about/itsp/2005/update/2005_ ITSP_Update-Final.pdf Monash University. (2008, 2 January 2008). Monash statistics. http://www.monash.edu.au/ about/stats.html [accessed 10 March 2008] Morrison, D. (2003). E-learning strategies: How to get implementation right first time. West Sussex: Wiley. 237
Blended Learning and the New Pressures on the Academy
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5 ed.). New York: The Free Press.
A checklist based on TDC findings. Educational Technology, January, 57-58.
Rowan, L., & Knight, B. A. (2001). Researching futures oriented pedagogy. In L. Rowan & B. A. Knight (Eds.), Researching futures oriented pedagogies (pp. 1-6). Flaxton, Qld: Post Press.
Surry, D. W. (1997). Diffusion theory and instructional technology. http://www. .gsu.edu/~wwwitr/ docs/diffusion/ [accessed 15 August 2008]
Sadler-Smith, E., & Tsang, F. (1998). A comparative study of approaches to studying in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. British Journal of Psychology, 68, 81-93. Samarawickrema, G., & Stacey, E. (2007). Adopting web-based learning and teaching: A case study in higher education. Distance Education 28(3), 313-333. Samarawickrema, R. G. (2008). Technology adoption: Voices of teaching academics, educational designers and students. Verlag: Germany. Shea, P., Pickett, A., & Sau Li, C. (2005). Increasing access to higher education: A study of the diffusion of online teaching among 913 college faculty. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 6(2), http://www.irrodl. org/content/v6.2/shea.html Sherry, L. (1998). An integrate technology adoption and diffusion model. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 4(2/3), 113-145. Simpson, N. (2000). Studying innovation in education: The case of the ConnectEd project. http://www.aare.edu.au/00pap/sim00027.htm [accessed 15 August 2008] Simpson, N. (2001). Diffusion theory and actornetwork theory. In L. Rowan & B. A. Knight (Eds.), Researching futures oriented pedagogies (pp. 23-40). Flaxton, Qld: Post Press. Stockdill, H. S. & Morehouse, D. L. (1992). Critical factors in the successful adoption of technology:
238
Tatnall, A., & Burgess, S. (2004). Using actornetwork theory to identify factors affecting the adoption of e-commerce in SMEs. In M. Singh & D. Waddell (Eds.), E-business innovation and change management (pp. 152-169). London: IRM Press. Tatnall, A., & Lepa, J. (2003). The internet, ecommerce and older people: An actor-network approach to researching reasons for adoption and use. Logistics Information Management, 16(1), 56-63. Weaver, D. (2006). The challenge facing staff development in promoting quality online teaching. International Journal on E-Learning 5(2), 275-286. Whitworth, A. (2005). The politics of virtual learning environments: Environmental change, conflict, and e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 685-691. Wilson, B., Sherry, L., Dobrovolny, J., Batty, M., & Ryder, M. (2000). Adoption of learning technologies in schools and universities. In H. H. Adelsberger, B. Collis & J. M. Pawlowski (Eds.), Handbook on information technologies for education and training. New York: SpringerVerlag. http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~lsherry/pubs/ newadopt.htm. [accessed 15 August 2008] Wilson, B., Sherry, L., Dobrovolny, J., Batty, M., & Ryder, M. (2002). Adoption factors and processes. In H. H. Adelsberger, B. Collis & J. M. Pawlowski (Eds.), Handbook on information technologies for education and training (pp. 293307). New York: Springer.
239
Chapter XIII
Case Studies of ICT-Enhanced Blended Learning and Implications for Professional Development Gail Wilson Bond University, Australia
ABSTRACT This chapter draws on a collective case study of six faculty members working in ICT-enhanced blended learning environments at a large regional university in Australia. The chapter identifies seven dimensions of the blended learning environments created by each teacher, with a particular focus on four of these dimensions – the teacher, the online, the resource-based learning and the institutional support dimension. The research showed how individual faculty members worked to blend their courses through their overall approaches to course planning, their focus on combining the strengths of both the face-toface and the online learning environments, and their eagerness to shift their pedagogical approaches to accommodate the best features of both the face-to-face and the online environments. The chapter makes recommendations for professional development for teachers that is effective in preparing them for creating and working in blended learning environments and suggests areas for future research in the area of blended learning.
INTRODUCTION This chapter focuses on a recent study (Wilson, 2007) of six faculty members working in blended learning environments in campus-based contexts
in a large regional university in Australia. The case-based study examined how information and communications technology (ICT) was used by each of these faculty members, all early adopters (Rogers, 2003), to enhance their face-to-face
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Case Studies of ICT-Enhanced Blended Learning and Implications for Professional Development
teaching, and how this use contributed to an understanding of blended learning within higher education in Australia. This chapter begins by defining key terms used in the study and throughout the chapter. It examines ways of analysing and defining blended learning environments (BLEs) by focusing on the scope, nature, and purpose of the blend adopted by individual teachers across their courses. The study is located within a qualitative field of inquiry, and the rationale is given for the choice of case study as both the product of the research and the research strategy for the study. The case study design is discussed and the individual teachers who participated in the study are introduced. The chapter presents the findings from the study within a framework of the distinctive dimensions of the BLEs created by the faculty members. It focuses on four of these dimensions —the teacher, the online, the resource-based learning (RBL), and the institutional support dimensions. A portion of the chapter makes recommendations regarding the professional development required for faculty members to support their use of blended learning. The chapter discusses some implications arising from the study and makes recommendations for areas for future research in the area of blended learning.
B In this chapter blended learning is defined as a mix of face-to-face and ICT components, united through a carefully considered learning design, combining a mix of formats, media and activities. Implied in this definition is a need to blend the strengths of both the face-to-face and the online learning environments, including the pedagogical approaches best suited to both, or, as Garrison and Vaughan (2008, p. 6) stress, combining “the properties and possibilities of both to go beyond the capabilities of each separately.” Overall, the
240
dominant arguments for blended learning in higher education resonate with the rationale for the move towards flexible learning and flexible delivery in the 1990s: improved pedagogy, enabling courses to become more student-centred and less teacher-directed; increased access for students and flexibility in terms of time that students needed to be on-campus; responding to the diversity of students needs; enhancement of the campus experience; the demands of a global education marketplace; and increased cost effectiveness (Graham, Allen & Ure, 2003). Institutional research on blended learning conducted by Canada’s Collaboration for Online Higher Education and Research (COHERE) group concluded that faculty members blended their courses to achieve “a more flexible, efficient, accessible, and varied learning experience for their students” (Cook, Owston & Garrison, 2004, p. 348). This Canadian research found that institutional success in the implementation of blended learning required broad organisational support and incentives for staff, such as workload allocation and recognition and reward schemes. In one US research study (Christensen, 2003), while it was found that blended learning was an effective strategy when seeking to implement constructivist pedagogy, it still presented significant challenges in terms of time demands placed on individual faculty members. A study published a year later (Dziuban, Hartman & Moskai, 2004) affirmed that faculty members adopting blending learning also experienced more demands on their time, while at the same time they became more facilitative in terms of their teaching approach, and more focused on course design. The definition of ICT adopted throughout the study is attributed to Mason and Rennie (2006, p. 60) who used the term broadly to mean “any hardware or software, or even any activity that is related to the use of computers for the generation, storage, transmission and retrieval of information in an electronic format.” A key focus of this chap-
Case Studies of ICT-Enhanced Blended Learning and Implications for Professional Development
ter is on the blended learning pedagogy adopted across the cases in the study. Pedagogy is defined as “the manner in which the teaching and learning processes and settings in a course are organised and implemented by an instructor” (Collis & Moonen, 2001, p. 19). References are also made in the study to learning resources, defined here as “those resources that represent knowledge for the purpose of learning” (Littlejohn & McGill, 2004, Section 2). Resources for learning come in a wide range of representations: textbooks, lecture presentations, reading lists, learning designs, tips and tricks for teaching, glossaries, study guides, examinations and tests, and case studies and toolkits (Littlejohn & McGill, 2004). Resources are used in different formats and delivered using different media. The context in which they are used is important. A typology of resources (Collis & Strijker, 2004) emphasises three types of resources in relation to faculty a member’s role in adapting resources to particular contexts. Pure resources (articles, book chapters, animations, course notes, PowerPoint™ slides) are unedited by the teacher. Pure, combined resources are unedited resources combined with other resources, as in a course reading combined with a learning activity. Adapted resources are those which have been edited or repurposed by the teacher for a different context from the one for which it was originally designed. In this study, learning resources used across the six cases were categorised as informational or interactive (Oliver, 2002). Informational resources support learners accessing information, while interactive resources support learners’ engagement, reflection and decision making processes as well as providing feedback to learners. Resource use in blended learning environments can further by analysed using Mayes’s (2002) conceptualisation framework which shows some similarities to Laurillard’s (2002) conversational framework in its emphasis on the importance of dialogue in the development of learner understanding, but is based
on three broad stages of learning development linked to the concept of courseware or learning resources. In Mayes’s representation of a learning environment, courseware supports three essential stages in student learning—conceptualisation, construction and contextualisation—which the learner moves through until a state of understanding and knowing has been reached. Courseware should orient learners to the content and support them through each of these stages. The added value of technology for learning is enhanced as faculty member and student move from the conceptualisation, to the construction, and then to the contextualisation stages of learning (Mayes & Fowler, 1999, p. 495). The individual teacher’s role is to provide support and coaching to learners as they progress through these stages of development. Reference is made in this chapter to ICT tools used by faculty members, defined as “software applications that can be used to undertake specific activities or sets of tasks” (Conole & Dyke, 2004, p. 5). The ICT tools commonly in use by faculty members and students in this study were online chat, discussion forum, email, listservs, and the web. A recently-published media typology (Beetham & Sharpe, 2007) was used to classify the ICT tools used by staff in this study, based on an earlier classification by Laurillard (2002) of five media types—narrative, communicative, adaptive, interactive and productive, to which has been added a sixth type, integrative.
AnalySING DeDEFINING BLENDEDRNING ENVIRONMENTS Frameworks found in the literature on blended learning (Graham, 2006; Graham & Robison, 2007; Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003) have suggested ways of analysing teachers’ design and use of BLEs: determining the scope of the blend,
241
Case Studies of ICT-Enhanced Blended Learning and Implications for Professional Development
or the impact of the blend on the context of the course, the primary purpose or goal of the blend, and the nature of the blend, or how the blend is being used in particular circumstances. The scope of the blend is determined by looking at how blended learning has impacted on some, or all, of the components of a course. A single activity or a fixed number of activities within a course can be blended. In one course, students may be required to complete one online assessment task in a course, while in another course all tutorial presentations must be posted online and critiqued by peers. Sometimes blended learning activities may occur only once or twice during a semester, for example, where a synchronous tutorial is designed to precede a face-to-face discussion of a specific topic. In other cases, they may be regularly scheduled as asynchronous events across a semester. The purpose of the blend relates to an individual faculty member’s reasons for introducing blended learning into a course. A range of studies have directed attention to the motivation behind teachers’ adoption of blended learning. For some staff it enriched the learning experience of students and enhanced learning and teaching effectiveness overall (Hodgson, 2005; Lang, 2000, Roberts, 2004), broadened access to essential course information, enhanced the amount and quality of student interaction, and increased student autonomy in using resources and finding resources for themselves (Bates & Poole, 2003; Bunker & Vardi, 2001). Faculty members also used blended learning approaches to achieve improvements in pedagogy, productivity, and access and convenience; to keep pace with a changing educational environment; and prepare students for future work roles and lifelong learning (Graham & Robinson, 2007; Hodgson, 2005). Research has also indicated that faculty members adopted blended learning as a result of student pressure to do so (Elgort, 2005). A US research study reported on the outcomes of a large course redesign project involving 30
242
institutions which produced five distinct course redesign models, whose features were used to establish categories that defined the nature of blended courses (Twigg, 2003, p. 30)—supplemental, replacement, emporium, fully online, and buffet. Two of these categories—supplemental and replacement—were used in this study to define the nature of the blend evidenced in the courses taught by individual faculty members. The supplemental model retains the traditional course structure, but adds ICT-based activities to enhance face-to-face and/or outside class activities. The replacement model significantly changes the original course profile, for example, by reducing face-to-face meetings and replacing them with online activities aimed at encouraging interactivity amongst students. UK researchers Littlejohn and Pegler (2007) have suggested that the nature of blended learning environments across courses could be determined by examining the blend across the four components of space (virtual, face-to-face), time (the length of a course), media (tools and resources), and activity (learning activities). These authors defined activity blends as blends of online and face-to-face learning activities, where one activity is “wrapped around” another. An online activity may be directly linked to a face-to-face activity, such as an online discussion being linked to or supported by a lecture which immediately follows. Or, a class tutorial or practical class can be followed by student exploration of a set of web resources, or a group task conducted in the online environment.
Case Study as RRESE STRTEG The research study that is the focus of this chapter was located within a qualitative field of inquiry. Several interpretive paradigms serve to guide the qualitative researcher. These paradigms are “interpretive” because they channel the actions of
Case Studies of ICT-Enhanced Blended Learning and Implications for Professional Development
the researcher and how they should be understood and studied (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998, p. 26). Four major interpretive paradigms for qualitative research as defined by Denzin and Lincoln (2000, pp. 19-20) are positivist and postpositivist, constructivist-interpretive, critical (Marxist, emancipatory), and feminist-poststructural. Case study lies within the constructivist-interpretive paradigm (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). This study drew on the definition of a case study determined by Creswell (1998, p. 61) as: an exploration of a bounded system or a case over time through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information, rich in context. This bounded system is bounded by time and place, and it is the case being studied – a program, an event, an activity, or individuals. The study also used case study as a research strategy, an approach favoured by Yin (2003), who argues that “how” and “why” questions in research are more likely to be answered by case studies, histories, and experiments. This study was designed as an instrumental case study (Stake, 1995), focused on ICT-enhanced blended learning in on-campus contexts in one university. It is also an example of both a collective case study, with its focus on the use of blended learning by six academic teachers, and a holistic case study, given its focus on the use of blended learning within a single institution. Case studies were used extensively in the literature to explore the “how” and “why” of faculty members’ early use of ICT in universities: (Bain, McNaught, Mills & Lueckenhausen, 1998; Fox & Hermann, 2000; Housego & Freeman, 2000; Tearle, Davis & Birbeck, 1998; Thomson & Holt, 1996). Case study has also been used to explore the scholarly dimensions of academics’ educational beliefs in relation to their discipline (Quinlan, 1997), and, within a scholarship of teaching framework (Boyer, 1999), to document and reflect upon four university faculty members’
early experiences with web-based instruction (Daugherty, Grubb, Hirsch & Gillis, 2000). In both studies, case study enabled the researchers to explore a wide range of themes and dimensions of teachers’ pedagogical practices.
RESE The setting for this study was a large regional university in Australia, one of several major higher education providers of off-campus education, geographically spread across several campuses, with total undergraduate and postgraduate course enrolments of close to 35,000 students. Many of the university’s courses were offered in both off-campus and on-campus mode. Most faculty members at the university taught courses within degree programs offered in both modes across a thirteen-week semester punctuated by assessment due dates and a final examination period. Current assessment practice at the university favoured final examinations as a summative assessment process, with some exceptions to this practice across faculties and within courses. Institutions around the globe in the late 1990s had responded to the “technological imperative” (Holt & Thompson, 1995) of ICT by introducing plans and policies to guide the introduction and use of the new technologies. This university’s early response to the challenges of the new technologies had resulted in a blueprint being developed for fully online off-campus and blended on-campus courses which specified a default online presence for all courses known as “online supported.” This descriptor equated to the “supplementary” level of web use that had been found to be the dominant level in an early survey of Australian universities (Bell, Bush, Nicholson, O’Brien & Tran, 2002). Each online supported course provided students access to an online course outline, web links and resources relevant to the course, direct links to the Library, and for students enrolled in off-campus mode, access to the university’s electronic as-
243
Case Studies of ICT-Enhanced Blended Learning and Implications for Professional Development
signment submission system. Faculty members in this study had extended this online supported model to what the university called an “online facilitated” one, where teachers actively used the tools provided in the online course websites to enrich and add variety to the face-to-face classroom environment and provide opportunities for communication and collaboration amongst students. Professional development support for faculty members working in blended learning environments across the university was provided by a centralised teaching and learning unit, which had within it educational designers who were located within specific schools on its major campuses. The university had earlier introduced a peer support program for embedding ICT usage across the institution, and the Library had pioneered support for students’ use of its catalogues, databases and search engines through an online interactive tutorial accessible from the online course websites. As the university’s adoption of ICT grew, the role of the educational designer staff was increasingly focused on offering pedagogical advice and support to individual faculty members to prepare their online-supported courses for off-campus students, and, increasingly, using ICT to enhance on-campus teaching and learning.
Case Study DDESIGN The case study design for this study consisted of four major stages, adapted from Stake (1995) and Creswell (1998)—focusing the study, collecting the data, analysing and interpreting the data, and constructing and presenting the case. Within each stage were smaller, iterative steps and processes. A purposeful sampling approach was used (also referred to in the literature as purposive sampling), where the researcher selects participants for inclusion in a study “on the basis of knowledge of the population and the purpose of the research” (Kayrooz & Trevitt, 2005, p. 157).
244
Purposeful sampling is aimed at choosing participants to study who illuminate the issues raised in the research questions (Creswell, 1998; Patton, 2002). The study sample consisted of six faculty members, five of whom were female, from four of the five faculties of the university, and located across four of its campuses. The sixth participant in the study was located at the university’s technology-enhanced campus, part of an educational precinct which included a senior high school and a vocational education institution. All faculty members in the sample were early adopters (Rogers, 2003) of ICT, that is, they had incorporated the online environment into their face-to-face teaching at an early stage in the university’s adoption of ICT-based blended learning. The choice of sample was determined by the need to provide a spread of representative teachers across multiple campuses and disciplines who used ICT with on-campus students, rather than a design to achieve a gender balance. There was no intent to sample all disciplines represented at the university, or to have an even number of teachers from each faculty. Two of the faculty members in the study were Science teachers teaching the same courses. They taught on different campuses and were recognised within the university as being innovative in their approaches to blended learning within their respective campuses. There were sufficient differences in the types of ICT tools and the ways in which they used these tools to include both in the sample. In accordance with the ethical agreement made with each teacher prior to starting the study, individuals were given a pseudonym to protect their identity and maintain anonymity. Data collection for the study spanned a oneyear period. The data collected included transcripts of interviews, analysis of course documentation, multi-media resources and websites, and extensive field notes compiled for each teacher. An individual case record described by Stenhouse (1978, p. 37) as “a parsimonious condensation of the case data” was constructed for each case.
Case Studies of ICT-Enhanced Blended Learning and Implications for Professional Development
TEPROFILES
FINDINGS
A brief synopsis of each of the participants in the study is provided below:
Dimensions of Blended Learning Environments
Joanne was an award-winning health sciences academic who used ICT in her teaching on a daily basis, and found in the use of the online chat tool a way of fostering peer support amongst her students while on clinical placements.
The study’s findings were framed as seven dimensions of blended learning environments (Figure 1) found across the six cases: the teacher, online, face-to-face and self study dimensions, the resource-based learning dimension, the institutional support dimension, and the organisational context dimension. The teacher dimension occupied a central position in the findings in relation to the other dimensions. The five elements in this dimension included the faculty member’s reasons for moving to blended learning, the blended learning pedagogies they adopted, the nature of the blend across their courses, how the faculty members saw their role, and the challenges they encountered as they embraced blended learning. The online dimension featured four elements: the types of media used, the range of activity blends across the courses, the use of online assessment, and the scaffolding support each faculty member provided to support students’ use of the online environment. The self-study dimension is defined as the time students spent working independently outside of scheduled class times, supported by both informational and interactive resources which were found in use by all the cases. The face-to-face dimension included three elements: teaching spaces, face-to-face classes and work placements. Faculty members used a range of lecture, tutorial, computer laboratory and practical laboratory face-to-face teaching spaces. Scheduled face-to-face classes were a mix of lectures, tutorials, seminars, workshops, meetings, practical classes and computer labs. Four of the teachers taught in courses with scheduled work placements, with locations in schools, hospitals and health services clinics in Australia and overseas.
Gillian was an enthusiastic science teacher with a wealth of experience in teaching hospitals and a strong computer background, who made extensive use of CD-ROMs to enhance the learning experiences of mature-age nursing students. Stephanie was a young career academic, recently acknowledged for her teaching excellence at the university, who had been exposed early in her teaching to the use of technologies in science teaching at one of Australia’s largest research universities. She used ICT to support nursing students learning about science. Helen was an experienced teacher with a strong drive to explore new territory in her teaching who saw it as her role to ensure that her young pre-service teachers were well prepared to use technologies in 21st century classrooms. James was an experienced academic with a strong research interest in the area of computer-supported collaborative work (CSCW) who used the new technologies to bring on- and off-campus students studying the same course closer together. Elizabeth was a practising textile artist and an experienced teacher in secondary, adult education, and higher education contexts for whom the use of ICT had breathed new life into the teaching of her discipline, art history.
245
Case Studies of ICT-Enhanced Blended Learning and Implications for Professional Development
Figure 1. Dimensions of blended learning environments
The resource-based learning (RBL) dimension is a dominant feature of all the blended learning environments found across the cases. RBL supported teaching and learning in the online, face-to-face and self-study dimensions. The institutional support dimension refers to the information technology (IT), professional development, and library support available to teachers at the university. Professional development of faculty members for blended learning is explored in more detail later in this chapter. The organisational context dimension is the university where the study was located, described earlier in this chapter. This chapter focuses on the findings from the study that relate specifically to the teacher, online, RBL, and institutional support dimensions. The teacher and online dimensions are combined in a discussion of the nature of the blended learning pedagogy adopted across the six cases.
246
Blended Learning Pedagogy The features of the blended learning pedagogy evidenced across the cases in the study included the use of different types of media, a range of activity blends, a continuum of use of online assessment, types of scaffolding support provided by faculty, the nature of the blend found across the teachers’ courses, and the motivation of faculty members to embrace blended learning.
Media Blends Based on a typology of media types (Beetham & Sharpe, 2007), five media types were found in use across the cases—narrative, interactive, communicative, adaptive, and integrative. Three of these—narrative, interactive, and communicative—were used by all teachers in the study. Narrative media were evidenced through the use
Case Studies of ICT-Enhanced Blended Learning and Implications for Professional Development
of digital images, the digital camera, PowerPoint™ slides, CD-ROMs, video files, and web pages. Interactive media used included search engines, online databases, portal websites, and an online quiz tool. Communicative media included the use of online chat, course forums, listservs, groupware, and the synchronous chat capability of the LC_MOO. Use of adaptive media was limited to the science-related simulations, games and models contained in CD-ROMs used by two teachers, and phonetic transcription and electropalatograph tools used by another. Three teachers had made use of integrative media—two combined traditional print and ICT based tools in two of their respective assessment tasks, and a third teacher made extensive use of community-building open source, web-based learning environments and the MOO (Multi-user Object Oriented), a text-based virtual space that allows users to create characters, objects, and rooms and where learners can interact synchronously (Haughey & Anderson, 1998) in addition to the university’s in-house system to manage the student learning environment.
Activity Blends As found by Littlejohn & Pegler (2007), activity blends designed by teachers combined online and face-to-face classroom activities. In this study these blends included: •
•
Synchronous debates in the course forum, followed by face-to-face discussion in the lecture; using the web and course forums to facilitate completion of a paper-based assessment task; Working in face-to-face classes on collaborative group tasks and posting related information and reports on the course forums; presenting in tutorials and posting summaries on the course forum; exploring resources contained in web-based study guides linked to weekly campus-based tutorials;
•
•
Using online interactive quizzes to self-test understanding prior to practical classes; using quizzes, games and interactive models from CD-ROMs in face-to-face science classes; Accessing resources on a teacher-developed website to facilitate understanding of concepts discussed in lectures or practical classes; researching websites for a face-toface debate; listening to and identifying chest sounds on a website, then answering questions and discussing answers questions in a practical lab class.
Online Assessment Two participants in the study who taught science subjects made no use of online assessment in their courses and continued to maintain the midsemester tests and formal examinations traditional to teaching in their discipline. One restricted her use of online assessment to a first-year course she taught, and another required that students use the course forum and undertake other computer-based tasks to satisfy the assessment requirements in both her courses. Moderate use of online assessments was evidenced in one of the cases where the faculty member required use of the course forums to post tutorial summaries and to participate in discussions, provided an option of submitting an essay online, and required the inclusion in a portfolio assessment of evidence of forum participation and web-based research. A fully online assessment approach was evident in the case of another teacher, where all the assessment tasks were developed by all students within the online environment and submitted electronically, and there was no formal examination.
Scaffolding Support for Learners All teachers in the study supported student learning by using the type of scaffolds, or support and assistance, which McLoughlin (2004) had found
247
Case Studies of ICT-Enhanced Blended Learning and Implications for Professional Development
in her research and termed orientation, task support, and procedural scaffolds to support student learning. Coaching support was provided by one teacher (McLoughlin, 2002, 2004). Table 1 shows details of the range of scaffolding support across the cases.
The Nature of the Blend Across the Cases The study also showed evidence of enrichment (Twigg, 2003) and transforming (Graham & Robison, 2007) blends involving changes to what
Collis (1997) called the “pedagogical profile” of the teachers’ courses. Enrichment blends used ICT to enhance student learning, widen access to resources and increase opportunities for communication, but did not involve significant changes to the original course structure. Examples from the cases included providing a single course website for on-and off-campus students studying the same course; teacher-developed websites to provide resources for students; the use of ICT tools to promote interaction between students, explain difficult language within a course, enhance engagement with processes and content,
Table 1. Types and examples of scaffolding support across cases Scaffold types and explanation
Examples
Orientation and communication of expectations—Informing students about the requirements of the course
All teachers provided online course outlines describing learning outcomes, content, assessment tasks.
Coaching—A teacher, peer or learning resource that helps perform a task
Peer coaching provided for mature age students in computer skills.
Task support—Providing a series of questions or headings guiding students in performance of a task
A faculty member is present when students are working in computer labs; structured set of questions provided weekly in online course outlines for (a)learning journal development and (b)tasks to perform to prepare for clinical practice; Key questions in online website to guide students to explore web materials; Weekly topics in online course outlines guided students to move from reading, to exploring web links, to answering questions relevant to assessment tasks; Practical lab handbook questions using websites guided students’ weekly lab preparation; Moving from structured lecture notes on course forums in first year to less structure in second year to promote student note-taking skills.
Procedural scaffolds—(a)Supporting learners in using tools and resources and providing support for learning and resource sharing; and (b)Providing support for learning and resource sharing
Mandatory online library database tutorial; Demonstration of use of course forums, chat, listserv, email and of forums; Computer training for first year students; Assisting students to use digital camera and make digital images. Organising availability of CD-ROMs for after-class access; Organising collaborative learning activities using discussion forum and online chat; Requiring students to post tutorial work on discussion forum; Collaborative group work and assessments provided as examples for future cohorts.
248
Case Studies of ICT-Enhanced Blended Learning and Implications for Professional Development
appeal to different student learning styles, and to facilitate communication between students, and with the teacher. Transforming blends involved changes made to the original course structure, resulting in a reduction of face-to-face time on campus and making significant use of the online environment as part of the learning design of the course. In this study, one faculty member made significant structural changes to the course which reduced face-to-face meetings and enhanced interaction between students and between students with the course content. Another case highlighted how one teacher provided a virtual learning environment in addition to the online supported website provided by the university, where most of the learning for on-campus students occurred.
Motivation to Adopt Blended Learning The study revealed that the affordances of ICT as described by Conole & Dyke (2004) were strong motivators for teachers in this study to adopt blended learning across their courses. These staff appreciated the new technologies: •
• •
•
•
For dissemination of information about course aims, outcomes, assessment, and resources for learning; For enhancing understanding of complex concepts associated with their discipline; For bringing authenticity to the learning environment through modelling processes associated with professional practice in the discipline or through using tools commonly in use in the work environment; For extending the classroom beyond the walls of the university or a textbook that would not have been possible earlier; and For communication and collaboration purposes, which involved storing of student work and student discussions as archival material for current and future students, and for research and self-study purposes.
Moving to blended learning had enabled teachers to provide access for students to virtual spaces to acquire information and resources, perform tasks, and collaborate with each other. They created blended learning environments to prepare students for future work roles and to equip them with the technological literacy skills they would need as lifelong learners, promote social interaction among their students, either between on-campus and off-campus students, or to enhance interaction amongst on-campus students as they engaged in learning tasks or were isolated from each other while on work placements. In three instances in this study, there was evidence that ICT use facilitated the convergence, or bringing together of on-campus and off-campus students, supporting an example of another type of blended learning described by Osguthorpe and Graham (2003) when students working in different modes of study come together in the online environment. Faculty members also favoured a move to blended learning because it expanded choice of content for students and facilitated the integration of computer-based activities with traditional classroom tasks. There was also a high degree of motivation amongst the teachers in this study to use technology to enhance learner independence, by promoting student research of particular topics and providing students with different tools to access information for developing their own content as they progressed through the semester. Several teachers modelled their use of ICT in class to show students how to find information for themselves and promote student use of these media in self-study time. These findings are consistent with the individual and institutional studies in the literature focused on reasons for adoption of blended learning (Bates & Poole, 2003; Bunker & Vardi, 2001; Cook, Owston & Garrison, 2004; Elgort, 2005; Hodgson, 2005, Lang, 2000, Roberts, 2004). Only two teachers in the study spoke of any pressure within their school or faculty to embrace
249
Case Studies of ICT-Enhanced Blended Learning and Implications for Professional Development
ICT, an issue on which the literature reviewed for this research is silent. One individual spoke of student pressure to create a single learning environment for his on-campus and off-campus students, an issue mentioned earlier in this chapter. Unlike the US research into blended learning of Osguthorpe and Graham (2003), in this study cost-effectiveness and ease of revision did not feature as motivators for teachers to adopt blended learning.
Teacher Role The study provided insights into how each of the faculty members perceived their role as a teacher. Their perceptions of their roles underlined the importance of their commitment to their learners. Some saw themselves as facilitators or guides of student learning, helping to make students more knowledgeable, more able to find information, and more self sufficient as learners. Others saw themselves in a nurturing role, supporting their students’ journey through a course and supporting the professional socialisation process. Several teachers were moving away from what Oliver and Herrington (2001) called content-based learning to task-based learning, experiencing a shift from their discipline’s traditional approach to teaching which had favoured a transmission style of delivery, to an approach that used ICT to encourage and facilitate understanding. While this study did not try to explain individual attributes that made these teachers early adopters of ICT in their university, it identified in each individual an enthusiasm and a willingness to push the boundaries of their ICT use further. Such attitudes are consistent with Rogers’s (2003) descriptions of early adopters of an innovation. This study showed how teachers actively worked to blend their courses through their overall approaches to course planning, their focus on combining the strengths of both the face-to-face and the online learning environments, and their eagerness to shift their pedagogical approaches
250
to accommodate the best features of both environments. The findings of the study showed faculty members adopting both acquisition and contribution approaches to learning (Sfard, 1998). The acquisition metaphor equates learning with individual enrichment through the acquisition of facts, representations and content. The role of the teacher is to deliver, convey, facilitate and mediate. The contribution metaphor is conceived of as the idea of knowing or learning as participation, particularly within a community of learners. The teacher’s dominant role is one of expert participant, facilitator and mentor. Sfard (1998) argued that both acquisition and contribution are necessary for learning to occur – students have to acquire knowledge before they can apply and adapt it (Meredith & Newton, 2004, p. 46).
Resource-Based Learning Resource-based learning (RBL) approaches underpinned the teaching and learning processes in evidence across all the cases in this study. Resources provided opportunities for students to engage in what Laurillard (2002) described as “mediated learning”. Student use of resources was encouraged by faculty members demonstrating their use in class, designing learning activities which focused on their use, and providing supplemental lists of resources in course outlines and study guides. Collis and Strijker’s (2004) analysis of the role played by teachers in adapting resources to a particular learning context was supported by this study’s findings; that most resources used by staff were pure (unchanged), while some were integrated with a learning activity (pure, combined), and some were adapted by individual teachers for use in class and in learning activities. Table 2 shows a list of informational and interactive resources (Oliver, 2002) used across the cases. Informational resources were a mix of pre-digital (print) and digital resources (Hill & Hannafin, 2001), used in class and as self-study
Case Studies of ICT-Enhanced Blended Learning and Implications for Professional Development
Table 2. Resources used across cases Informational resources Online course outlines, textbooks, journals, reading (print and electronic); study guides, teacher developed websites, external websites, students’ assignments and group work; learning journals, handouts, tutorial summaries, student presentation summaries, publishers’ online learning centres, guest lecturers, lecture notes, CD-ROMs for self study. Interactive resources Computerised phonetic transcription programs, websites, electro-palatograph, CD-ROMS (animations, images, games, video clips, quizzes), publishers online learning centres, online quizzes, specimens, LC_MOO, community building software, library databases, coursespecific websites with questions, activities, interactive websites.
Table 3. Use of courseware to support learning stages Learning stage/ Courseware type
Examples
Conceptualisation stage/ Primary courseware
Online outlines (all teachers); Specially designed websites and web-based topic notes; PowerPoint™ summaries of lectures; Summaries of tutorial notes placed on course forums; CD-ROMs
Construction stage/ Secondary courseware
Online tutorial on use of library databases; Research of websites; Links to websites providing instructions on using software for CSCW work; Phonetics transcription CD-ROM; Online quiz to reinforce concepts and prepare for practical classes
Contextualisation stage/ Tertiary courseware
Group work discussions and summaries posted to course forums; Community education websites made by students available to all; Previous student work and student discussion logs archived in virtual learning environment; Course forums discussions and online chat available to on- and off-campus students; Questions from students and teacher responses available to all students on course forums; Online chat facilitates discussion between students
resources by the students. Interactive resources were used primarily in class time, but those available on CD-ROM and through websites could be accessed outside of class by the students. The context of individual’s resource use varied across the cases. Teachers encouraged student use of these resources through their demonstrated use of them in face-to-face classes, in designing learning activities which focused on their use, and in recommended lists of resources they provided in online course outlines and study guides. Resources used by staff in this study were further examined using Mayes’s (2002) conceptualisation framework explained earlier in this chapter. Table 3 illustrates that all teachers in
this study used all three types of courseware to support the three stages of learning as promoted by Mayes. Teachers in this study created resource-based learning environments (RBLEs) to widen information access, enhance student understanding, enrich the mix of resources available to students, enable flexibility in access in terms of location and time, provide opportunities for students for practice and revision, appeal to different learning styles of students, and to promote self-study and independent learning skills. For some faculty members the use of RBLEs offered a way of shifting their teaching approach from a focus on content, to a focus on enrichment of the learning
251
Case Studies of ICT-Enhanced Blended Learning and Implications for Professional Development
processes. For three teachers, RBLEs achieved economies of scale when their students studying in on- and off-campus contexts made use of them.
Institutional Support Challenges The study showed that all participants had experienced challenges as early adopters of ICT-enhanced blended learning. One of these challenges was a lack of consistency in the level of support for teachers for blended learning at the faculty and school levels. Some staff drew attention to the IT and computer infrastructure support at their particular campus. For some individuals in this study workload pressures were recognised as a by-product of their adoption of blended learning. Course websites which were additional to the university’s online facilitated sites were maintained by three teachers and required regular updating. One faculty member spoke of the many hours spent setting up the structures for her courses and organising the resources and library support that framed them both. By building in computer-based learning activities and reducing the face-to-face time spent with her students, she found herself spending a lot of time answering student emails and little time to monitor student work on the course forums. What was clear across all the cases in this study, as teachers faced challenges such as these, they were motivated to seek new ways to adapt to them and to look for solutions as to how they could improve their practice in using ICT.
RECOMMENDTIONSFOR PROFESSIONl DeDEVELOPMENT Institutional responses to the challenges of blended learning are frequently addressed by re-examining the nature and scope of professional development provided for teachers. If this professional development is to be effective, a range of approaches must be canvassed and ad-
252
opted, and the professional development function within institutions must be capable of providing sustainable, ongoing, and targeted support to its staff. In planning professional development for blended learning, there is a need to consider the local context in which faculty members work, their beliefs about teaching and learning, their current teaching approaches, and institutional workload policies and reward systems in place to support them as they engage with blended learning. There is a greater likelihood of successful adoption of blended learning in an institution if an environment is created that supports opportunities for these teachers to trial new teaching and learning methods, and encourages them to support each other and share knowledge and skills. Institutional support for campus-wide and even inter-institutional projects that allow for cross-fertilisation of ideas and for staff to learn from each other in supportive environments is essential. Teachers need opportunities to share ideas, experiences, and reflections with others as they engage with the principles and practices of blended learning. As they practice their newly learned skills, and seek expert or experienced pedagogical advice when they require it, there is a greater likelihood of them successfully adopting blended learning into their everyday teaching and learning practices. A framework for professional development can be devised that emphasises the advantages of blended learning for teachers, students, and the institution. Part of this framework would include a program for faculty members that is structured and developmental and scaffolds a set of skills in a range of ICT plus an understanding of pedagogy in blended learning environments. Included in this program would be a focus on the shift in the role of the individual teacher from a teacher-centred perspective to a more facilitative and collaborative role; skills in working in course teams to design whole programs of study for blended learning environments; working with digital resources and repurposing them for blended environments; and the ability to adapt to changes to work practices
Case Studies of ICT-Enhanced Blended Learning and Implications for Professional Development
associated with the use of ICT-enhanced blended learning. As teachers themselves become more expert in blended learning and the use of ICT as affordances for blended learning, they can provide support and mentoring to others seeking these same skills. The web is a major source of professional development for teachers for blended learning. Institutions use websites in several ways: imparting information and providing resource-based support; providing pre and post activities that wrap around a face-to-face event on campus about blended learning; and providing a space where faculty members’s innovative use of blended learning approaches can be shared with other teachers in the institution and communication between them about these practices is enabled (Kandlebinder, 2001, 2003). A note of caution about providing web-based workshops for academic staff is given in a recent review of research related to professional online development for the professions (Maor & Volet, 2007) which challenged the extent to which online workshops provided interactivity and other forms of social learning that promote sharing of knowledge and creation of learning communities amongst the teachers it was targeting. New Canadian research (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008, p. 52) recommends a blended community of inquiry (CoI) approach to professional development combining face-to-face, web-based, and independent activities, which collectively provide “the necessary flexibility, structure, and organization to support and sustain the [blended learning] course redesign process.” When planning a website to support academics’ adoption of blended learning, these “good practice” approaches (O’Reilly, Ellis & Newton, 2000) can help to enhance faculty use of the site: •
Showcase through the use of exemplars or case studies evidence of effective blended and online teaching and learning from a range of disciplines;
• •
Make information available about ICT and its affordances for blended learning; and publish staff and student evaluations of the effectiveness of blended learning innovations in the institution.
Recent research (Sharpe & Oliver 2007, p. 120) about the relationship of resource-based learning approaches such as the use of exemplars or case studies located on a website to the professional learning experiences of teaching staff stressed the importance of concentrating on the design of resources that can best facilitate the mediating of teachers’ practices, or “moving from representations to interventions.” A small Australian study (Wilson, Thomson & Malfroy, 2006; Thomson & Wilson, 2007) based on the use and evaluation of web-based resources for professional development of teachers in the area of assessment indicated that the biggest challenge was how to integrate and contextualise these digital resources with individual faculty member’s everyday teaching practices.
IMPLICTIONS This chapter has identified seven dimensions of blended learning environments arising from the cases in this study and has focused on several of these in detail. Attention has been placed on the pedagogical approaches of individual faculty members through detailed analyses of the media and activity blends they achieved using ICT tools in use at the time, and the changes to their role that they experienced as a result of their adoption of ICT-enhanced blended learning. The significance of RBL to blended learning approaches has also been shown in this research. The study provided evidence that teachers actively sought to maximise the affordances of ICT to improve the quality of education, widen student access, and enhance interaction between students and staff and students with their peers.
253
Case Studies of ICT-Enhanced Blended Learning and Implications for Professional Development
The research showed how individual faculty members worked to blend their courses through their overall approaches to course planning, their focus on combining the strengths of both the faceto-face and the online learning environments, and their eagerness to shift their pedagogical approaches to accommodate the best features of both the face-to-face and the online environments. While this study was not a focus on an wholeof-institution response to the adoption of blended learning across the university, it did show how some teachers in one institution had responded to the “technological imperative” of the new technologies and were adapting currently available ICT tools to their individual circumstances. Each individual case showed evidence of early use of blended learning practices which was characterised by the use of ICT tools and resources whose affordances enhanced student access to information and broadened their opportunities for learning. Evidence of converged learning environments in this study is an inevitable result of the decline of historical boundaries between on-campus and off-campus students that use of ICT has facilitated in higher education institutions generally. The university in this study was at the stage of what Mitchell, Dipetta and Kerr (2001) labelled the “Wagon Train” when a whole institution begins to move towards the adoption of ICT. The professional development function for teaching and learning at the university, along with IT and the library, supported this move. The university faced a challenge not unfamiliar to any other university that had a centralised structure to support teaching and learning – to provide a consistent level of support for blended learning across all faculties, schools, and in this university’s case, its distributed campuses. Since this study was conducted, the university has developed more sophisticated teaching and learning policies which emphasise continued enhancement of online learning environments. The ICT tools used by teachers in this study have been further enhanced by a suite of
254
communication tools and resources available to students through a new virtual learning environment, more sophisticated than its predecessor, and designed to strengthen learning communities to link on-campus and off-campus students.
CONCLUSION Teachers in this study were introducing blended learning approaches within traditional learning spaces such as lecture theatres, tutorial rooms, and laboratories. Only one of them was working within a more technology-enhanced campus whose design was intended to promote the use of ICT. For several of these teachers these spaces were less than adequate in terms of basic equipment such as data projection and internet access. For blended learning practices to become more mainstreamed within the instutution, strong and robust technological infrastructure is required and learning spaces designed that actively support the use of the new technologies. In this study, there was a clear disciplinary focus to individual faculty member’s explorations of blended learning approaches with their on-campus students, supported by their backgrounds and previous experiences at other universities. Further studies of blended learning could investigate specific changes to course profiles as a result of teachers redesigning their courses for blended learning; advance current understanding of the relationship between learning stages and the uses of different type of courseware in blended learning environments; and focus specifically on teacher planning for blended learning either within a single faculty or across faculties working with single or multiple courses.
REFERENCES Bain, J., McNaught, C., Mills, C., & Lueckenhausen, G. (1998). Understanding CLF prac-
Case Studies of ICT-Enhanced Blended Learning and Implications for Professional Development
tices in higher education in terms of academics’ educational beliefs: Enhancing Reeves’ analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE), December 12-14, Wollongong, Australia. Bates, A. W., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Beetham, H., & Sharpe, E. (2007). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age. Designing and delivering e-learning. London: Routledge. Bell, M., Bush, D., Nicholson, P., O’Brien, D., & Tran, T. (2002). Universities online. A survey of online education and services in Australia. Canberra, ACT: Department of Education, Science and Training. Retrieved February 7, 2008, from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/publications_resources/summaries_brochures/universities_online.htm Boyer, E. (1999). Scholarship reconsidered. Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bunker, A., & Vardi, I. (2001). Why use the online environment with face to face students? Insights from early adopters. Short Paper Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE) (pp. 111-116). Melbourne: Biomedical Multimedia Unit, University of Melbourne. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne01/pdf/papers/bunkera.pdf Christensen, T. (2003). Finding the balance: Constructivist pedagogy in a blended course. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(4), 235-243. Collis, B. (1997). Pedagogical reengineering: A pedagogical approach to course enrichment and redesign with the WWW. Educational Technology Review (Autumn/Winter 1997), 11-15.
Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world. London: Kogan Page. Collis, B. & Strijker, A. (2004). Technology and human issues in reusing learning objects. Journal of Interactive Media in Education(4), Special Issue on the Educational Semantic Web. Retrieved February 27, 2008, from http://www-jime.open. ac.uk/2004.4 Conole, G., & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the affordances of information and communication technologies? ALT-J, 12(2), 113-124. Cook, K., Owston, R., & Garrison, R. (2004). Blended learning practices at COHERE universities. Technical report 2004-5. Toronto: York University Institute for Research on Learning Technologies. Retrieved February 17, 2008, from http://www.yorku.ca/irlt/reports/BLtechnicalreportfinal.pdf Cottrell, D., & Robison, R. (2006). Blended learning in an accounting course. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 261-269. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing among five traditions. London: Sage Publications. Daugherty, M., Grubb, A., Hirsch, J., & Gillis, H. (2000). The scholarship of Web-based teaching. In R. Cole (Ed.), Issues in Web-Based Pedagogy (pp. 183-210). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (1998). The landscape of qualitative research. Theories and issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1-29). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., & Moskai, P. (2004). Blended learning. Boulder, CO: Educause Centre for Applied Research.
255
Case Studies of ICT-Enhanced Blended Learning and Implications for Professional Development
Elgort, I. (2005). E-learning adoption: Bridging the chasm. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE) December 4-7, Brisbane, Australia. Retrieved February 16, 2008, from http://www.ascilite. org.au/conferences/brisbane05/blogs/proceedings/20_Elgort.pdf Fox, R., & Hermann, A. (2000). Changing media, changing times: Coping with adopting new educational technologies. In T. Evans & D. Nation (Eds.), Changing university teaching (pp. 73-84). London: Kogan Page. Garrison, R., & Vaughan, N. (2008). Blended learning in higher education. Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Graham, C., Allen, S., & Ure, D. (2003). Blended learning environments. A review of the research literature. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. Graham, C. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning. Research perspectives (pp. 3-21). San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Graham, C., & Robison, R. (2007). Realizing the transformation potential of blended learning. In A. Picciano & C. Dziuban (Eds.), Blended learning. Research perspectives (pp. 83-110): The Sloan Consortium. Guba, E. (1990). The paradigm dialog. London: Sage Publications. Haughey, M., & Anderson, T. (1998). Networked learning. The pedagogy of the Internet. Toronto: Cheneliere/McGraw-Hill. Hill, J., & Hannafin, M. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. ETR& D, 49(3), 37-52. Retrieved January 29. 2008, from http://sage.sdsu.
256
edu/compswiki/uploads/CompsWiki/Teaching_ and_Learning_in_Digital_Environments.pdf Hodgson, P. (2005). Early adopters’ journey into new learning technologies. In A. Brew & C. Asmar (Eds.). Higher education in a changing world. Proceedings of the 2005 Annual International Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA) (pp.183-192), 3-6 July 2005, University of Sydney, Australia. Retrieved February 5, 2008, from http://conference.herdsa.org.au/2005/pdf/refereed/paper_159.pdf Holt, D., & Thompson, D. (1995). Responding to the technological imperative: the experience of an open and distance education institution. Distance Education, 16(1), 43-64. Housego, S., & Freeman, M. (2000). Case studies: Integrating the use of web based learning systems into student learning. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 15(3), 258-282. Kandlbinder, P. (2001). Peeking under the covers: Understanding the foundations of online academic staff development. Paper presented at the ASET/HERDSA 2000 Flexible Learning for a Flexible Society, 2-5 July 2000, University of Southern Queensland, Australia. Kandlbinder, P. (2003). Peeking under the covers: On-line academic staff development in Australia and the United Kingdom. International Journal for Academic Development, 8(1/2), 135-143. Kayrooz, C., & Trevitt, C. (2005). Research in organisations and communities. Tales from the real world. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Lang, G. (2000). Using the Web in live lectures: Examples and issues. In R. Cole (Ed.), Issues in Web-based pedagogy (pp. 261-272). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishers. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching. A conversational framework for effective
Case Studies of ICT-Enhanced Blended Learning and Implications for Professional Development
use of learning technologies. (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Littlejohn, A., & McGill, L. (2004). Detailed report for e-learning and pedagogy research study: Effective resources for e-learning. Glasgow, Scotland: University of Strathclyde. Retrieved February 22, 2008, from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/ uploaded_documents/Detailed%20report%20resources-first%20draft_Lou_McGill.doc Littlejohn, A., & Pegler, C. (2007). Preparing for blended e-learning. London: Routledge. Maor, D., & Volet, S. (2007). Interactivity in professional online learning: A review of research based studies. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2), 269-290. Mason, R., & Rennie, F. (2006). Elearning. The key concepts. London: Routledge. Mayes, T. (2002). Learning technology and learning relationships. In J. Stephenson (Ed.), Teaching and learning online. Pedagogies for new technologies. (pp. 16-26). London: Kogan Page. Mayes, J., & Fowler, C. (1999). Learning technology and usability: A framework for understanding courseware. Interacting with computers, 11(1999), 485-497. McLoughlin, C. (2002). Learner support in distance and networked learning environments: Ten dimensions for successful design. Distance Education, 23(2), 149-162. McLoughlin, C. (2004). Achieving excellence in teaching through scaffolding learner competence. Proceedings of the 12th Annual Teaching and Learning Forum, 9-10 February, 2004. Perth, WA: Murdoch University. Retrieved February 24, 2008, from http://www.lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/ tlf2002/mcloughlin.html Meredith, S., & Newton, B. (2004). Models of eLearning: Technology promise vs. learner needs literature review. The International Journal of Management Education, 4(1), 43-56.
Mitchell, C., Dipetta, T., & Kerr, J. (2001). The frontier of Web-based instruction. Education and Information Technologies, 6(2), 105-121. Oliver, R. (2002). Learning settings and activities. In H. Adelsberger, B. Collis & J. Pawlowski (Eds.), Handbook on information technologies for education and training. (pp. 119-231). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Oliver, R., & Herrington, J. (2001). Teaching and learning online. A beginner’s guide to e-learning and e-teaching in higher education. Perth, WA: Centre for Research in Information Technology and Communications, Edith Cowan University. O’Reilly, M., Ellis, A., & Newton, D. (2000). The role of university web pages in staff development: Supporting teaching and learning online. Paper presented at AusWeb2K, the Sixth Australian World Wide Web Conference, 12-17 June, Cairns, Australia. Retrieved March 2, 2008, from http:// ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw2k/papers/o_reilly/paper. html Osguthorpe, R., & Graham, C. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and issues. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-233. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications. Quinlan, K. (1997). Case studies of academics’ educational beliefs about their discipline: Towards a discourse on scholarly dimensions of teaching. Paper presented at the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia Annual Conference, 8-11 July, Adelaide, South Australia. Roberts, G. (2004). Teaching using the Web: Conceptions and approaches from a phenomenographic perspective. In P. Goodyear, S. Banks, V. Hodgson & D. McConnell (Eds.), Advances in research on networked learning. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. 257
Case Studies of ICT-Enhanced Blended Learning and Implications for Professional Development
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13. Sharpe, R., & Oliver, M. (2007). Supporting practitioners’ design for learning: Principles of effective resources and interventions. In Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (Eds), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age. Designing and delivering e-learning. (pp. 117-128). London: Routledge. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage Publications. Stenhouse, L. (1978). Case study and case records: Towards a contemporary history of education. British Educational Research Journal, 4(2), 21-39. Tearle, P., Davis, N., & Birbeck, N. (1998). Six case studies of information technology-assisted teaching and learning in higher education in England. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 7(1), 51-70. Thomson, R. & Wilson, G. (2008). Promoting staff learning about assessment through digital representations of practice. Evaluating a pilot
258
project. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2), 143-149. Retrieved March 11, 2008, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/ thomson.html Thompson, D., & Holt, D. (1996). Tertiary pedagogy encounters the technological imperative. Distance Education, 17(2), 335-354. Twigg, C. (2003). Improving learning and reducing costs: New models for online learning. Educause Review, September/October 2003, 29-38. Wilson, G. (2007) Using information and communications technology in higher education. Unpublished doctoral folio, Deakin University, Australia. Wilson, G., Thomson, R., & Malfroy, J. (2006). Gathering online representations of practice about assessment for use as a professional development tool: A case in progress. In L. Markauskaite, P. Goodyear, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Whose learning? Whose technology? Proceedings of 23rd Annual ASCILITE Conference (Vol 2, pp. 893-897). Sydney: Sydney University Press. Retrieved August 24, 2008 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney06/proceeding/pdf_papers/p47.pdf Yin, R. (2003). Case study research design and methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
259
Chapter XIV
Blending Technology into an Academic Practice Qualification for University Teachers Cathy Gunn University of Auckland, New Zealand Adam Blake University of Auckland, New Zealand
ABSTRACT An accredited course in Academic Practice aligns with university and national strategic goals related to teaching and learning enhancement within a research-intensive institution. The course was originally designed to be taught in face to face mode with an elearning dimension to provide the flexibility required by students in full time employment. Participation in a national implementation initiative for E-Learning Guidelines created an opportunity to reconceptualize the course for blended learning. A range of contextual factors influenced both the pace and the scale of technology enhancement. The design-based research process adopted for review and redevelopment of one of the core subjects for a Post Graduate Certificate course is described in this chapter.
INTRODUCTION The Post-Graduate Certificate in Academic Practice is a relatively new qualification designed to promote an institutional strategic objective to enhance the quality of teaching within a researchintensive university. Academic staff at the university are typically appointed for discipline-based
research experience rather than for their credentials as teachers. Development of an accredited tertiary qualification reflects an international trend towards professionalization of teaching across the university sector. In a context where demand for accreditation of tertiary teachers is increasing, the University aims to maintain its position amongst the leaders in the field by offering a qualification
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Blending Technology into an Academic Practice Quali.cation for University T eachers
designed to meet the academic career development needs of its own staff. The course is offered by the University’s Centre for Academic Development, because senior management identified the broadly based experience of the staff in this unit as the appropriate base for the initiative. Staff in this centre come from various disciplinary backgrounds and typically have teaching or educational design qualifications as well as discipline based higher degrees. Senior members of the department have many years of relevant experience, and have contributed to the evolution of theory and practice in the field of academic development. For an initial two-year trial period, the Certificate was offered as an internally approved course prior to application for formal accreditation through the national body. During this time, the overall approach to curriculum design and delivery was reviewed and further developed. The review process included an independent evaluation conducted by a senior member of staff from another university faculty, various forms of feedback solicited by the teaching team and reference to evolving literature in the field. Together, these sources provided the basis for ongoing refinement of course content, activities and assessments. One of two core courses for the accredited version of the Post-Graduate Certificate in Academic Practice (abbreviated to PGCert for the remainder of the chapter) explores a raft of generic learning, teaching and assessment theories and perspectives. It also aims to advance the creative use of technology in teaching and learning to reflect the current institutional environment and international trends in this direction. Prior to accreditation, the course was designed around face-to-face teaching sessions presented as a fortnightly series of community of practice meetings where participants met to discuss readings, engage in reflection on practice and share experience. This structure was revised and supplemented by online activities following accreditation. The
260
online element was added partly to accommodate the schedules of participants, for whom current employment in a teaching position is an enrolment requirement. Another key objective was to model good educational practice through the introduction and integration of elearning tools and strategies into the curriculum. The aim was to equip students with sufficient knowledge and experience of elearning strategies to consider applying these within the context of their own teaching. It was anticipated that this knowledge would be gained through a combination of teacher led activities, shared experience and collaboration with peers. Given the campus-based nature of the majority of courses offered by the institution, there was no intention to replace face-to-face teaching with online learning in any substantial way. However, it is realistic to expect that an appropriate blend of technology-supported teaching and learning strategies will be used in an increasing number of courses to enhance the learning experience of campus-based students. An institutional trend in this direction supports student engagement in increasingly large classes by offering flexible opportunities for communication, interactive learning, formative assessment and feedback through the use of various elearning tools and strategies. Development of the PGCert as a blended learning experience is a move to actively promote the knowledge and skills behind creative elearning solutions rather than leaving their acquisition to chance. In an institution with class sizes varying from ten to over a thousand, applying the principles of good educational practice can present considerable challenges to teachers. In many instances, elearning strategies blended with core classroom-based activities, such as lectures, labs and tutorials play a key role in the development of successful learning designs for the current environment. It is therefore critical for teachers to acquire both the conceptual knowledge and the practical skills involved in design and implementation of blended learning.
Blending Technology into an Academic Practice Qualification for University Teachers
In the current context, this requires a significant conceptual shift as well as the acquisition of an entirely new skill set for many early career and experienced university teachers alike. A transformative and immersive learning experience was considered the most appropriate way to articulate these objectives. With the PGCert, it was planned from the outset to include elearning strategies as an integral part. This acknowledges the value of sustained and situated learning as a professional development strategy for teaching academics. The need for further development of the use of elearning tools and strategies among staff is acknowledged at most levels of the institution. Various objectives can thus be served, i.e. to enhance student learning, streamline administrative processes and facilitate communication. It is also important, at an institutional level, to generate a more experienced user base to support informed decision making around technology investment and implementation. At a course specific level, the aim was to model the degrees of flexibility of access to study materials as well as the range of elearning activity types and communication channels that participants can use, and from which their own students might benefit. Although the PGCert was specifically designed for in-house students, the unique ‘academic citizenship’ focus of one of the courses has already generated interest from beyond the host institution, and the possibility of enrolment for off-campus study might be considered once the qualification is fully established. On reflection, it may be fair to say that in the first iteration of the PGCert, the use of elearning tools and strategies was more of a practically driven addition than a purposeful and fully integrated or blended element. This fairly typical scenario reflected a combination of the experience base of the teaching team and the underlying collaborative approach to the course. An incentive to focus and reflect on instructional design of the elearning dimension came in the form of a call for contributions to a national New Zealand
Tertiary Education Commission funded project: Implementing the eLearning Guidelines. Support for this and a number of other elearning initiatives reflected government commitment to implementation of a national Tertiary eLearning Strategy. The eLearning Guidelines were developed by a project led by another New Zealand university with support from an earlier national funding round and are presented in wiki format at http:// elg.massey.ac.nz. They relate to learning design, teaching relationships and support provision from teacher, learner and institutional perspectives. The project objectives were to produce generic guidelines to assist the design and evaluation of effective elearning strategies, with ongoing collaborative development by the elearning community as a long-term goal. The aim of the subsequent implementation project was to foster the degree of activity and community engagement around the guidelines deemed necessary to achieve these objectives. The case described in this chapter outlines the actions taken to achieve the aim of a more purposeful integration in the blend of face to face and technology supported teaching and learning within a core course for the PGCert. The student focused sections of the national elearning guidelines are used as both the catalyst and the benchmark. The chapter features the first three stages of a design-based research study. In particular, this includes a detailed description of the theoretical grounding, conceptual development and context specific implementation plan for a blended learning course. These critical aspects of the design based research methodology distinguish it from other approaches that do not require inclusion of explicit theoretical elements. The methodology, which is outlined below in the literature review section, adds this critical element to offer an iterative, evidence-based approach to educational development. The chapter does not include data gathered from post-implementation evaluation activity because this stage had not been reached at the time of writing.
261
Blending Technology into an Academic Practice Qualification for University Teachers
Lture Review The basis of redesign for integration of elearning elements into the course draws on three areas of the current literature; (1) design based research, (2) models of effective professional development for tertiary teachers, and (3) blended learning. The study is framed within the design based research methodology with the overall aim of defining the best possible blend of online and classroom-based activities for the target group. Achievement of the optimum blend requires grounding in theory-informed articulation of the course objectives and teaching model, as well as a collaborative basis for an iterative cycle of development, implementation, evaluation and refinement. The aim of this chapter is to describe both the conceptual basis and the process of implementation, review and redesign in sufficient detail for readers to understand the design principles and implementation phases involved. The intention is to encourage informed debate, and application of similar processes of course design and teaching practice should others deem the methodology and method suitable to their own area of professional focus. The theoretical basis for the development is described in detail in the following sections.
A Design-Based Research Methodology Design-based research has evolved in recent years in response to challenges that faced educational research in general, and technology supported learning in particular, during the last decades of the 20th century. A summary review of that period reveals that research methods originally developed for use within scientific disciplines were also applied to educational studies (Reeves, Herrington & Oliver, 2005). While these predominantly quantitative and experimental methods were already well established within the academic community, experience revealed that they did not address the myriad of variable and contextual
262
factors encountered in a way that produced useful data from studies of causal factors associated with educational innovations. The large and/or uniform sample sizes required to make experimental methods meaningful were often not available in educational settings, and the data produced by quantitative studies was not fine-grained enough to identify significant contextual factors or cause and effect relationships. Furthermore, a prevailing tendency to separate theory from practice resulted in poor guidance for those engaged in practical tasks such as educational resource design or activity planning. While there will always be a place within the discipline for the kind of basic research which “seeks to widen the understanding of the phenomena of a scientific field” (Stokes, 1997, p. 7), the greater need in the field of elearning and blended learning is for applied research which is “directed towards some individual or group or societal need or use” (Stokes, 1997, p. 8). A general shift towards qualitative and case based research methods occurred towards the end of the 20th century, as researchers continued to analyze the methodological problem in the quest for workable solutions. While the shift provoked questions about validity, reliability and potential to generalize, many educational researchers found the wider range of methods more suited to their purpose. The critics’ point about limited ability to generalize findings was acknowledged, as a large number of context specific variables and study designs are characteristic of case based research. Current consensus seems to have settled on a range of qualitative research methods as suitable for different purposes with acknowledgement of the scope and limitations associated with each. The general approach is to present rich and detailed descriptions of each case to allow readers to consider the range of case specific factors, and to draw their own conclusions about the possibility of similar outcomes resulting from application of principles or methods to a different set of circumstances.
Blending Technology into an Academic Practice Qualification for University Teachers
One systematic approach that has evolved to address concerns raised by the qualitative versus quantitative debate is design-based research. According to the Design-Based Research Collective (2003), this method “blends empirical educational research with the theory-driven design of learning environments.” (p. 5) The authors go on to note that the methodology is important “for understanding how, when and why educational innovations work in practice.” (p. 5) Five main characteristics of good design-based research are identified as follows: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The two central goals of designing [effective] learning environments and developing theories of learning are intertwined. Research and development activities are conducted in continuous cycles of design, implementation, analysis and refinement. One output from design focused research is shareable theory that communicates relevant factors and implications to other practitioners. Research focuses on how designs function and interact with other factors that are present in authentic contexts. Appropriate methods are available to document and connect processes of enactment to outcomes of interest (Design-Based Research Collective, 2003).
The method adopts a holistic approach to educational innovations that is similar in important respects to the “framework for effective use of educational technology” described in the seminal work “Rethinking University Teaching” by Diana Laurillard (1993). In this framework, learning is defined as the outcome of meaningful interaction between learner, teacher and medium or artefacts. While the design-based research approach has many characteristics in common with other qualitative research approaches, there are three major points of difference: a) acknowledgement of explicit educational theory as the basis for
learning design; b) focus on context as an integral part of any learning activity; and c) the objective of generating models of successful innovation rather than testing particular learning designs or programs. Thus the process moves from specific and detailed description of cases towards an evidence-based iterative design, implementation and evaluation model. The process of linking the specific case to the general model in a meaningful way is complex. Some key challenges faced by design-based researchers include: •
•
•
The ability to capture the complexity of learning environments where a large number of both tacit and overt decisions and actions are involved, even with relatively well-defined innovations; Ensuring, through collaborative endeavour, that interpretations of data are in fact valid; Meeting demand for the time and resources needed to refine locally valuable innovations without compromising the objective of generating and communicating shareable knowledge to a wider academic community.
Simply stated, design-based research aims to provide “a coherent methodology that bridges theoretical research and educational practice” (Design-Based Research Collective, 2003, p. 8). This is achieved through research activity that allows the process of innovation to be examined in detail, and the underlying principles to be defined and transferred for successful application in other contexts. The design-based research study described in this chapter is grounded in the theoretical principles of academic development and situated learning in a community of practice as key elements of a course enhancement initiative. The chapter follows the study through conceptualization, pilot testing, and the initial stage of implementation of a blended learning design produced for a specific
263
Blending Technology into an Academic Practice Qualification for University Teachers
target group and institutional context. In the style of design-based research studies, the intention is to continue a longitudinal study to test the application of these principles to practice through continuous review and refinement of the course of study. The principles derived from this phase of the study may be applied to the design and presentation of other courses and professional development activities. With local constraints accepted, it is assumed that similar principles and process could equally well be applied to other contexts and that similar outcomes would be achieved.
Situated Learning, Professional Development and E The concept of situated learning has been accepted as having broad significance to all aspects of education for some time now. In relation to knowledge and learning, Brown, Collins & Duguid (1989) noted that: “Knowledge is situated being in part a product of the activity, context and culture in which it is developed and used.” (p. 32) Situated learning is acknowledged as a cornerstone to professional development of teachers because of the complex and multi-layered nature of professional knowledge in this field. At a general level tertiary teachers’ knowledge is expected to include models of student learning and motivation and curriculum development as well as discipline relevant content. Sharpe (2004) proposes that professional knowledge cannot be characterized in a manner that is independent of how it is learned and used. Experienced practitioners have complex and highly personal knowledge bases that are constructed from experience and used in a fairly intuitive way. Much of this complex knowledge base is tacit rather than explicit, and so practitioners cannot always articulate what they do or how they do it. One aim of professional development is therefore to make the expert’s tacit knowledge explicit, i.e. to interrogate tacit knowledge in order for it to be used as the basis to construct explicit knowledge. One effective
264
way to do this is to provide opportunities for teachers to share knowledge about teaching; to make it explicit, reflect on it, interpret it and use it as a step towards further learning. There is an underlying assumption in this process that knowledge is constructed within a social context, and so externalizing knowledge in professional development contexts benefits the entire community, not just individual teachers. Lave and Wenger (1991) analyze the social aspects of professional learning in their highly acclaimed work on communities of practice. The concept of situated learning that they describe is embedded within a context that includes elements of socialization within a professional community. Kolb’s cycle of experience, reflection, abstraction and experimentation also has implications for design of professional development activities (Kolb, 1984). A choice for situation of a professional development program can be either within disciplines – where academics tend to have their strongest allegiances and identification – or on neutral ground beyond the reach of power relationships and other tensions that exist within the culture of established academic tribes and territories (Becher & Trowler, 2001). Finally, Sharpe (2004) identifies the need to design professional development activities appropriate to the stage of career development of the participants. Research shows a shift from a teacher-focused perspective in early career to student-focus as an academic teacher’s experience in the profession grows. These concepts all align with the centrality of context, shareable theory, and progressive refinement of research questions and solutions in the design-based research methodology. The UK Staff and Educational Development Association (SEDA) professional development framework reflects theoretical concepts and a summary of the findings from various research studies such as those that underpin the work outlined above. The framework recommends teacher professional development curriculum design aligned with the following aims:
Blending Technology into an Academic Practice Qualification for University Teachers
• • • • • •
Understanding of how people learn; Promotion of scholarship, professionalism and ethical practice; Working in, and developing learning communities; Working effectively with diversity and promoting inclusivity; Continued reflection on professional practice and Development of people and of educational processes and systems (SEDA, 2005).
Research on professional development acknowledges that teachers construct knowledge in the same way that all learners do. Sharpe (2004) suggests that the interplay between its construction and use represents a unique characteristic of the professional knowledge of educators. Whether or not this is accepted as a point of difference from the knowledge of other professions, the implications for design of professional development activities are that they should: • • •
•
Allow for knowledge construction; Encourage application of knowledge in practice contexts; Encourage reflection and interrogation of knowledge so it can be externalized and shared, and Incorporate values of ethical practice to reaffirm how knowledge is applied to practice.
These overarching principles apply to professional development design regardless of whether elearning or some other aspect is the focus. Specific to elearning are additional requirements for skills development in technology use and innovative pedagogy encouraged by the emergence of socially constructed communities and supported by the increased range of options presented by elearning environments. At the time of writing, elearning is further promoted by recognition from governments and
tertiary institutions of the need for increased use of technologies to support student learning, and the related need for dedicated professional development programs (Shephard, 2004; Goolnik, 2006). The challenge of effective design for programs aiming to achieve this outcome is noted in more than a decade of publications analysing the reasons for lower than anticipated levels of engagement with technology in teaching and learning (e.g. Hammond, Gardner et al, 1992; Conole, 2003; Dempster & Deepwell 2003; Littlejohn, 2003). The search for models of effective professional development is one key aspect of that challenge. Although there is literature describing successful initiatives, many of these have been the product of externally funded programs that offer more than core business provision can support in most institutions. Initiatives such as the eScholars Program described by Salter (2006) have all the hallmarks of successful design, though no long-term impact evaluation has so far been published.
Forms of Eofessional Dvelopment One implication of the various principles outlined above is that professional development to support faculty in their use of elearning requires more than just learning how to use technology (Bates, 1997; Ellis & Phelps, 2000; Alexander, Wilson, & Hovell, 2001). In the current context, it is relatively rare for teachers to master elearning technology tools to the extent that complex development work can be undertaken without assistance. However, there is an expectation that the basic tools for online communication and collaboration that feature in online learning management systems will be mastered by all. The common mode of a multidisciplinary team approach to elearning resource and materials development demands yet another new skill set (Gunn & Cavallari, 2006), including flexible, cross-disciplinary collaboration on elearning design and development initiatives.
265
Blending Technology into an Academic Practice Qualification for University Teachers
Within the current trend towards provision of accredited professional development programmes (Blackmore & Blackwell, 2006), some institutions locate elearning development within specialist units, while others opt to combine this with generic educational development (Shephard, 2004). These approaches can be sited on a continuum (Shephard, 2004). At one extreme, faculty are provided with direct support that moves responsibility for creating educational resources to dedicated support units, while at the other end of the spectrum, professional development support helps staff to help themselves in creating and using technologies for teaching and learning. These two extremes would translate into philosophically different support strategies. Rather than being considered mutually exclusive, they may usefully be seen to represent a range of choices. Within this range, individually relevant professional development activity can integrate sound pedagogical theory with practical aspects of teaching with technology (Goolnik, 2006). An “enabling” strategy (Hannon, 2008) suggests that staff professional development is most effective within local settings and with a focus on empowering staff to adapt learning technologies for their own particular needs. In keeping with the principles of situated learning outlined above, the informed choice of approach will be that designed to meet the needs of a particular situation, target group or individual. For a research-led university offering a predominance of campus-based courses, yet with the need to provide its staff with the confidence to employ elearning effectively, a blended learning approach to professional development appears to offer a sound solution.
Blended Learning
about the underlying concepts and assumptions of proffered definitions as well as the educational impact of the overall approach (see e.g. Singh, 2003; Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003; Bersin, 2004; Khan, 2005; Oliver & Trigwell, 2005; Gray, 2006; Allan, 2007). This type of debate is productive, as it encourages practitioners and researchers to engage with the different perspectives that exist within their professional community, and to negotiate common understanding of emergent concepts and terminology. While debate on complex aspects of blended learning is valuable, a simple definition is useful as it offers flexibility for meaningful interpretation within a particular context. For the purposes of this chapter, the definition offered by Garrison & Kanuka (2004) is adopted: “At its simplest, blended learning is the thoughtful integration of classroom face-toface learning experiences with online learning experiences.” (p. 96) These authors acknowledge that blended learning as a concept is both simple and complex, and note the distinction between classroom based courses that are enhanced by online activities and those that are purposefully blended to exploit the benefits of face to face contact as well as those of technology supported activities and interactions. The paper further notes that: The real test of blended learning is the effective integration of the two main components (face-toface and Internet technology) such that we are not just adding on to the existing dominant approach or method. This holds true whether it be a face-toface or a fully Internet-based learning experience. A blended learning design represents a significant departure from either of these approaches. (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004, p. 97)
The term ‘blended learning’ has become a prominent feature of the higher education literature in recent years. Many attempts have been made to define it, with the predictable result of debate
There is a need then, to move beyond an approach in which face-to-face components and online components are simply combined and the result called “blended learning”. The outcome for
266
Blending Technology into an Academic Practice Qualification for University Teachers
the learner should be greater than the sum of the parts. Oliver & Trigwell (2005) propose variation theory as a means of better relating blended learning to learner needs: The variation theory of learning is based on the idea that for learning to occur, variation must be experienced by the learner. Without variation there is no discernment, and without discernment there is no learning. … Discerning means that a feature of the world appears to the subject, and is seen or sensed by him or her against the background of his or her previous experiences of something more or less different. (p. 22). This approach seeks to re-conceive blended learning, with the aim that instructional designs will take advantage of the varied experiences that the face-to-face and technology-supported environments can provide for learners. In terms of design for blended learning in a particular context, key decisions depend on the instructional design approach and objectives. Bersin (2004) offers a functional description of these decision points by first defining two overarching design approaches: a paced program flow approach, and a core and spoke approach which is focused around a central activity or activities and usually more flexible in terms of timing and sequence. He further proposes five blended course models including an instructor led one that is suitable for most conventionally taught tertiary courses. The decision points identified by this author include: • • • • • • • •
program type; cultural goals; audience; budget; resources; time; learning content and technology.
This summary is drawn from one of many books written on the subject, and was selected as a representative example of simple, accessible and relevant guidelines for blended learning design. It also points to the value of drawing on current literature and educational design approaches for design-based research development initiatives.
Blended Leaaor the PGCrt The importance of context specific factors in blended learning design is noted in all the literature cited, and aligns with the principles of design-based research and situated learning. In the case of the PGCert, key contextual factors for consideration during design included: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The existence of a wide range of learning design and educational technology skills and experience within the student group from novice to highly proficient, and the potential for peer support and learning offered by collaboration within such a group; A practical more than a pedagogically driven rationale for introduction of elearning strategies within the original implementation of the course; The opportunity to apply established learning theories to promote a range of outcomes within the scope of course objectives and the remit of the host department, i.e. theories and outcomes related to learning in higher education, to academic staff development and to learning design incorporating authentic contexts; The opportunity for research collaboration beyond the institution provided by the externally sponsored eLearning Guidelines Project; An enquiry, discussion and exploration based philosophy underlying the course and activity design;
267
Blending Technology into an Academic Practice Qualification for University Teachers
6.
Commonly perceived limitations of the institutionally-supported elearning technology environment and the reduced range of activities and tools that might reasonably be introduced as a result.
It is important to design blended learning solutions to fit prevailing circumstances, and to accept that strategies that may be considered ideal in educational design terms may not be feasible for other reasons. Striking what was considered to be the right balance between pragmatically motivated prudence on the one hand, and risk and innovation on the other, was the result of discussion and consideration of options by the teaching team.
Curse Review A course review and enhancement plan was initially developed in the form of a proposal for participation in the eLearning Guidelines Implementation Project (see next section). This proposal provided the basis for discussion with the PGCert teaching team and involved an audit of the course, followed by a collaborative review of proposed revisions to achieve a fully blended learning model. An element of professional development for the teaching team was envisaged, as well as new ways of learning for the students. Some of both groups typically have considerable experience in technology-supported learning while others have little or none. The predominantly literature, discussion and enquiry-based approach to the course topics was considered to lend itself well to collaboration and sharing of learning design experience with more and less experienced technology users across the staff and student group and within the teaching team. Variable levels of motivation to engage, and experience with elearning amongst staff and students were anticipated as likely to present some challenges. This is common to most academic development contexts whether or not accredited
268
qualifications are an ultimate goal. Conceptions of, and constraints posed by the institutional technology environment were also identified as potential challenges. These variable factors are not unique to the situation, but are conditions currently encountered in most tertiary teaching environments. They did however, point to a staged approach to the introduction of elearning strategies being best suited to the circumstances. One reason for this is because improvements to the technology environment during staged implementation and evaluation phases are always a realistic expectation in the current environment. The risk of introducing immature technology was judged as one to be avoided, as previous experience had identified the negative impact and longevity of poor initial impressions. Some otherwise favoured elearning tools and strategies were shelved for later implementation as a result. Consideration of contextual factors and articulation of the theoretical underpinnings were consistently-used reference points throughout the phases of the study.
The National eLearning Guidelines Implementation Project The concept of design for blended learning rather than a face-to-face model enhanced by elearning activities entered the frame when the call for submissions to the national eLearning Guidelines Implementation Project came under consideration. These guidelines are the product of a nationally funded initiative designed to promote the New Zealand Tertiary Education Commission’s eLearning Strategy across the sector by helping institutions to improve their elearning practice (Suddaby & Milne, 2008). The guidelines are comprehensive and include sections focused on learning design, teaching relationships and other support from teacher, learner and institutional perspectives. Sections 3.1, “Students and Learning Design”, 3.2 “Students and Teaching Relationships” and 3.3 “Students and Other Support” were selected as the focus for review of the PGCert.
Blending Technology into an Academic Practice Qualification for University Teachers
This approach addressed a number of objectives simultaneously: •
•
•
to apply a set of benchmarks to focus on the effectiveness of the course design with particular focus on elearning aspects of a blended learning course; to create opportunities to extend the use of the guidelines to the professional practice of the participants; to invite feedback on the guidelines from a group of experienced academics.
Participation in a national project offered an opportunity to contribute local experience to two international trends: technology-supported, flexible access to education, and accredited professional development for university teachers. The opportunity to engage with colleagues with similar aims across a range of tertiary institutions was also viewed positively.
The Review and Redesign Process One of the authors conducted a partial audit of the course, including participation in a number of the face-to-face seminars. The authors then drafted a specification for enhancing the blend of elearning elements of the Learning, Teaching & Assessment course, based on the student-centred guidelines listed at the eLearning Guidelines website (http://elg.massey.ac.nz) and described above. They circulated this to the course co-ordinators. In order to model what was proposed, a demonstration course was set up in the University’s learning management system (LMS), along with a prototype installation of an academic social networking environment based on the Elgg software application (http://elgg.org/). It was noted during the initial review that many of the student-centred guidelines were already fulfilled within the course. This observation served two useful purposes: it acknowledged the quality of the original course design, as well
as the relevance of the elearning guidelines for application to educational practice. The proposals put forward in the draft specification were prefaced by the following broad strategies for enhancing the course and participants’ learning with the help of technology: 1. 2.
3.
4.
5.
Provide experience of a greater range of technology-facilitated teaching approaches. Increase use of technology to support participants as they explore theory and reflect on its application to their teaching (by using technology to facilitate access to and organisation of information and research, contribution and exchange of ideas and resources, collaboration and debate). Promote the eLearning Guidelines and technology-supported teaching as potentially beneficial frameworks for exploration/presentation of participants’ work during the course. Supplement existing readings with readings/case studies (e.g. those on the eLearning Guidelines website) that explore academic practice in the context of elearning. Use a design-based research approach for development and evaluation of this greater elearning dimension as illustrated in Figure 1.
Design-Based Research Principles Applied The following sections describe application of the principles of the design-based research process in practice in the context of the PGCert and the elearning guidelines project.
Practical Problem Determined by Researchers and Practitioners in Collaboration Researchers working within a design-based research framework should “focus on broad-based,
269
Blending Technology into an Academic Practice Qualification for University Teachers
Figure 1. Application of the design-based research approach (Reeves, 2006) to the project, “Promoting quality elearning practice in tertiary teaching”
270
Blending Technology into an Academic Practice Qualification for University Teachers
complex problems critical to higher education” (Reeves, Herrington & Oliver, 2005, p. 103). Further, such research should involve close collaboration between researchers and practitioners in determining problems and solutions, combined with “a commitment to theory construction and explanation while solving real-world problems” (Reeves et al, 2005, p. 103). Early discussions between the primary author and the co-ordinators of the PGCert indicated a need to solve two key problems: •
•
How to provide flexibility to accommodate the schedules of participants, for whom current employment in a teaching position is an enrolment requirement; How to model good educational practice through the introduction and integration of elearning tools and strategies into the curriculum, so that participants would consider applying these within the context of their own teaching.
The nature of these problems was considered to be of sufficient local importance to justify close attention. At the same time, these were issues commonly faced by others in higher education seeking to provide a flexible approach to developing staff elearning capability. Theory construction around sound learning design to meet these challenges should therefore also be of wider interest to other learning designers and academic developers.
Solutions Informed by Design Principles and Technological Innovations Design-based research promotes “integration of design principles with technological affordances” (Reeves et al, 2005, p. 105) to provide sound solutions to educational problems. Rather than taking a “green fields” approach to each elearning design
project, the aim is to build on a sound foundation of existing design principles. The National eLearning Guidelines, developed by experienced elearning practitioners from a range of tertiary education institutions around New Zealand, were considered suitable design principles for our project. Using the studentfocused eLearning Guidelines as a catalyst, the authors drew on experience with a range of elearning technologies to develop the specification for enhancing the blend of elearning elements in the Learning, Teaching & Assessment course.
Iterative Cycles of Testing and Refinement of Solutions in Practice Design-based research requires long-term commitment and engagement from stakeholders: Design research is not something that is normally undertaken in one month, one semester, or even one year. Two to five years are a more normal cycle, and in some cases, design research will be an ongoing enterprise for even longer periods. (Reeves et al., 2005, p. 106) We are in the early stages of our research. Discussions between the course teaching team and those involved in the initial application and the elearning guidelines project resulted in the proposals and activities outlined in Figure 2 being considered for full or pilot implementation during semesters 1 and 2, 2008. As is apparent from Figure 2, in many cases a single elearning guideline gave rise to multiple proposals for course enhancement. Equally, one proposal for course enhancement frequently satisfied multiple elearning guidelines. Data will be gathered at the end of this first iteration of the course to determine whether implementation of the proposals is helping us to solve the key problems noted above.
271
Blending Technology into an Academic Practice Qualification for University Teachers
Figure 2. Proposals for enhanced elearning for the PGCert course, mapped to relevant NZ eLearning Guidelines (SD = Students/Learning Design; ST = Students/Teaching Relationships. Note that guidelines relating to Students/Other Support have been omitted owing to space constraints)
272
Blending Technology into an Academic Practice Qualification for University Teachers
Reflection to Produce Design Principles and Enhance Solutions Implementation of the first set of proposals accepted for implementation is underway at the time of writing. Although we do not yet have any concrete data on the outcomes, we are able to offer reflections on the benefits and challenges of the process to date.
•
•
Benefits •
•
•
Measuring the PGCert course against the student-focused elearning Guidelines enabled us to both benchmark the pedagogical and organisational quality of the existing course, and to generate ideas for enhancing quality. The guidelines appeared to be very well suited to a blended learning context. As Dr Helen Sword, Co-ordinator for the PGCert said, “the elearning guidelines are not just a useful tool for elearning innovations - they are very helpful in affirming good pedagogical practice generally and as a framework for developing innovative, student-centred teaching and learning” (CAD contributes to National e-Learning Guidelines Project, 2008, p. 10). As well as gaining greater direct experience of use of technology for teaching and learning, it appears that staff and students are making use of threaded discussion to increase communication and collaboration between students and staff during the fortnight in between face-to-face seminars. Use of the guidelines has fostered collaboration between Academic Practice Group and eLearning Design & Development Group staff. Further, participation in presentations and events associated with the other National eLearning Guidelines projects has resulted in increased practice and research links with staff from other institutions.
Using the guidelines as the basis for student discussions and work in relation to elearning appears to provide a useful starting framework for staff new to elearning. A PGCert student noted, “it's helpful that the guidelines are expressed as questions, not directives”. The guidelines were found to provide a very good “framework for conversation” for enhancing the elearning dimension of the course, even though the staff members involved were fairly experienced in elearning. Although some of the guidelines appeared self-evident, or appropriate to teaching and learning generally, their broad coverage helped ensure creation and consideration of a wide range of elearning ideas.
Challenges •
•
•
There are a large number of guidelines and a degree of overlap between them. The authors found that the genesis of one course enhancement proposal might be traced to five or more separate guidelines. Nevertheless, in some cases the wording of a particular guideline was that which sparked a new idea for how things should or could be done. Time and a degree of experience with elearning are needed to get the most from the guidelines. The course co-ordinator considered that having the authors as project leaders and intermediaries who were able to take time to “interpret” the guidelines in benchmarking the course and generating new ideas was important in their success for the project. As anticipated, staff and student attitudes and experience, and features of the available technology, influenced decisions on which course redesign measures to proceed with. Some proposals were considered too ambitious, at least for implementation in the first iteration
273
Blending Technology into an Academic Practice Qualification for University Teachers
•
As fore-grounded earlier, gathering data to produce a set of blended learning design principles that might be applied in courses similar to the PGCert is a significant challenge. Sandoval (2004) notes that what he terms “design principles” (akin to the eLearning Guidelines) are too general to serve this purpose: “due to their generality… design principles are unassailable and empirically untestable” (Sandoval, 2004, p. 215). In order to develop sound learning theory, Sandoval proposes that design principles need to be reified in the form of “embodied conjectures”: theoretical conjectures about how learning takes place in a particular domain with corresponding design conjectures about how to support learning in a specific context. “Embodied conjectures… should be articulated at a level of specificity that allows them to be empirically refined or rejected” (Sandoval, 2004, p. 215). It is this path we have started down by using the eLearning Guidelines as the basis for “embodied conjectures” about how we can best support academic staff in developing deeper insights into learning, teaching and assessment using a blended learning approach.
D The proposals put forward for the PGCert sought to implement key strategies to enhance the course and participants’ learning with the help of technology. Discussions with the course co-ordinators as well as pragmatic considerations relating to the particular teaching and learning context led to implementation of only some of an initially broad range of ideas and strategies to pursue. This is consistent with the centrality of collaboration and context in the situated learning, professional development and design-based research approaches that were used to underpin the initiative.
274
The proposed changes sought to foster collaboration and reflection within a crafted solution to elearning professional development needs (Goldman, 2001). Thus the conception of professional development through something akin to a virtual practicum was considered useful, as it combined the opportunity to learn from expert knowledge and behaviour with individual interpretation and application of newly acquired knowledge to individual work contexts. In terms of Shephard’s (2004) continuum of elearning support, this aspect of the redesigned course sits towards the “professional development” end of the continuum, by exposing staff to a range of elearning tools and approaches within a framework that encourages consideration of appropriate uses and blends of technologies in teaching and learning. The focus on local technologies that most staff taking the PGCert have the opportunity to use in their own teaching is considered to provide the best means of enabling them to adapt these to their own needs (Hannon, 2008). It may also foster mutual learning and support amongst colleagues within the discipline-based community of professional practice. The more purposeful blend of elearning strategies and tools is considered to enact the “variation theory” that Oliver & Trigwell (2005) bring to bear as a means of better relating blended learning to learner needs. Offering the experience of a range of elearning strategies and tools affords the opportunity to compare and contrast these with “traditional” teaching methods, and to reflect on what these might offer for participants’ own teaching and learning contexts. The process of aligning elearning guidelines with course related activities proved useful as a means of grounding the design features in educational theory as well as monitoring where the guidelines had been met. eLearning Guidelines specifically addressed by the design include: •
SD1: Agreeing to learning goals in negotiation with teaching staff;
Blending Technology into an Academic Practice Qualification for University Teachers
• • • • • • • •
SD2: Providing choice of learning resources and activities; SD3: Gaining knowledge relevant to employment and/or current thinking in the field; SD4: Transferable (generic) skills; SD6: Collaborating via online discussions; ST5 Learning through experience and practice; ST6: Developing problem-solving through inquiry-based learning; ST8: Aiding reflection and review of learning rather than just recalling facts; SO14: Involvement in the academic community (collaboration). [SD = Students/Learning Design; ST = Students/Teaching Relationships; SO = Students/Other Support] (eLearning Guidelines for New Zealand, n.d.).
Furthermore, we consider that the initial redesign fulfils the “thoughtful integration” Garrison & Kanuka (2004) proposed in their definition of blended learning. Whether the redesign will also serve as an effective integration remains to be evaluated. In accordance with the design-based research methodology, we will continue to monitor the effectiveness of our blended learning design for this and future iterations of the course, and to communicate our findings to the learning design community through further publications. While the process of reflection on, and refinement of the course is a continuous one, some basic, general principles and recommendations drawn from the experience to date include: 1.
The set of educational guidelines derived from the study address pedagogical practice in the context of elearning and provide a useful support framework for practitioners involved in blended learning design. Such guidelines can serve both as a benchmark for new course developments, and as a prompt for considering a wide range of possibilities for educational innovation.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Situated learning provides a sound theoretical framework for professional development of academic staff in elearning capability. An effective approach appears to combine face-to-face and online discussion and collaboration, consideration of pedagogical theory together with practical aspects of teaching with technologies, and a focus on empowering staff to use and adapt learning technologies for their own particular needs within local contexts. Trying to go too far too fast with new technology-supported teaching and learning tools and strategies is not recommended. Incremental changes are more likely to succeed. Engaging in a collaborative process of idea generation, discussion and reflection allows creative ideas to develop and consideration of their feasibility in context to be undertaken. The result is a sense of ownership that helps to shape ideas and carry them through to implementation. Acknowledging the limitations of current technology tools and environments is important as poor initial conceptions can be lasting and hard to overcome. Considering the concept of the contributing student (Collis & Moonen, 2007) is a useful in the context of this course and in the initiative to create an effective face-toface/technology blend. Adopting a process of continuous monitoring and feedback to assess learner (and teacher) response to design decisions is a useful way to conduct the collection of fine-grained evaluation data, through which causal relationships as well as influential contextual factors can be identified.
Itions for Practice The common aims of encouraging and increasing the use of technology-supported teaching and 275
Blending Technology into an Academic Practice Qualification for University Teachers
learning strategies across the higher education sector has many associated challenges as lower than forecast levels of faculty engagement in recent years demonstrate. Whether the cause of this shortfall lies in technology that is (or was) not so easy to use, limited knowledge of appropriate learning design approaches, limited professional development provision or unrealistic expectations is a subject for ongoing debate. An unreasonable level of speculation around the turn of the new millennium about the potential of technology to ‘reform’ education and its institutions did nothing to further the cause. Now the speculation has died down, a considered analysis of the potential and the means to exploit opportunities come into focus. While some institutions have moved successfully down the online distance education path, more traditional universities maintain campus-based teaching as a core activity. It is within this context that blended learning comes to the fore. The pressures of managing larger and more diverse classes along with competing demands for limited resources mean that long established teaching methods no longer address the needs of all teachers and learners. The potential for increased levels of learner engagement together with the nature of contemporary educational theory demands the design of more active, engaged and flexible learning opportunities. Within this context, the concept of blended learning has evolved and continues to move in a useful direction. The challenge to educational researchers of deriving principles of good blended learning practice from many context-specific case studies is a common feature of the current literature. Design-based research is a methodology that has evolved to support both longitudinal studies of initiatives designed for single contexts and concurrent development of generally applicable principles. Focus on context-specific factors as key informants features in both objectives. Many blended learning designs have developed as a result of practical as much as educational considerations. This reflects a further dimen-
276
sion of the importance of context, and supports the case for situated learning in authentic course and professional practice environments. This is increasingly common as a means of providing sustained professional development for transformative learning by tertiary teachers. Such is the case with the Post-Graduate Certificate in Academic Practice. Initially involving technology for mainly practical reasons, the course has evolved to include the aims of long term and ‘in context’ exposure to a blend of technology-based learning and classroom-based strategies to serve the varying needs of both students and teachers. The trend towards accredited professional development for tertiary teachers provides an incentive for academic staff to engage in a blended learning environment. In the case described in this chapter, it also provides opportunities for them to experiment with new tools and teaching strategies within a supported, low risk environment. Support from outside the institution in the form of a national eLearning Strategy and funded elearning initiatives provide further incentives. However, there remain aspects of both the national and institutional contexts that do not yet fully support in practice the values around teaching and learning development that they espouse. An initially limiting institutional technology environment is now evolving to include the Web 2.0 and social networking tools commonly available in the external cultural environment. As these developments occur concurrently, teachers, professional development providers and institutions continue to strive to maintain the pace. This is not just in the technology and educational design arena, but also in the form of challenges to long established traditions in publishing, intellectual property ownership, generation of knowledge and authorship that these tools present. Such developments make faculty engagement an even more critical factor, and the typically slow rate of response from institutions a higher-risk strategy than engagement and experimentation. Institutions and individuals may be slow to respond to
Blending Technology into an Academic Practice Qualification for University Teachers
emerging trends but the environments they exist within and the learners they serve are proving not to be. A professional practice model that is grounded in situated learning and aligned with the design-based research approach provides an appropriate means to theorize and monitor educational design and development initiatives. A model such as the one described in this chapter contains all essential elements of a systematic approach to development and implementation of future blended learning solutions.
R Alexander, R., Wilson, J., & Hovell, S. (2001). Developing an ICT plan for professional development. In K. Lai (Ed.), elearning: Teaching and Professional Development with the Internet. Otago, NZ: University of Otago Press. Allan, B. (2007). Blended Learning: Tools for Teaching and Training. London: Facet Publishing. Bates, A. W. (1997). Restructuring the University for Technological Change. Paper delivered at Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching – What Kind of University? London, June, 1997. Retrieved April 11, 2008, from http:// bates.cstudies.ubc.ca/carnegie/carnegie.html. Becher T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Bersin, J. (2004). The Blended Learning Book. San Francisco: John Wiley Blackmore, P., & Blackwell, R. (2006). Strategic leadership in academic development. Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 373-387. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
CAD contributes to National e-Learning Guidelines Project (2008, July). aCADemix, 4, 10. Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2007). The Contributing Student: Philosophy, Technology and Strategy. In M. Spector (Ed.), Finding Your Online Voice: Stories Told by Experienced Online Educators (pp. 19-31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Conole, G. (2003). Understanding Enthusiasm and Implementation: Elearning Research Questions and Methodological Issues. In J. Seale (Ed.), Learning Technology in Transition: From Individual Enthusiasm to Institutional Implementation (pp. 129-146). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Dempster, J., & Deepwell, F. (2003). Experiences of National Projects in Embedding Learning Technology into Institutional Practices in Higher Education. In J. Seale (Ed.), Learning Technology in Transition: From Individual Enthusiasm to Institutional Implementation (pp. 45-62). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8. eLearning Guidelines for New Zealand (n.d.). Retrieved September 9, 2008, from http://elg. massey.ac.nz/index.php?title=Main_Page Ellis, A., & Phelps, R. (2000). Staff development for online delivery: A collaborative, team-based action learning model. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, l6(1), 26-44. Retrieved April 11, 2008, from http://www.ascilite.org. au/ajet/ajet16/ellis.html. Goldman, S. (2001). Professional development in a digital age: Issues and challenges for standards-based reform. Interactive Educational Multimedia, 2, 19-46. Retrieved April 11, 2008, from http://www.ub.edu/multimedia/iem/down/ c2/Professional_Development.pdf. 277
Blending Technology into an Academic Practice Qualification for University Teachers
Goolnik, G. (2006). Effective Change Management Strategies for Embedding Online Learning within Higher Education and Enabling the Effective Continuing Professional Development of Its Academic Staff. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 7(1), 9-21. Retrieved April 11, 2008, from http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde21/ pdf/Volume7Number1.pdf#page=9. Grabinger, S., & Dunlap, J. (2000). Rich Environments for Active Learning: A Definition. In D. Squires & G. Conole (Eds.), The Changing Face of Learning Technology, Cardiff: University of Wales Press, (8-38). Gray, C. (2006). Blended Learning: Why Everything Old Is New Again—But Better. Retrieved April 9, 2008, from http://www.learningcircuits. org/2006/March/gray.htm Gunn, C., & Cavallari, B. (2007). Instructional Design, Development and Context Expertise: A Model for “Cross Cultural” Collaboration. In M. Keppell (Ed.), Instructional Design: Case Studies in Communities of Practice (pp.127-151). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lefoe, G., Smigiel, H., & Parrish, D. (2007). Enhancing Higher Education Through Leadership Capacity Development: Progressing the Faculty Scholars Model. In Enhancing Higher Education, Theory and Scholarship, Proceedings of the 30th HERDSA Annual Conference, (CD-ROM) (pp. 228-234). Adelaide, South Australia. McNaught, C. (2003). Identifying the Complexity of Factors in the Sharing and Reuse of Resources. In A. Littlejohn (Ed.), Reusing Online Resources: A Sustainable Approach to Elearning (pp. 199-211) . London and Sterling VA, Kogan Page. Oliver, R., O’Donoghue, J. et al. (2003). Institutional Implementation of ICT in Higher Education: An Australian Perspective. In J. Seale (Ed), Learning Technology in Transition: From Individual Enthusiasm to Institutional Implementation (pp. 101-116). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Hammond, N., Gardner, N., Heath, S., Kibby, M., Mayes, J., McAleese, R., Mullings, C., & Trapp, A. (1992). Blocks to the Effective Use of Information Technology in Higher Education. Computers and Education, 18(1-3), 155-162.
Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can Blended Learning be Redeemed? Elearning, 2(1), 17-26. Accessed online at http://www.wwwords.co.uk/ pdf/validate.asp?j=elea&vol=2&issue=1&year =2005&article=3_Oliver_ELEA_2_1_web 24th March 2008.
Hannon, J. (2008). Doing staff development: Practices, dilemmas and technologies. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 15-29. Retrieved April 11, 2008, from http://www. ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/hannon.html.
Reeves, T. C. (2006). Design Research From a Technology Perspective. In J. van den Akker, K Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Niveen (Eds.), Educational Design Research (pp. 52-66). Routledge: London.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2005). Design research: a socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 97-115.
Laurillard, D. M. (1993). Rethinking University Teaching, A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology. London & New York: Routledge.
278
Salter, D. (2006). E-Scholars: Staff Development Through Designing for Learning. In L
Blending Technology into an Academic Practice Qualification for University Teachers
Markauskite, P. Goodyear, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Who’s learning? Whose technology? Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE), (pp. 1023–1025)University of Sydney, Sydney. Sandoval, W. A. (2004). Developing Learning Theory by Refining Conjectures Embodied in Educational Designs. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 213-223. Sharpe, R. (2004). How do professionals learn and develop? Implications for staff and educational developers. In D. Baume and P. Kahn (Eds.), Enhancing staff and educational development (pp. 132-153 ), Routledge Falmer, London. Shephard, K. (2004). The role of educational developers in the expansion of educational technology. International Journal for Academic Development, 9(1), 67-83. Retrieved April 11, 2008, from http:// www.informaworld.com/index/714023653.pdf.
Sherry, L., Tavalin, F., & Billig, S. H. (2000). Good online conversation: Building on research to inform practice. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), 85-127. Staff and Educational Development Association (SEDA). (2005). What is SEDA-PDF? Professional Development Framework document accessed online June 22nd 2007 at http://www.seda.ac.uk/pdf/ PDF%20Publication%20may%202005%2024pp. pdf. Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press. Suddaby, G., & Milne, J. (2008). Coordinated, collaborative and coherent: developing and implementing elearning guidelines within a national tertiary education system. Campus Wide Information Systems, 25(2), 114-122.
279
280
Chapter XV
Reciprocal Mentoring “In The Wild”:
A Retrospective, Comparative Case Study of ICT Teacher Professional Development M. Brooke Robertshaw Utah State University, USA
Kristy Bloxham Utah State University, USA
Heather Leary Utah State University, USA
Mimi Recker Utah State University, USA
Andrew Walker Utah State University, USA
ABSTRACT For teachers in the 21st Century it has become critical that they develop the skills to be able to teach in a world that is being transformed by technological innovations. These skills include effectively teaching in blended learning environments with high-quality online learning resources available on the internet. Chief among the challenges faced by these teachers is that mid- and late career teachers, unlike preservice teachers, do not have adequate technology knowledge. A challenge for pre-service teachers is that they do not have the pedagogical and content knowledge to be able to effectively implement their technology knowledge in the classroom. This retrospective comparative case study was undertaken to understand reciprocal mentoring (RM) relationships that can occur between in-service teachers and pre-service teachers during implementation of a technology based lesson. The transfer of knowledge between the members of the RM dyad is described through the lens of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Reciprocal Mentoring “In The Wild”
INTRODUCTION In the United States of America (USA), as in many places in the world, there has been an increasing focus on integrating online information and communication technology (ICT) and the use of a blended learning environment into primary and secondary education. Rapid technological innovations offer a wealth of potential for transforming education, in particular with regard to helping to support the development of critical 21st century teaching and learning skills (Computing Research Association, 2005). For teachers, these skills include effectively finding, sharing, and teaching with the vast wealth of high-quality online learning resources increasingly available on the Internet, and the emerging cyber-infrastructure for education. Of necessity this often includes learning how to effectively teach within a blended learning environment (Bonk, et al, 2002; Clark & James, 2005; Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003). However, these tremendous opportunities also come with a significant number of challenges. Chief among them is that most mid- and latecareer teachers, unlike their students and new teachers, are not digital natives. While experienced teachers may possess a vast and effective repertoire of teaching strategies and lesson plans, these were typically designed around the notion of temporally and physically constrained resources (e.g., textbooks) within the confines of a single classroom. The distributed and limitless access provided by the Internet turns these assumptions on their head – and challenges these teachers to rethink their practices to support blended learning approaches. The study reported in this chapter sits at the nexus of these issues. In the context of a 5-year research project, largely funded by the US National Science Foundation, we have been developing simple tools to help teachers to better design and share classroom activities that use high-quality online learning resources. We have designed accompanying teacher professional development
experiences for both in-service (practicing) and pre-service (student) teachers. The purpose of these activities is to help develop teachers’ design capacity with online resources in order to improve classroom practices and student learning. Not surprisingly, we have observed large differences between the in- and pre-service teachers both in terms of their ability to acquire the necessary technological skills, and their ability to effectively apply these in the service of instruction. In general, young, pre-service teachers easily acquire the necessary ICT skills but are unsure how to use these in pedagogical contexts. Conversely, experienced teachers often struggle with learning new ICT skills, yet have the classroom skills and experience to be able to use them to promote student learning. Moreover, an interesting dynamic can emerge when a pre-service teacher, armed with a vast repertoire of ICT skills, begins student teaching and works with an experienced, mentoring teacher. Here, both members bring potentially complementary skills to the table, which can result in a mutually and reciprocally beneficial relationship. To begin to address these interrelationships, we undertook a retrospective comparative case study to examine reciprocal mentoring relationships that developed between three pairs of teachers, or dyads. All teachers participated in professional development workshops with blended learning components, in which they learned to use a software tool, called the Instructional Architect, to design activities using online learning resources. The pairs consisted of an experienced in-service teacher and a pre-service student teacher. The particular focus of the case study was on understanding and characterizing the mutual transfer of technological and pedagogical content knowledge between the two members of the dyad. The next section of this chapter describes the theoretical framework, which was informed by two strands of research: reciprocal mentoring (RM), and teacher knowledge. We then describe the ICT tool and professional development in our 281
Reciprocal Mentoring “In The Wild”
study, the study context and methods, then present case study findings from three teachers dyads.
THEORETICFR Rciprocal Mentoring A typical mentor relationship is a hierarchical, one-way relationship with guidance coming from someone with more experience (the mentor) to someone of less experience (the mentee). As such, the relationship is primarily of benefit to the mentee (Ballantyne, Green, Yarrow & Millwater, 1999; Clarke, 2004; Kochan & Trimble, 2000; Mullen, 2000). In contrast, reciprocal mentoring (RM) is more of a mutually beneficial exchange in which both members of the mentoring relationship contribute to the experience and learning of the other (Clarke, 2004; Kochan & Trimble, 2000; Mullen, 2000). Wildman, Magliaro, Niles and Niles (1992) identify seven activities that can occur within in-service and pre-service partnerships. One of those activities is collaboration, specifically where the beginner contributes to the mentor’s experience as a teacher. This kind of interaction within mentoring relationships is found throughout the literature and defined in many different ways. For example, it has been defined as co-mentoring (Jipson & Paley, 2000; Kochan & Trimble, 2000), collaborative mentoring (Mullen, 2000), mentorships (Gilles & Wilson, 2004; Grisham, Ferguson & Brink, 2004), and lastly, reciprocal mentoring (Dawson, Swain, Johnson, & Ring, 2004; Gonzales & Thompson, 1998; Swain & Dawson, 2006; Thompson, Shmidt &, Davis, 2003). While all of these authors have slightly different definitions, the common thread throughout is that both people in the mentor partnership bring something to the learning process of the other person. When considering the partnership itself, one factor that allows reciprocal mentoring to take place is
282
supporting relationship building between the two individuals involved in the mentorship (Dawson & Nonis 2004; Jipson & Paley, 2000; Swain & Dawson, 2006). This relationship building enables the partners to develop trust (Jipson & Paley, 2000; Mullen, 2000), respect (Swain & Dawson, 2006), and a support system between the two (Gonzales & Thompson, 1998). There are many benefits that arise out of a reciprocal mentoring relationship. For example, when university faculty members and graduate students come together, faculty members are able to learn much needed technology integration skills, and graduate students are able to learn both about the subject area of the faculty and professional skills they will need when they become faculty members themselves (Dawson & Nonis, 2000; Dawson, Swain, Johnson & Ring, 2004; Gonzales & Thompson, 1998; Swain & Dawson, 2006; Thompson, Shmidt, & Davis, 2003). Other advantages to these partnerships within the faculty-graduate student context are that it is time saving for faculty members, there are increased confidence levels with using technology, and there is greater relevance regarding what is being learned (Dawson & Nonis 2000; Gonzales & Thompson, 1988). Within the in-service/pre-service teacher relationship, similar and additional advantages have been documented. Learning takes place at a deeper level, teachers outside the mentorship dyad feel energized by the work being done, and the school administration is able to see the preservice and in-service teacher partnership in new ways (Gilles & Wilson, 2004; Grisham, Ferguson & Brink, 2004). Pre-service teachers are able to move from a theoretical framework of teaching to understanding practical applications of that framework, and they are able to have authentic leadership experiences within the classroom (Bullough et al., 2002; Dawson & Nonis 2000, Thompson, Schmidt & Davis, 2003). In-service teachers are able to learn new ways of approaching
Reciprocal Mentoring “In The Wild”
curriculum from their pre-service teachers, have experiences of leadership, and through their reciprocal mentoring relationship, end up re-evaluating their own teaching practices (Bullough et. al 2002; Gilles & Wilson, 2004; Grisham, Ferguson & Brink, 2004; Thompson, Schmidt & Davis, 2003). Despite the rich level of research about RM partnerships, to our knowledge none of the existing work has examined naturally occurring (as opposed to engineered) cases of RM.
Technological Pedagogical Content Kowledge One dimension to consider in an investigation of RM is changes in the underlying teacher knowledge base and practice. Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is a framework developed by Shulman (1986) for understanding the different kinds of knowledge encompassing the practice of teaching. In defining PCK, he first established the idea of content knowledge (CK), which he described as not just basic facts and concepts but also include the structure of the subject being taught and the explanatory frameworks that organize and connect ideas within that subject. Pedagogical knowledge (PK) is defined as an understanding of methods for teaching and learning and how those methods encompass educational purposes, values and aims. Included in PK are things such as knowledge of evaluation frameworks, the targeted learners, and basic classroom practice (Shulman, 1986; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Pedagogical content knowledge is where PK and CK intersect. PCK includes an understanding of the kinds of knowledge that the target learners already have about the content being taught, ideas and preconceptions about the content, and knowledge of strategies to help learners overcome these preconceptions and ways for incorporating newly gained knowledge into what they already know (Shulman, 1986). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) is an extension of
PCK. When Shulman first developed the notion of PCK, the use of technology did not have the focus in educational practice as it does today. Essentially, not only do educators have to learn new technological practices, but they also have to adjust their current information technology use (e.g. knowledge of how to use overheads and projectors, whiteboards, and text books) and to integrate these new practices into their existing content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge practices. This intersection has been termed technological pedagogical content knowledge (see Figure 1). Mishra and Koehler emphasize that these knowledge areas are not distinct, but overlap and are mutually constitutive in multiple and complex ways. The inclusion of technological knowledge is a particularly good fit given that this research occurred in the context of a technology professional development workshop; further it seems evident that TPCK is a critical dimension for effective teaching in a blended learning environment.
ICTrofessional Development Cntext: The Instructional Architect
The teachers in the present study all participated in professional development workshops (described next) in which they learned to use an ICT tool called the Instructional Architect (IA). ICT has been defined as an amalgamation of computing and communications (Ducatel, Webster, & Herrmann, 2000) and perhaps more broadly as any electronic means of sorting, showing, saving or modifying knowledge (Bruneau & Lacroix, 2001). The Instructional Architect (http://IA.usu.edu) is a simple, Internet-based tool designed to help teachers find and use learning resources available on the Internet. It is especially designed to support teachers in finding high quality resources in the U.S. National Science Digital Library (NSDL.org), and elsewhere in the Web. With the IA, teachers can discover, select, sequence, annotate, and reuse online learning resources on the Web in order to
283
Reciprocal Mentoring “In The Wild”
Figure 1. The TPCK Model, adapted from Mishra & Koehler, 2006
create instructional resources for their students, for example, lesson plans, study aids, homework – collectively called IA projects (Recker, 2006). Figure 2 shows an example of a simple, teachercreated IA project: the background shows teacher content and instructions, while the foreground shows an online learning resource (in this case, a simulation of weather). Design, development and evaluation of IA have been ongoing since 2002. From 2002 to January 2008, over 2,700 users have registered, 5,400 projects have been created, and 20,500 external online resources have been added to the database. Since August 2006, IA projects have been viewed over 258,000 times. Results from evaluation efforts indicate that teachers are positive about the NSDL, the quality of discovered learning resources, and the value of the IA (Recker, Dorward, & Nelson, 2004; Recker et al., 2005; Recker et al., 2007; Recker & Palmer, 2006; Recker et al., 2007). While the intention of the IA and the focus of the professional development workshop is on increasing the utility of online learning resources for classroom educators, there are ancillary benefits as well. For example, by creating student activities (or IA projects) teacher work becomes a form of communication. Each created project
284
is an overt example of more tacit teacher epistemological beliefs and pedagogical practices. By examining the efforts of others, teachers are able to discover how their colleagues are approaching teaching with online resources. The IA search interface allows teachers to search projects by keyword, subject area, grade level, and educational standards. Teachers can use other created projects either as ideas for their own lessons, as a source of online resources, or even send their students to another teacher’s project. In this way, the IA serves as an infrastructure for teachers to share their practices.
ICTacher Professional Development Model The goals of our professional development program are to help teachers learn about the concepts of repositories (or digital libraries) of online resources, how to search them, how to design instructional activities using the Instructional Architect, and how to integrate these capabilities into their teaching practice (Recker et. al, 2005). Specifically, the teacher professional development workshop curriculum consists of the following core components, which are structured as two 4-hour workshops, separated by classroom implementation activities: 1. A motivating example. An interesting learning resource from the National Science Digital Library (NSDL) (e.g., an interactive simulation of a frog dissection) is demonstrated to the participants. The example also shows the use of a learning resource in an instructional setting. The specific example is modified to fit the target audience. 2. Instruction on how to find learning resources in the NSDL, including keyword and Boolean searching, advanced searching, and browsing by collections. Depending on the technical expertise of audience, the amount
Reciprocal Mentoring “In The Wild”
Figure 2. An example of an Instructional Architect project with an overlay of the online resource linked to from the project
of modeling is increased or reduced. 3. Participants identify an authentic instructional problem, need, or situation. They then practice search techniques to locate resources related to their selected objectives: 4. Participants then work either on their own or with their pre or in-service teacher partner to design IA projects that address the identified problem. Examples include labs, assignments, interactive group work, research, resource lists, and homework. 5. Participants then implement their project with their students on their own or with the support of their partner. Examples of implementation activities include working as a whole class group to move through the project and online resources, having the project be one learning center of many, and
having the students go through the project on their own while making notes on what is being learned. 6. Participants reconvene in a second workshop to reflect on their experiences designing activities using online learning resources and discuss various methods and strategies for integrating online resources into their classrooms.
PURPOSEOF Past research has investigated the nature of RM partnerships in the context of technology professional development (e.g., Dawson, Swain, Johnson, & Ring, 2004; Gonzales & Thompson, 1998; Swain & Dawson, 2006; Thompson, Shmidt, Davis, 2003). These studies intentionally designed reciprocal mentoring as part of the intervention.
285
Reciprocal Mentoring “In The Wild”
However, to our knowledge, there are no studies that have described RM as it occurs naturally, or ‘in the wild’, between pre-service and in-service teachers. Therefore the purpose of this retrospective case study was to describe the characteristics of reciprocal mentoring partnerships, and address the following research questions: •
•
What elements of reciprocal mentoring partnerships were present or absent within the teacher dyads? What knowledge characteristics were present within each member of a pre-service/inservice dyad when reciprocal mentoring did occur, and what characteristics were present when it did not occur?
METHOD This present study used a retrospective comparative case study. The comparison was undertaken because the researchers wanted to begin to understand not only the reasons for or barriers to reciprocal mentoring occurring, but also the transfer of knowledge that takes place when it does occur. To create the comparisons, all data sources were analyzed using the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to contrast each pre-service / in-service teacher dyad in the study (Huberman & Miles, 2002). Typically, a retrospective case study reports findings from a phenomenon over an extended period of time (DeVaus, 2001). Our usage of the term here is in reference to the fact that the methods and data collection occurred after the phenomenon of interest took place. As noted by Yin (2003), case studies can be retrospective in nature because they report on phenomena as past events. In this study, the focus was on a pronounced and clearly mutually beneficial exchange between a pre- and in-service teacher. From there, two additional cases were selected as they showed a range of RM alignment within the initially collected data
286
(Yin, 2003). Lastly, while we are making cross case comparisons, through those comparisons we seek only to describe the participants and the phenomenon apparent within the dyad.
CONTEXT The setting for the study was Sarah Smith Lab School (SSLS). Part of the strategic master plan for the school includes an emphasis on educational technology integration. This includes a dedicated technology and professional development center, teacher technology workstations, and a basic computer literacy program for students and teachers at the school. The school is based on an experiential constructivist framework and the teachers are given the freedom to develop their own, standards based, curriculum, rather than relying on pre-fabricated curriculum. Research on K-5 schooling is an everyday occurrence at Sarah Smith, and the Sarah Smith community is very comfortable about having researchers in and around the school. The relationship between the lab school and a nearby university supports a simultaneous renewal partnership. Simultaneous renewal is a principle developed by John Goodlad where a partnership is created between a university and a local school or school district. The University benefits through having researchers and students practice what they are learning and conducting investigations in a school setting. The school benefits through having access to ongoing professional development and the constant introduction of new ideas from the university into the school and classroom (Goodlad, 1994). Under the guise of technology integration and the development of blended learning environments within the school, this simultaneous renewal relationship gives pre-service teachers an authentic context to learn their skills and allows the in-service teachers to take advantage of the advancement of technology use in the classroom that is being explored at the university and taught to
Reciprocal Mentoring “In The Wild”
the pre-service teacher (Dawson, Swain, Johnson & Ring, 2004; Gilles & Wilson, 2004; Thompson, Shmidt, Davis, 2003; Johnson-Gentile, 2000; Dawson & Nonis 2004; Swain & Dawson, 2006). As Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer (1997) put it, “technology is a catalyst for change in the classroom process because it provides a distinct departure, a change in context that suggests alternative ways of operating” (p.47). This is a particularly good fit for an investigation of RM because much of the existing research on RM took place within the context of a simultaneous renewal partnership between a college of education and a school or school district (Bullough et. al, 2002; Dawson & Nonis, 2004; Gilles & Wilson, 2004; Swain & Dawson, 2006; Thompson, Shmidt &, Davis, 2003).
PARTICIPANTS The participants in this study were three dyads of pre-service and in-service teachers. The three pre-service teachers were all pursing elementary education degrees and were completing the final block of their student teaching. All had previous exposure to the Instructional Architect during practicum classes in their final year of study, and also during a technology course during their second or third year. Carol, the in-service teacher in dyad A, taught second grade children and her participation in the professional development workshop had resulted in a first time online lesson. Bronwyn, the inservice teacher in dyad B, taught first grade and regarded herself as having experience in creating online lessons, and had designed her own curriculum around online resources. Anna, the in-service teacher in dyad C, taught first grade, and prior to participating in the professional development workshop, had some experience in creating online lessons, mainly through using specific websites that had been explicitly shared with her by others.
Data and Instruments At the start of the study, all teachers completed an online pre-survey about their use of online learning resources, level of comfort with technology, and beliefs about the use of technology in the classroom. They then participated in a 4-hour professional development workshop (described above) in which they learned how to use the Instructional Architect, learned effective searching techniques in the National Science Digital Library, and participated in discussions about how to design effectively using online resources. Classroom observations were conducted to assess the implementation of IA projects with students, with two researchers at each observation: one doing open coding of classroom activities, the teacher, the students, and other adults (including student teachers); the other doing interval coding. Reflection papers were then written by the inservice teachers describing their IA projects and their perspectives on implementing their projects in the classroom. Finally, teachers completed a post-survey. After the principal data collection ended, it was expanded to support the retrospective comparative case study by including a focus group interview of the pre-service teachers. Questions centered on their prior level of expertise with technology, their working relationships with their in-service teachers during planning and implementation of the IA lesson, and benefits in terms of new knowledge as a result of their work with their in-service teacher on the lesson. Table 1 provides a complete list of data sources, whether collected for the planned study or as additional data for the retrospective case study, target participants, and relationship to the research questions.
Analysis Data were analyzed overall by four researchers. The initial analysis was conducted by three researchers, who used the constant comparative
287
Reciprocal Mentoring “In The Wild”
methodology (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to do a thematic analysis of the data into emergent themes that described the data. Note that while constant comparative analysis is typically an approach used in grounded theory, it is not our claim or contention that this work constitutes grounded theory. There is precedent for the use of constant comparative analyses in contexts outside of grounded theory, for example within Delphi studies (Brill, Bishop, & Walker, 2006; Kramer, Walker, & Brill, 2007). As a first step, all of the existing data were open coded into researcher labeled themes. On a second pass through the data, themes were then collapsed when data failed to differentiate between them. Once this initial analysis was completed, the three researchers gathered to compare and discuss their coding. After a consensus among the three researchers on the themes was achieved, a fourth researcher entered the analysis. This member had completed a literature review of the existing literature and did an analysis of the data based on constructs pulled from the literature about what factors lead to successful reciprocal mentoring partnerships. This purpose of this phase was to identify themes in the literature and map them to the data. Themes not represented in the data were added to the coding sheet. The next step taken was with the initial three coders who went back to the raw data and searched for any instances of the non-represented themes from the literature.
One instance was found by consensus from all three researchers and added to the coding sheet. Data were then grouped by dyad and mapped to one of the two research questions.
FINDINGS The findings focused on two major characteristics of the participants and these were the relationship between the dyad members and the knowledge transfer that occurred between them. The relationship characteristics were drawn from literature about reciprocal mentoring relationships, while knowledge transfer was viewed through the lens of TPCK. Specifically, knowledge was analyzed in terms of technology knowledge (TK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). As a point of clarification, we did not focus on the transfer of basic computer literacy, but rather on any experience where the knowledge transfer was directly related to the educational goals of the instructional content being taught by the dyad. The description of each dyad begins first with a discussion of the relationship characteristics within the dyad, then knowledge transfer, and ends with a summary of how the two sets of characteristics impacted the reciprocal mentoring relationship. Table 2 at the end of the section summarizes the findings.
Table 1. Research questions and data collection methods used to answer them Research Question
Data Collection Methods
What elements of reciprocal mentoring partnerships were present or absent within the teacher dyads?
Focus group (pre-service; additional data) Reflection paper (in-service; planned) Observation (in- and pre- service; planned) Pre-survey (in-service; planned) Post-survey (in-service; planned)
What knowledge characteristics are present within each member of a pre-service/in-service dyad when reciprocal mentoring occurs, and what characteristics are present when it does not occur?
Focus group (pre-service; additional data) Reflection Paper (in-service; planned) Observation (in- and pre- service; planned) Pre-interview (in-service; planned)
288
Reciprocal Mentoring “In The Wild”
DA This dyad was comprised of Dana, the pre-service teacher, and Carol, the in-service teacher. In terms of knowledge, Carol appeared to have high technological pedagogical content knowledge. She was seen during a classroom observation walking around the room helping the students with their technology problems. Carol also noted in her reflection paper, “I had no difficulties designing the activities and I found the frame to build projects was very user friendly and self-explanatory.” Further, in an interview with her, Carol stated about her use of online resources: I use all online resources and I have searched and weeded through lessons that are out there. They use multi media and are hands on with lots of activities. Lessonplan.com has almost a million lesson plans. I use Google and UEN [Utah Education Network]. I bookmark my favorite resources. Relative to Carol, the pre-service teacher, Dana, exhibited low technological knowledge. Dana reported not knowing as much technology as she thought she needed. She offered, “I’m getting better with technology, but I’m not where I’d like to be” (focus group interviews with pre-service teachers). Dana reported gaining classroom management skills “by watching her [Carol]” (focus group interviews with pre-service teachers), but here again it was not in terms of a teaching situation/problem where they had collaborated. Carol’s already held technological knowledge was significant within the reciprocal mentoring dynamic because, within a pre-service / in-service dyad, where the pre-service teacher is in the relationship to hone her teaching skills, there was nothing that Dana could offer to the technology based lesson. Between the members of Dyad A there appeared to be little communication during the planning and implementation of the lesson. Dana, the pre-service teacher, noted that Carol, the inservice teacher, knew how to use the technology
and “put it together the night before. I didn’t work closely with her” (focus group interviews with pre-service teachers). Further, in her reflection paper, Carol made no mention of her pre-service teacher even helping with the implementation part of her online lesson and observations of the implementation of the lesson back up this implication. Dyad A did not appear to display any reciprocal mentoring relationship characteristi; in fact, this dyad showed negative characteristics for reciprocal mentoring. The lack of communication and any hint of a working relationship during planning and implementation of the lesson is the most glaring indicator from the data that reciprocal mentoring did not occur. Also, when considering the knowledge of the two members, even if there had been communication between them during planning and implementation of the lesson, it is unlikely that any significant transfer of knowledge from pre-service to in-service teacher could happen, because the in-service teacher appeared to hold all the necessary elements of technological pedagogical content knowledge.
D This dyad was comprised of Maggie, the preservice teacher, and Bronwyn, the in-service teacher. There was evidence that Bronwyn trusted Maggie: With Word documents, looking up information. I guess I just felt like once we found a site we wanted all the kids to use, she would have me go through and set it up. She would have me write down the site… she was more hesitant and didn’t know quite where to go. When asked about her feelings about technology in a pre-interview, Bronwyn reported that she hated technology, but she was willing to leave her comfort zone in order to be able to better reach her students.
289
Reciprocal Mentoring “In The Wild”
Maggie, the pre-service teacher, reported that she would help Bronwyn, as they were using technology at various times, “with Word documents, looking up information (focus group interviews with pre-service teachers).” With regard to using an Internet browser Maggie said: She [Bronwyn] would click on “go’ like 5 times, and I would tell her just to wait. She wasn’t quite sure about if it was working, where I could look down and see if it was. (Focus group interviews with pre-service teachers). As far as transfer of knowledge was concerned, the pre-service teacher reported gaining classroom management skills throughout her time in the classroom, but did not report gaining pedagogical content knowledge. Maggie said, when asked about what she learned said: We learned about inquiry - seeing the teacher let them do it. One of us would go look up the answer to their question. I couldn’t see how it would work being a single teacher, how could you stop with every student. Sometimes she would stop and just look it up on her own and slip it to them and they would love that. She would grab on to any question. I’d heard about that but not seen it done. It was good to see how she was able to do that. Also, how to manage 25 kids with just being one teacher. She would have just one center that needed her. For that age it was a really good way, because she couldn’t always teach the full class. It was good to see things that she was trying that I’d never seen. (Focus group interviews with pre-service teachers). This dyad displayed more characteristics of a reciprocal mentoring relationship than Dyad A, but, as is described below, fewer reciprocal mentoring characteristics than Dyad C. Although there was transfer of knowledge between the pre-service and in-service teachers in the areas of pedagogy knowledge (PK) and technology
290
knowledge (TK), these knowledge transfers did not appear to occur within an integrated discussion of a teaching scenario. Also, while the dyad exhibited some relationship characteristics pertaining to reciprocal mentoring relationships, those characteristics, again, took place outside of a teaching with technology integration plan. So, while there were some characteristics of reciprocal mentoring between Bronwyn and Maggie, the relationship did not appear to have the richness of interactions seen in the reciprocal mentoring literature to be considered a strong RM partnership.
DYAD C Two characteristics of a reciprocal mentoring relationship are a willingness to be open and an ability to trust. Reflecting on these two characteristics, Anna, the in-service teacher in the dyad, stated in her reflection paper: While at a community council meeting on Wednesday afternoon, our early-release work day, I asked my student teacher to go in and update each skill site with new games that were increasingly challenging. This became necessary after seeing some of my students easily figure out the more challenging games from last week. (Reflection paper of in-service teacher). In terms of suspending the difference between the expert, Anna (the in-service teacher), and the novice, Mary (the pre-service teacher) during the focus group, Mary stated: Once she [Anna] got the concepts down well, she wouldn’t forget them… just to add resources was harder. Adding resources, making folders [in the Instructional Architect], gets complex. Once she got reminded, once I cued her, she would remember.
Reciprocal Mentoring “In The Wild”
Regarding a supportive relationship, Mary talked about working with Anna during the focus group and said “I helped her through a lot of it.” Knowledge transfer of technological pedagogical content knowledge in the reciprocal mentoring partnerships happened in terms of their specific teaching situation/problem. Mary, the pre-service teacher in the dyad, said the following about what she learned from her in-service teacher, Anna: “I’ve just learned so much behavior wise, content wise, it just brings it all together” (focus group interview with pre-service teachers). Mary commented on working with Anna, her in-service teacher, about planning and putting together the lesson: She would look for resources, we would look for the resources, and if we found something cool we would copy and paste the URL. I would help her make it happen. She sometimes would forget where to go into to do something and I would have to remind her. (Focus group interview with pre-service teachers). Mary was clearly making a contribution with her technological knowledge. This was also noted by Anna who described Mary’s role in terms of finding resources to use in the online lesson (in notes from a classroom observation). Anna made contributions centered on her pedagogical content knowledge. As they collaborated with online lessons and considered possible resources which had been discovered by Mary, Anna was the one who discussed whether or not each would be appropriate for their second graders and why (in notes from a classroom observation). This observation is significant in that Anna was not only willing to rely on Mary’s technical knowledge, but on her emerging pedagogical knowledge to handle a task by herself on which they had previously collaborated.
The in-service teacher reported having the chance to use technology with the support of her pre-service teacher. This self reported experience demonstrated the positive outcome associated with a true reciprocal mentoring activity. Anna stated in the conclusion of her reflection paper: Honestly, I was rather reticent about getting started with this project but eventually found it to be worthwhile. My colleague is very good at finding online resources so I often rely upon her for ideas. This gave me a chance to try it myself with the help and support of my student teacher, Beth [the computer teacher] and the IA folks in our classroom. This dyad exhibited the greatest number of characteristics of reciprocal mentoring. The relationship exhibited the most characteristics for establishing a successful reciprocal mentoring partnership and the knowledge transfer between Mary and Anna consistently took place within discussions of a specific teaching and learning situation. The trust and openness within the relationship coupled with the consistent discussions within the technological pedagogical content knowledge framework appeared to enable a rich reciprocal mentoring relationship to occur within the dyad.
S In our strongest case of reciprocal mentoring ‘in the wild,’ we observed that the pre-service teacher had high technological knowledge and low pedagogical knowledge, whereas the in-service teacher had low technological knowledge and high pedagogical knowledge. As the in-service teacher in this dyad noted: “Honestly, I was rather reticent about getting started with this project” (reflection paper) and that she had “never used the wireless lab.” Whereas the pre-service teacher said, “I
291
Reciprocal Mentoring “In The Wild”
Table 2. Summary of findings Dyad
Pre-Service Teacher Characteristics
In-service Characteristics
Dyad A
Low TK, learned PK
High TPCK, no reported learning from pre-service teacher, little communication within the relationship
Dyad B
Had TK but shared it as a technological support person, learned PK
Had PCK, TK, learned basic technological knowledge, trust and suspension of distinction between expert and novice
Elements of RM relationship
Dyad C
Had TK, Learned PCK
Had PCK, some TK, learned TK. Was open and trusted reservice teacher
Strong elements of RM relationship
felt really comfy. I used it 3 or 4 times, it was easy to modify projects, add new things. (focus group interviews with pre-service teachers)” Further, the data indicated that both members in Dyad A were open to mentoring, had trust in the relationship, and both were given the opportunity for mentoring. Several themes emerged from the findings that appear to characterize the strength of the observed reciprocal mentoring relationship. Our findings suggest that the elements needed for the potential of a reciprocal mentoring partnership to occur included high technological knowledge in the pre-service teacher, low technological knowledge in the in-service teacher, high pedagogical knowledge in the in-service teacher, and low pedagogical knowledge in the pre-service teacher, an openness to mentoring, the opportunity for mentoring, as well as a sense of trust within the dyad, and encouragement from the in-service teacher. In short, reciprocal mentoring seemed to occur when the dyad exhibited relative complementary expertise. This complementary expertise may lead to a mutual need within the dyad. In contrast, when reciprocal mentoring partnerships did not occur, the in-service teacher displayed high TPCK.
292
Reciprocal Mentoring Relationship No elements of RM relationship.
DISCUSSIONnd RECOMENDTIONSFOR PR It is likely that the complementary knowledge that both members brought to the partnership, and the personal interactions between the preservice and in-service teachers played a direct role in facilitating RM partnerships. However, drawing a direct causal connection given our data collection and methods is a tenuous proposition at best. Therefore, it is our intention to forward these findings as possibilities only. That said, a number of factors seemed to co-occur with our observed instance of RM. As previously noted the possibilities of knowledge transfer occurring between the members of the dyad is one potential factor for reciprocal mentoring. Each member must have knowledge that the other member does not have and seeks to gain. In the case of this study we have defined those types of knowledge as content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), technological knowledge (TK) and the frameworks that bring those types of knowledge together - pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) (Shulman, 1986; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). There are other potential factors. The in-service teacher, the member of the dyad who has the
Reciprocal Mentoring “In The Wild”
most power in the relationship, must be willing to learn from the pre-service teacher (Grisham, Ferguson & Brink, 2004). In addition, both partners must be able to support the other (Dawson & Nonis, 2000; Gonzales & Thompson, 1998). Finally, there must be respect and trust between the two members of the partnership (Swain & Dawson, 2006; Bullough et. al, 2002; Jipson & Paley, 2000; Kochan & Trimble, 2000; Mullen, 2000). Reciprocal mentoring appeared strongest in dyad C. In this dyad, the pre-service teacher reported high technological knowledge and was able to apply it to the Instructional Architect lesson being taught in the classroom. While the in-service teacher did possess some technological knowledge, she reported and displayed greater strengths in pedagogical content knowledge within the lesson taught using the IA. She was also open to learning from her pre-service teacher, and she trusted her as well to work on later expansions to the lesson independently. While the members of dyad B did show some transfer of technical knowledge from the preservice teacher to the in-service teacher, that knowledge was not related to an instructional situation and the data did not indicate that any collaboration occurred between the members of the dyad on the IA lesson. Potential for a mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and expertise existed, because the pre-service teacher had more technical knowledge than the pre-service teacher, however that potential did not emerge into a full RM partnership. The question remains as to why this is the case. In dyad A there was no transfer of knowledge from the pre-service teacher to the in-service teacher. This relationship was more typical of a one-way mentor relationship (Wildman, Magliaro, Niles & Niles, 1992), at least within the context of the design and implementation of the IA activity. One possible conclusion is that while mutually beneficial expertise may be a minimum component for RM, it seems consistently present
when RM occurs, but its presence alone does not guarantee that RM will happen. In conclusion, there is great potential in reciprocal mentoring relationships to facilitate the transfer of technological pedagogical content knowledge, if both members of the dyad possess complementary expertise, and are open to such transfer of knowledge from the other member of the dyad. Further investigation is warranted to better understand the dynamics of knowledge transfer in this relationship within the context of blended learning environments. Effective TPCK within such environments contains many elements that are less relevant within the typical classroom. These include, for example, strategies for effective online communication, strategies for moderating online discussions, etc. It is possible that reciprocal mentoring is an important means for the development of such knowledge.
LIMITTIONS Due to the retrospective nature and the context of the study, there are important limitations. First, the researchers were not able to collect data on the phenomenon of the intersection of reciprocal mentoring and technological pedagogical content knowledge as it was occurring because it was not a part of the intent of the original study. Data collected was based on recollections of participants after the fact, rather than during the occurrence of the phenomenon. The inability of the researchers to properly triangulate the data is another limitation (Merriam, 1988). While we were able to conduct follow up interviews with four of the six pre-service teachers that were in the classrooms at SSLS during the time of our original study, we did not have adequate data to properly triangulate the experiences of the pre-service teachers. This limitation of data collection impacts the findings of this study.
293
Reciprocal Mentoring “In The Wild”
We note that the teachers and students at SSLS have high access to ICT through a rich blended learning environment. Sarah Smith is a wellfunded school that has two full portable laptop carts, a full desktop lab and every classroom that the researchers visited had at least three computers in the back of the room for the students to use. Wireless Internet access is available in each classroom (although there were accessibility concerns for dyad A). Furthermore every classroom has the ability to project digital images and sound using a multimedia station that is controllable by the adults in the classroom. Many K-5 schools in the United States do not have access to the kind of resources that these teachers have. We recognize that this kind of access to technology will not be available in every school in the country, which will, obviously, inhibit teachers at those schools to bring online educational resources into their classrooms. The teachers at Sarah Smith have more control over their curriculum than teachers at other schools. There are no standard textbooks in the school and while the teachers must teach according to defined educational standards, they select materials at their own discretion. This makes them more amenable to teaching in different ways, and using different materials. Also they are encouraged by their administration to constantly seek out new and innovative ways to teach. One factor that must be present for reciprocal mentoring to occur is that in-service teachers must be open to learning new things (Grisham, Ferguson, & Brink 2004) and this is the standard environment at Sarah Smith. Limitations at other K – 5 schools due to curriculum and material constraints may reduce the in-service teachers’ willingness and or ability to be open to learning from the pre-service teachers with whom they are working. Lastly, we note the uniqueness of the context of the lab school. These schools are partnerships between a university and the school where the university provides funding for the school and the members of the school community allow research
294
to occur within the school. Most students sign waivers at the beginning of each school year for the research that will occur at the school. The school benefits from this simultaneous renewal relationship (Goodlad, 1994) through access to the new ideas and methods being researched at the university and the university benefits by having easy access to a K – 5 population on its campus. Researchers are able to pilot materials and methods at the school and beginning school practitioners and researchers are able to build their knowledge within the friendly environment of a community that is used to their presence. The researchers knew from the start of the study that the setting of the study would be a limitation. Any study that occurs within the confines of a lab school, if generalizeable, will only be able to be generalized to other lab schools, which make up a very small portion of schools within the United States.
CONCLUSIONSFUTURE WORK This retrospective case study has led the researchers to consider the use of reciprocal mentoring as a means for carrying out technology-based, blended learning teacher professional development. The purpose of the professional development is to help teachers gain knowledge of how to use ICT to design online lessons and learning activities. Our study showed by working collaboratively, some teachers mutually benefit from collaboration, especially when one member of the dyad is lacking technology skills. Next, we will be conducting an examination of 4 teacher dyads. As opposed to RM partnerships ‘in the wild’ these can be characterized as RM partnerships ‘in the zoo.’ It is our intention to have the pre-service teachers expose their inservice teachers to ICT, rather than disseminating technology tools through a professional development workshop. Data on transfer of technological pedagogical content knowledge and the reciprocal
Reciprocal Mentoring “In The Wild”
mentoring relationship will be collected through the use of a structured journal that will be filled out at the beginning of the study, a pre-survey on technological skills, a reflection paper, and a post interview after all other data have been collected. This study will help the researchers bolster findings from this retrospective and give guidance for moving forward with a new look at a teacher professional development model. Recommendations for future research include replications of this study with greater numbers of participants, conducting research investigating why reciprocal mentoring ‘in the wild’ does not occur-- even when mutual benefits for both members of the dyad are apparent, and examining reciprocal mentoring through a multi-cultural lens.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
of an effective project manager: A web-based delphi study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 54(2), 115-140. Bruneau, E., & Lacroix, M. (2001, November). Information sector: towards a 2007 classification. Paper presented at the ACN conference, Paris, France. Brown, M., & Edelson, D. (2003) Teaching as design: Can we better understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support their change in practice? (Design Brief). Evanston, IL: Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools. Bullough, R. V., Young, J., Erickson, L., Birrell, J., Clark, D. C., Egan, M. W., et. al. (2002). Rethinking field experience: Partnership teaching versus single-placement teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, (53) 68, 68-80.
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grants No. 0333818 & 0434892, and Utah State University. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. We thank the teachers and student teachers who participated in our studies.
Clark, I., & James, P. (2005). Blended learning: an approach to delivering science courses online. Proceedings of the Blended Learning in Science Teaching and Learning Symposium, 30 September 2005, The University of Sydney: UniServe Science, (pp. 19-24).
REFERENCES
Dawson, K., & Nonis, A. (2000). Preservice teachers’ experiences in a k-12 / university technology-based field initiative: benefits, facilitators, constraints and implications for teacher educators. Journal of computing in teacher education, 17(1), 4-11.
Ballantyne, R., Green, A., Yarrow, A., Millwater, J. (1999). Reciprocal mentoring: Preparatory learning materials for teacher development. Teacher Development, 3(1), 79-94. Bonk, C. J., Olson, T. M., Wisher, R. J., & Orvis, K. L. (2002). Learning from focus groups: An examination of blended learning. Journal of Distance Education, 17(3), 97-118. Brill, J., Bishop, M., & Walker, A. (2006). An investigation into the competencies required
Computing Research Association. (2005). Cyberinfrastructure for education and learning for the future: A vision and research agenda. Washington, DC.
Dawson, K., Swain, C., Johnson, N., Ring, G. (2004). Partnership strategies for systemic integration of technology in teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(4), 482-495.
295
Reciprocal Mentoring “In The Wild”
DeVaus, D. (2001). Research design in social research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc. Ducatel, K., Webster, J., & Herrmann, W. (2000). The information society in Europe: Work and life in an age of globalization. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
learning among international educators: A delphi study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(5), 527-543. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, Aldine Publishing Company.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Goodlad, J. (1994). Educational renewal: better teachers, better schools. San Francisco, JosseyBass.
Mullen, C. (2000). Constructing co-mentoring partnerships: Walkways we must travel. Theory Into Practice, 39(1), 4-11.
Gonzales, C., & Thompson, V. (1998). Reciprocal mentoring in technology use: reflecting with a literacy educator. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 7(2), 163-178.
Osguthorpe, R., & Graham, C. (2003). Blended learning environments definitions and directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 43(3), 227-233.
Grisham, D. L., Ferguson, J. L., & Brink, B. (2004). Mentoring the mentors: student teachers’ contributions to the middle school classroom. Mentoring and Tutoring, 12(3), 307-319.
Recker, M., Dorward, J., Dawson, D., Liu, Y., Mao, X., Palmer, B., et al. (2005). Teaching, creating, sharing: A context for learning objects. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1, 197-216.
Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M.B. (2002). The qualitative researcher’s companion. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Jipson, J., & Paley, N. (2000). Because no one gets there alone: Collaboration as co-mentoring. Theory Into Practice, 39(1), 36-42. Johnson-Gentile, K., Lonberger, R., Parana, J., & West, A. (2000). Preparing preservice teachers for the technological classroom: A school-college partnership. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2), 97-109. Kochan, F. K., & Trimble, S. B. (2000). From mentoring to co-mentoring: Establishing collaborative relationships. Theory Into Practice, 39(1), 20-28. Kramer, B., Walker, A., & Brill, J. M. (2007). The underutilization of internet and communication technology-assisted collaborative project-based
296
Recker, M., Dorward, J., & Nelson, L. (2004). Discovery and use of online learning resources: Case Study Findings. Educational Technology & Society, 7(2), 93-104. Recker, M., Giersch, S., Walker, A., Halioris, S., Mao, X., & Palmer, B. (2007, June). A study of how online learning resources are used. Paper presented at the 2007 ACM IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, Vancouver, British Columbia. Recker, M., & Palmer, B. (2006, June). Using content across digital libraries. Paper presented at the ACM IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, Chapel Hill, NC. Recker, M., Walker, A., Giersch, S., Mao, X., Palmer, B., Johnson, D., et. al. (2007). A study of teachers’ use of online learning resources to design
Reciprocal Mentoring “In The Wild”
classroom activities. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 13(2), 117 - 134. Recker, M. (2006). Perspectives on teachers as digital library users: Consumers, contributors, and designers. D-Lib Magazine, 12(9). Recker, M., & Palmer, B. (2006). Using content across digital libraries. Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, (pp. 241-242). New York: ACM. Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997) Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. Swain, C., & Dawson, K. (2006). The teacher village: Growing partnerships to integrate educa-
tional technology into curricula and classrooms. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2). Thompson, A. D., Schmidt, D. A., Davis, N. E. (2003). Technology collaboratives for simultaneous renewal in teacher education. Educational Technology Research & Development, 51(1), 73-89. Wildman, T. M., Magliaro, S. G., Niles, R. A., & Niles, J. A. (1992). Teacher mentoring: An analysis of roles, activities, and conditions. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 205-213 Yin, R. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (third edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.
297
298
Chapter XVI
Conclusion Philippa Gerbic Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand Elizabeth Stacey Deakin University, Australia
ABSTRACT The conclusion draws together the main themes identified under the sections of the book with a synthesis of the recommendations presented by the chapter authors which connect the outcomes of these research studies with practical suggestions in all aspects of blended learning practice. It identifies and discusses future trends and implications for learning as well as areas of further research.
INTRODUCTION The chapters of this book have provided a series of research-based perspectives which present, individually, cohesive accounts of blended learning and its practice. In this conclusion we have added an additional perspective in the nature of a synopsis or synthesis of the many themes which have been discussed and developed within this volume of research. We now provide a more holistic view of blended learning as a stimulus
for reflection and further research rather than as a generic view of blended learning. We begin by identifying some important concepts from the research presented in this text. A discussion of some of the key challenges which emerge from this research follow with a summation of suggestions for effective blending learning practice in each of the three contexts reflected as separate sections of the book. Implications for learners, teachers and universities will be discussed and the chapter concludes with some recommendations for further research.
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Conclusion
OVERVIEWf Research Concepts and Themes The practice of ICT-facilitated blended learning has been discussed in this book in multiple settings and from diverse evidence bases. The book provides further confirmation of the complexity (Garrison and Kanuka, 2004) of blended learning, which is now occurring in a wide range of sites, such as universities and workplaces and which involves not only traditional students as learners but also teachers and other workers as they engage in formal and informal forms of professional learning in various communities that are connected through some form ICT. As newer technologies like podcasts, e-labs and mobile personalised learning environments are introduced they create new affordances for learning beyond those of learning management systems. The research base in this text has been predominantly qualitative with an emphasis on case studies. Given the current emerging state of knowledge about blended learning, qualitative approaches can be very productive because of their descriptive and interpretive ability. Such approaches here are able to represent learners’, teachers’ and others’ experiences of blending learning practices and provide insights into the way the participants made sense of the new learning environment. While we don’t make generalisations from this research, we expect that readers of this text will be able to determine for themselves the relevance of the research and recommended practices. It is noteworthy that a variety of case study approaches were documented and these included both individual and collective cases, longitudinal and retrospective studies and a cross-case analysis. The strength of the case study methodology as it is used here is that it supports the investigation of the complexities of blended learning by providing a situated research methodology. We have attempted to build on this and create further relevance for readers by including recommendations for practice.
One other feature of many of the research investigations in this book, is that they were insider accounts. While we are aware of the problems which might arise due to the researcher’s familiarity with their context, the idea of the researcher being embedded within the research setting has a long tradition within qualitative inquiry and is also characteristic of much of the research on technological innovation and pedagogy. In our view, in the blended learning context, such a position is beneficial because it has the potential to deepen contextual understanding of the setting and its processes, values and relationships. The research in this book has drawn on a wide range of literatures and theoretical frameworks. As well as the literature on blended learning and associated areas of online and e-learning, discussion of variation theory and the differences between face-to-face and virtual environments and especially the role of social presence are particularly valuable discussions. One concept that has been widely and deeply considered within this text is that of communities of practice (Wenger, 1998) and the associated idea of learning communities and the Community of Inquiry (Garrison and Vaughan, 2008). This reflects the level of interest in this socio-cultural concept and its explanatory potential in both the fields of technology and learning. Other valuable literatures drawn on by the researchers include actor network theory, activity theory, adult learning principles, designbased research and the experience of learning literature, all of which provide a broad foundation for further knowledge building, reflection and practical application.
Section 1: Strategies for Teaching and Larning The first section of this book focused on ICT-based blended learning and teaching as a pedagogic practice within many university courses. Apart from the corporate sector, universities were amongst the first learning sites to introduce blended
299
Conclusion
environments, and there is now an extensive literature on this topic which we have discussed in the introduction to this book. The first section of the book added further dimensions to blended leaning through its discussion of various issues associated with its pedagogy. Gerbic’s research presented students’ perspectives on online discussions, which have often been a feature of blended environments. Her research found that learners viewed online and face-to-face discussions as complementary for their learning and confirmed the importance of curriculum design and the need for strong pedagogic connections between the two environments. Geer’s work provided empirical support for the concept of imprinting, and her framework for technology mediated interactions provides a strategy for fine grained matching of interactive technologies, pedagogies and learning outcomes. Simpson and Anderson demonstrate a theoretically informed approach to blended learning design at a programme rather than individual course level. Here, blending of various technologies was central to enable on-campus and off-campus students to have the same digitally enhanced learning opportunities, without any reduction in pedagogical value. Carvahlo discusses the inclusion of podcasts within a contemporary blended environment . Her research identified two important contributions of podcasts to learning which include their use as pedagogical hooks or attention getters and their ability to improve social presence and the sense of proximity between learners and the teacher. Lustigova and Lustig discuss the advantages of elabs, and their abilities to add real life dimensions to face-to-face learning. While their work is in science education, there are significant possibilities for this form of blending in many disciplines through the use of ICT-based simulations. Trentin’s research provides a new and holistic dimension to blended learning with his discussion of sustainable blended solutions. Given the demands of blended learning on teachers,
300
consideration of sustainability is important and this research identifies key dimensions from teachers’ perspectives, which should also benefit institutional planners. Wheeler argues from an entirely pragmatic perspective with his presentation of contemporary learners as nomadic learners and their preferences for personalised learning environments. Following his critique of learning managements systems, he proposed a new technology blend of these and personalised learning environments.
Section 2: Establishing Cmunities The second section of the book examined the role of communities of practice in learning, particularly the issue of workplace communities which were generally face-to-face and their relationships or connection with various formal and informal online communities as a blend to support learning. Smith Ha and Stacey have provided descriptions of different blends of workplace and online communities and identified issues which promote and impede their effectiveness in learning. Especially important is the anchor role of the “rich community of practice” which is predominantly real world, but may also intersect with other internal online communities (via intranets), and external online communities, which might be informal ( professional interest groups) or formal (credentialed courses). One of the key questions in blended learning is the relationship between these real world and virtual communities and this research provides foundational knowledge on this issue. Thompson and Kanuka addressed a significant issue in universities in their discussion of the difficulties of establishing blended communities of practice to support professional development. Their findings on the role of professional development centres in developing and modelling communities, the demand for scalability and the need to take strategic approaches are timely and valuable to the field.
Conclusion
Mackey’s research explicitly extends the blended learning concept to a professional context and provides evidence of the way in which virtual environments can promote learning in workplace communities. Her discussion of variation theory illustrates the ways in which differences might assist learning and she emphasises the need for reflection if discernment is to occur. Riverin’s discussion of K-12 teachers learning through an online community in order to take ICT back to their classrooms provides further illustration of the reach of blended approaches, the difficulties of establishing communities and the imperative of professional learning and lifelong learning. Like other researchers, she noted the importance of face-to-face communication in establishing and sustaining communities and advocated the use of synchronous tools if face-toface communication was not possible to help the social presence of a face-to-face meeting.
Sction 3: Teacher Transitions and Professional Learning. The last section of the book focuses on teachers as they transition into blended teaching practices and the associated issues in professional learning and development. Weisenberg and Stacey began by examining the influence of the two modalities of traditional face-to-face teaching compared to teaching online on teachers’ philosophies of teaching. Of significance is their identification of the development of a complementary approach where insights about teaching formed in the online mode influenced teaching in the face-to-face mode. This provides evidence of the transformative potential of teaching in a different environment and is a good illustration of the role of variation in learning – for teachers. Samarawickrema provides further perspectives on transition in her identification of the main institutional policy, power and political actors for teachers as they developed their practice in blended
learning. Of particular value is her discussion of the infrastructure and policy vacuums which may arise and how these might be addressed in an effective and democratic fashion. Wilson’s work with teachers provides a research-based framework for working in blended environments. Its seven dimensions provide an accessible reference for individual teachers and her recommendations for professional development provide useful advice for institutions, and especially on the value of websites. Gunn and Bake present another approach to transition through their discussion of a formal professional development course for academics which was intended to provide “purposeful and thoughtful integration of face-to-face and online learning with a goal of achieving an optimum blend”. Also significant is their use of a designbased research approach to the development of this new course. Given the widely identified need in the blended learning literature for course redesign rather than simple additions, the approach here, which uses empirical educational research and theory-driven design, provides a good model for this. Robertshaw, Leary, Walker, Bloxham and Recker provide an intriguing example of professional learning with their discussion of reciprocal mentoring. The pairing of teachers with complementary strengths and development needs is a concept that could be adopted in other professional learning contexts and this research, while small in scale indentifies a process needed to create successful learning.
RECOMMENDTIONSFOR PR Blended learning is a practical matter, and even though the research discussed within this text is highly applied, we wanted to make stronger connections between the research and the wider demands of blended learning practice in contem-
301
Conclusion
porary learning settings. Trigwell, Martin, Benjamin and Prosser (2000) advocate reading research as one of a number of a scholarly approaches to improving teaching practice. The practice focus here is therefore an attempt by us to extend the relevance and utility of the research for teachers who venture into this subject, as well as supporting individualised professional learning. We start this section by outlining some of the main challenges to emerge from this text and then present some recommendations for effective practice.
Challenges for Practice One theme that runs throughout all of the different contexts within this text is the absolute strength of face-to-face settings for all kinds of learning, whether it involves students, professionals and or communities of practice. This is not a new issue, and it has always been acknowledged in distance settings. However the introduction of online learning possibilities in conventional campus and workplace settings has highlighted the significance of this issue for learning. The face-to-face setting is foundational in all contexts, and has a historical and experiential legitimacy for everyone. The research indicates that there is a tradition of communication and interaction based on qualities of synchronicity and this has created not only competency but also confidence in the efficacy of face-to-face settings. There are also other more subtle values associated with face-to-face communication, for example, Feenberg talks about a ‘guarantee of authenticity’ (Feenberg, 1989, p.22). At the moment, it is far more difficult to create or develop the same kind of fidelity, comfort or social presence in online spaces and this is one of the most significant challenges for learning in blended environments, whether formal or informal. Another theme that runs through much of the research in this text is the issue of transition – for both learners and also teachers, academic
302
developers and organisations. Major pedagogical aspects of transition relate to understanding the differences between the two environments and how to integrate these, both in terms of formal courses and the relationships between different communities of practice. In practice, the research indicates that this may also involve progressions, sequencing and sustaining interactions in online environments and communities. A consistent comment is that the move from face-to-face to blended teaching requires purposeful and thoughtful redesign and not just additive approaches. The research here indicates that teachers and learners must develop new practices to be effective within a blended learning context. Because learners study across a range of courses, they are more likely to experience a greater diversity of blended approaches (both good and otherwise) and this may give them greater depth of understanding of the two different environments (Gerbic, 2006). However the wider blended learning literature indicates significant issues, for example, with independent learning, time management and online interaction. There appear, now, to be fewer issues with technology and this may be due to the arrival of increasingly digitally literate learners (of all ages) whose capacity may have been developed through the introduction of mobile and Web 2.0 technologies. For teachers, going online and working with text based teaching has created significant challenges which include understanding the distinctive characteristics of the new online environments, adapting teaching styles and reconsidering teaching philosophies, redesigning courses and materials, and adapting their roles and identities in both environments. On a more pragmatic level, the research in this book identifies issues of workload, funding and resources for development, conflicting demands (especially for discipline based research), and uncertain reward systems. Overall, the research on teachers’ perspectives is beginning to show that there is less of a sense of competition between the two media and more
Conclusion
understanding of their complementary nature and that value for learning. An ongoing challenge for teachers and organisations is that of professional learning that is viable for teachers. Modelling blended learning through formal courses is one option, as is reciprocal mentoring. One promising possibility is that of establishing blended communities of practice, however university professional development centres, in this time of transition, are uncertain about their role and methods in cultivating communities of practice, whether a blended model is desirable or achievable and whether the community notion would work across an entire university.
Efective Practice We now make some suggestions for creating effective blended learning practices. Each of the chapters contains detailed recommendations for their particular context. In order to create some coherency for the reader and to provide some broad observations as prompts for reflection, we have drawn these together, with a caveat that we do not make any claims of best practice. A common refrain in the recommendations within chapters was the importance of responsiveness to local contexts and conditions and we would suggest that these circumstances, whether they relate to the institution, its courses, teachers and learners or the wider community be used as an evaluative lens when considering any scholarly literature in the area. One other continuously mentioned factor which needs to be included within the idea of effective practice is that new practices must be sustainable – for learners, teachers, institutions and communities of practice. The research on innovation makes it clear that this is a requirement for long term impact and Littlejohn and Pegler (2007) also recognise this in their discussion of sustainable blended e-learning designs. We now consider effective blended learning and what might be regarded as effective practice
in each of the three contexts relating to the sections within this book.
In Teaching and Learning Effective blended learning must promote high quality learning outcomes, student engagement and positive student learning experiences. These are predominantly pedagogical matters, however if we put students at the centre of learning, then pragmatic matters like flexibility and accessability can quite legitimately be acknowledged as well. Effectiveness in this context must also include high teacher satisfaction, not only with regard to achieving learning outcomes, but also in the sense of a reasonable workload, which allows time for research and scholarship, and recognition of achievement. Some broad suggestions for achieving this come next. With Learners •
•
•
• •
Discuss the differences between the two environments and how they can both contribute to learning and go beyond pragmatic issues like accessibility and talk about their pedagogic value in relation to learning outcomes, for example, the value of online discussions, podcasts and e-labs, Where blended learning includes new student-centred interactive, experiential and reflective activities, introduce these explicitly and monitor learners for their understanding and acceptance of them, especially if they are more familiar with didactic approaches, Create increased relevance of online activities by linking them to professional, workplace and community expectations of graduates, Assess the online aspects of the course to communicate their importance, Consider short, structured podcasts to extend the teachers presence beyond the classroom and build student-teacher relationships,
303
Conclusion
•
•
Think about learners making their own podcasts (or other technological artefacts) as a learning activity and Consider a mixture of learning management systems and personalised leaning environments to provide both institutional services and allow learners the ability to informally learn and communicate.
Teachers Could Consider: •
•
To Best Use the Strengths of the Face-to-Face Environment, in the Classroom
•
Provide rapid feedback on online work, Ensure learners understand course expectations and learning outcomes, Assist learners to develop good relations with peers through purposively guided interaction; Lay a foundation for the next online activity, Recognise spontaneous moments and consider how to best work with a spontaneous pedagogy and Role model processes and values, especially those associated with acculturation into the discipline.
•
• • •
• •
•
•
•
•
Taking a lesser role in online activities, for example, online discussions and including them regularly into classroom activity, Modelling and devising interactive strategies to influence students activities from the beginning to take advantage of the concept of imprinting, Careful selecting of interactive technologies and pedagogies to maximise learning outcomes, E-writing effort as an indicator of a student’s progress or otherwise in the course, Ways in which their online teaching experiences differ from their face-to-face teaching as a prompt for reflection on improving their teaching practice, Whether and how their roles might be changing as they work more as a learning process facilitator and how this impacts on their planning and time, for example, reading emails, moderating online discussions, preparing and repurposing course materials and The impact of blended learning on student workloads, as well as their own.
To Integrate the Face-to-Face and Virtual Environments
Learning Designers Could:
•
•
• •
• •
•
304
Identify the strengths of each medium for their learning outcomes and translating these into the design of activities, Ensure that online activities are assessed, Reduce the amount of face-to-face contact time and providing substantial online activities; Connect the weekly face-to-face class topics to the online activities, Include activities in class which prepare students for online work, for example, giving and receiving feedback and critique and Provide regular and consistent feedback in class about online activities.
•
•
•
Consider redesign rather than additive treatments, Deliberate on frameworks for redesign, for example, the Technology –Mediated framework, and the Dimensions of Learning Environments framework, Consider design-based research as a process for blended learning design, and as a basis for continuous monitoring and feedback to evaluate learner and teacher progress with the new design, Focus, if possible, on program rather than individual course levels to ensure a richer
Conclusion
•
•
•
•
•
and more holistic environment for student learning, Build new programs based on educational principles first, not the potential of technologies, Recognise that incremental development will occur during implementation, and use the educational principles of the program to balance emerging technologies and new pedagogies, Work in teams rather than as individuals to obtain the benefits of multiple perspectives on design issues and an increase in the sense of ownership and commitment to the new program or course, Pay particular attention to staff support and staff development especially in the early stages of the redesign process and Include regular evaluation and enhancement procesess.
Establishing and Building Communities •
•
•
•
For Communities of Practice Effective blended learning in communities of practice should revolve around the particular shared and situated practice and authentic activities, involve a sense of belonging to the community and the creation of meaning through experience. To be effective, learning needs to be reflective, collaborative, situated and capable of being integrated with the learners’ other communities of practice, especially their work. Pragmatically, members need time and easy access to the community, to be encouraged to engage in active rather than only peripheral participation, and to be able to create trust or empathy with the other members. Learning communities that are created around formal learning, for example, a qualification, if well designed and facilitated may be more cohesive than those that are created for more informal learning purposes, for example, some forms of professional development and this needs to be taken into account when effectiveness is considered. Some suggestions for effective practice follow.
•
Consider the effects of the wider context on the online community, for example, the nature of the group, its tasks, the relationship of individual learners to the informal collaborative group, and the surrounding organisational culture. Consider whether involvement in the online community is mandated or voluntary and the impact this might have on participation. Address exhaustion and information overload for busy professionals with intuitive access points and scaffolded participation through scheduled online activities as well as unscheduled sessions. Create face-to-face opportunities to meet other participants. Where this is not possible, consider tools (for example, videoconferencing and web cameras) so that community members can meet and get to know each other in more depth and feel more at ease with each other. For professional development communities in universities, keep in mind that such communities need a high level of effort and commitment, a champion and a clear purpose.
Integration of Communities •
•
•
Consider the learners’ other face-to-face communities or collaborations outside the institution ( for example, in their workplace or wider communities ) and integrate these into the design and teaching of the course. In university professional development settings, facilitate the integration of micro-communities into the bigger university community. Professional Development Centres should ideally model blended approaches.
305
Conclusion
Learning Design and Communities Consider an intentional course design which promotes and encourages: • •
• •
Variation in participants’ experiences, Reflection through directed activities which highlight aspects of both virtual and real contexts, Interaction in both virtual and real contexts and Negotiation of relevant learning and assessment activities so that participants can align course work with workplace needs and opportunities.
For Teacher Transitions and Professional Learning Effective blended learning in professional development contexts should promote the construction of new knowledge about learning and educational processes, encourage reflection on teaching and learning within philosophical frameworks, particularly through communities of peers, and develop relevant skills for specific educational purposes and processes. Pragmatically, professional learning needs to be timely and relevant, accessable in terms of other commitments and able to provide sustained support beyond any course or event. Some Suggestions for Effective Practice •
•
306
Recognise that putting traditional faceto-face courses online requires a different approach to the professional development of academic staff, and pay particular attention to academic role definitions, blended pedagogies, and course conceptualization and development . Include ICT skills (and an understanding of the strengths and limitations of ICT), working with digital resources and repurposing
•
•
•
•
•
them and associated skills, for example, working in teams. Evaluate the role of supporting websites and ensure that they provide opportunities for interactivity, social learning, and knowledge sharing and that they showcase effective practice and publish teacher and student evaluations of innovations in blended learning. Use situated learning as a framework for professional learning which includes faceto-face and online discussion and collaboration, and combining pedagogical theory with the practical aspects of teaching with technologies, for teachers’ own local contexts. Use a blended community of practice model and create opportunities for teachers to get together to facilitate relationship building, advertise what the community can offer and develop activities that clearly belong to the community. Use a community of inquiry model (Garrison and Vaughan, 2008) that offers opportunities for teachers to reflect and discuss course redesign with their peers, experience a blended learning environment from the student perspective, with ready access to instructional design and evaluation support. Consider reciprocal mentoring between an experienced teacher who is inexperienced in ICT and another teacher who is experienced in ICT but has less teaching experience. Both parties must be willing to learn from each other, be committed to supporting each other and respect and trust each other
THEFUTURETIONS OFBLENDEDrning Blended learning is a comparatively recent phenomenon in university settings, and its implications are now emerging at different levels. Many
Conclusion
of them include factors such as transition and change, the impact or otherwise of technology and the rise of globalisation. Drawing from the researchers’ discussions in this book, we now reflect on some implications arising for three central participants in blended learning; learners, teachers and universities.
For Students, Learners and their Larning The research in this book has discussed learners with a wide range of needs or goals which include students enrolled in a first degree, teachers and other workers enrolled in advanced qualifications, university teachers wanting to improve their teaching and learning knowledge formally and informally and industry workers wanting to increase their knowledge informally. While this illustrates the widely acknowledged diversity of learners today, it also indicates that the nature of much work today is such that that life-long learning is inevitable and with it comes a greater convergence of work and/with learning and the merging of various and often overlapping on and off campus learning communities, and communities of practice. In this scenario, there is likely to be a wider range of interpersonal communications in learning, with technology having a foundational and central role in linking and connecting learning and working and the social aspects of life. In future, the trend of learner diversity is likely to continue with its variation in terms of age, study skills, academic literacy, culture, work and family responsibilities and aspirations. Today, learners, especially those who are younger, have far more complex and multidimensional life patterns which include working and studying and disjointed and deferred career development, often for economic reasons. For women, there are additional challenges as they balance private family arrangements with the public demands of work and study (Wyn and Dyer, 2000). The authors in this text also discuss the varying degrees of
ICT comfort which exist, ranging from nomadic learners and those for whom social networking tools are part of their life through to those who are ICT challenged and hesitant. Equally or more important is the nature of prior learning experiences which may have been highly didactic with little or no interaction or active learning. Blended learning will continue to extend and support a wider range of interpersonal connections, whether in conventional courses or via communities of practice through online, and particularly asynchronous interaction and communication environments. Now much of this emanates from learning management systems but other new technologies will be constantly integrated into face-to-face learning, such as the podcats, e-labs and Web 2.0 tools discussed herein. Issues around the technology comfort of learners are likely to reduce as there is an overall accretion of confidence of all learners with Internet, Web 2.0 and mobile technologies. For learners in blended environments, there are both pedagogical and pragmatic implications. The current value of blended learning is generally perceived to be related to its flexibility, rather than its value for learning. There is evidence that some learners understand the complementary nature of blended environments and its value for their learning, for example, the value of online discussions for supporting reflective thinking and more considered text-based communication, however, this is not widely understood. Despite the rapid rise of social networking sites and the development of a web presence through blogs and Internet sites such as You Tube, there is far lesser engagement with virtual environments in blended learning, and such lack of understanding will reduce the potential value of blended environments for learners. This may be connected with learners’ expectations of the university as a real world campus-based experience, and the legitimacy of online learning within a face-to-face tradition of university learning. Equally important for learners in blended environments is their ability to work indepen307
Conclusion
dently, to manage their time and to understand the value of interaction, discussion and working in teams for learning. Blended environments may better support learners for whom the language of instruction is a second language by removing the cognitive load which is often present in face-toface classes and providing more time for reflection and communication through asynchronous modes. There is also potential for using both face-to-face and online discussion environments to ameliorate issues of language competence and cultural or gender confidence and enabling learners to participate in more enjoyable and constructive learning processes. This issue has been documented especially within undergraduate settings( for example, Gerbic, 2006), however a global employment market and migration mean that there are similar issues for professional learning and communities of practice. For all learners, whether they are undergraduate students, learners within a community of practice or university teachers enagaged in professional development, there are significant issues to be addressed involving changing life habits to make room for active participation within online learning and communities. It is rather ironic that this actuality is somewhat different from the espoused flexibility of online discussions and communities and it may be that in future, new value will be identified in the time and place boundedness of face-to-face learning. While the Digital Divide may be a contestable notion, it is now regularly used to refer to ICT competence rather than those who can and cannot afford technology (Underwood, 2007). The provision of blended learning, provided that it is accompanied by access to technology, is one way to embark on a strategy of digital inclusion, either directly through professional learning or indirectly through experiencing learning in a blended environment. While we tend to think of the digital divide as something which affects learners and their ability to learn, we should also consider the likelihood of the same occurring now
308
between students and their teachers. Underwood (2007) argues that this manifests itself in teacher’s negative views on texting, which is often regarded as an impoverishment of the language, and on the lack of cognitive value in gaming. She points out that there is also a significantly larger divide since the introduction of technology between teachers’ views of academic honesty in assessment and some students’ views of the value of the Internet, cutting and pasting and mobile phones for passing courses.
For Teachers, Academic Developers, Fcilitators and Mentors The nature of learning and learners today means that there are a wide range of people involved with this process, with an enormous diversity in roles, including teachers, academic developers, facilitators, mentors, community leaders and moderators. This variation in roles within blended environments combined with broader factors such as curriculum and technology change means that teaching practice is and will be carried out in a climate of transition. We discuss two aspects of that transition and its implications for teachers, being those of developing a blended learning pedagogy and teachers’ practice and professional learning. A significant issue for blended pedagogies is that of learning design. At a simplistic level, two issues emerge, which are working to the strengths of face-to-face and virtual environments and what has been more recently identified in the research as effective integration of virtual technologies into face-to-face learning settings, whether they be classrooms, workplaces or other settings. Each new technology will have its own strengths and weaknesses, however, what may be more important is to build a new practice around how best to integrate and connect technologies to face-to-face settings, and especially, how to leverage learners’ and teachers’ face-to-face experiences to create social comfort and presence in virtual environ-
Conclusion
ments. While learners are attracted to blended environments because of their time and place flexibility, they also want connection. Garrison and Vaughan (2008) have provided a conceptual framework with their Community of Inquiry which will provide a theoretically sound and empirically based framework for development, and Littlejohn and Pegler (2007) provide a comprehensive teachers’ guide to blended e-learning. Such frameworks need multiple implementations to address the complexities of different blended learning settings and there is room for other blended learning frameworks, especially those that might support the kinds of constructivist approaches that have been discussed in this text, especially for professional learning and learning communities. The discussions herein concerning variation theory provide some illustrations of how complementary pedagogic frameworks might be framed. One dimension of the complexity of blended learning is that of the different discipline or professional contexts, especially their different emphases on knowledge structures and techniques as opposed to the more interpretive or discursive subjects. These differences could simply imply the use of different technologies within the blend but, more significant is the issue of the learning design and more responsive blended learning frameworks. In the case of professional learning, which has a somewhat different purpose, blended learning may need to be reconceptualised to provide meaningful workplace learning and a more effective role for online communities. The role of the teacher, facilitator or moderator within any blended learning environment will need special consideration within any framework and will be based on that person’s philosophies of learning and teaching Teachers’ practice will become increasingly affected by their involvement with blended learning. For many teachers, this will initially be concerned with transporting and adapting their face-to-face expertise to online environments. However, research from within this text has shown that insights
may also be transferred from online classes that of face-to-face teaching and can improve such classes through the introduction of more learnercentred approaches. This would indicate that the addition of online to face-to-face teaching can be transformational and confirms teachers as critical thinkers and reflective practitioners. It may also be further evidence of variation theory at work. It is also important to note the influence of institutional factors on the development of a blended teaching practice, especially those related to workload, rewards and the amount of experience of the teacher. Quite apart from the addition of new roles such as course redesign, resources development and online teaching, teachers will also be learners as they construct their own blended learning practice. While professional learning is widely acknowledged within universities, and there are traditions of face-to-face seminars and conferences, the blended approaches described in this text favour different strategies which emphasize situated and experiential philosophies and the development of communities of learners, all of which will place very different demands on teachers. University and other teachers have not easily adopted blended learning within their courses and schools and the establishment of blended professional development communities within universities and their courses has been difficult to establish. While this could be attributed to the Digital Divide (discussed above), it is also important to recognise that teachers, as well learners, are constantly becoming digitally literate as technology become increasingly embedded within their natural worlds and this also has the potential to move to teaching practice where technology is simply a part of the learning environment and the emphasis is on pedagogy.
For Universities A number of institutional issues concerning the development of blended learning have been identi-
309
Conclusion
fied within this text, including those relating to academics and teaching, professional development and learning communities and the introduction of new technologies. Other factors which are likely to influence the successful introduction of e-learning within an institution include funding, which is often for short term projects, the complexity of technology development and the associated demands on time, the importance of collaboration, addressing the risks involved and unintended outcomes and the importance of dissemination of the outcomes ( Conole, Smith and White, 2007). Consequently, there are a number of areas where institutions needs to recognise and support the value of blended learning expertise. One of the most important, and this is well recognised in the research, is that of addressing workload issues and recognise the extra demands beyond face-to-face teaching, particularly at the beginning of blended learning. Closely associated with this is the need to develop clear policy about rewards and incentives, funding for time buyout to develop courses, technical support and professional learning and certification. The development of e-learning appears to have been often accompanied by inadequate institutional infrastructure and policy frameworks, for example, in the areas of workloads and intellectual property. In order to build robust policies, institutions should consider cross-university policy conversations, seek active participation by academics and carry out widespread communication at the grass roots level. There also appears to be a gap between high level university policy and its translation into faculty or school contexts and also variability between faculties as to the application of unviersty policies. Addressing this will help to improve commitment by academics and other staff to blended learning if the implementation of policies relating to such matters as career, workload, pedagogy and intellectual property are more transparent and consistent across different contexts.
310
One essential matter for institutions is the place of professional learning and the need to recognize blended learning and communities of practice as strategic objectives. There are important discussions to be held about effective ways to establish communities of practice through professional development centres, and the best ways to lead, manage and sustain such communities. While this is applicable to formal communities which may be established through cohort and courses, there is also the possibility of more informal or organic communities and how and whether a university might support them in their professional learning.
FURTHERRESEDIRECTIONS There are many suggestions for further research in this text and we would like to close with some broader suggestions relating more widely to blended learning. Bluic et al (2006), in their review of student learning experiences, indicate that for the field to mature, complementary methodologies are needed as well as an understanding of whole systems and their interrelationships and the tensions between the parts of the whole and its totality. We would agree with this and point out that there is a paucity of research which explicitly investigates blended pedagogies for professional learning and sustaining communities and identify this as a priority. Some other worthwhile areas are: • •
•
Mechanisms and approaches to improve integration of the two environments. Development and implementation of blended frameworks for different learning settings. The best pedagogic uses for face-to-face settings. Because we are highly familiar with this aspect of blended learning environments, knowledge about effective practice is
Conclusion
•
•
• • • •
assumed, despite the widespread tradition and acceptance of the lecture. Creating greater learner and teacher/ moderator comfort in online communication settings and how this might be leveraged from face-to-face settings or other synchronous online technologies. The role of blended practices in sustaining professional learning and learning communities. Learner perspectives. The role of the teacher/moderator/facilitator in blended settings. The role and value of technologies other than LMS in blended learning. Research in settings which are not concerned with teacher education or ICT education or workers.
A Postscript… The focus of this book has been on ICT-facilitated blended learning. However, an interesting question is that of when we will stop referring to blended learning as being a separate form of learning from others, and instead is simply part of the usual variety of experiences for all learners and part of every teacher’s pedagogy. This is not to say that every course or learning experience should be a blended one, but that blended learning should be simply regarded as part and parcel of the teaching and learning palette. Given that ICT in a myriad of forms is steadily increasing its presence across the world, and that new generations of learners and teachers are becoming increasingly digitally literate, that time may not be far away.
REFERENCES Bluic, A., Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Research focus and methodological choices in studies
into students’ experiences of blended learning. Internet and Higher Education, 10(4), 231-244. Conole, G., White, S., & Oliver, M. (2007). The impact of e-learning on organisational roles and structures. In G. Conole & M. Oliver (Eds.), Comtemporary perspectives in e-learning research: themes, methods and impact on practice. London: Routledge. Feenberg, A. (1989). The Written World : On the Theory and Practice of Computer Conferencing. In R. Mason & A. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press. http://www-icdl.open. ac.uk/mindweave/resopurce2 accessed 09/08/00 Garrison, R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105. Garrison, R., & Vaughan, H. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles and guidelines. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Gerbic, P. (2006). On-campus students’ learning in asynchronous environments. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Deakin University, Melbourne. Littlejohn, A., & Pegler, C. (2007). Preparing for Blended e-Learning. London: Routledge. Trigwell, K., Martin, E., Benjamin, J., & Prosser, M. (2000). Scholarship of Teaching: A model. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(2), 155-168. Underwood, J. (2007). Rethinking the Digital Divide: Impacts on student-tutor relationships. European Journal of Education, 42(2), 213-222. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. Wyn, J., & Dwyer, P. (2000). New patterns of youth transition. Unesco 2000, 147-159.
311
312
Compilation of References
Abt, G., & Barry, T. (2007). The Quantitative Effect of Students Using Podcasts in a First Year Undergraduate Exercise Physiology Module. Bioscience Education e-Journal, 10. Retrived October 10, 2007, from http:// www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol10/beej10-8.pdf Agostinho, S., Oliver, R., Harper, B., Hedberg, J., & Wills, S. (2002). A tool to evaluate the potential for an ICT-based learning design to foster high quality learning. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Conference of ASCILITE, Auckland, NZ. Alexander, J. W., Polyakova-Norwood, V., Johnston, L. W., Christensen, P., & Loquist, R. S. (2003). Collaborative development and evaluation of an online nursing course, Distance Education, 24(1), 41- 56. Alexander, R., Wilson, J., & Hovell, S. (2001). Developing an ICT plan for professional development. In K. Lai (Ed.), elearning: Teaching and Professional Development with the Internet. Otago, NZ: University of Otago Press. Allan, B. (2007). Blended Learning: Tools for Teaching and Training. London: Facet Publishing. Allan, B., & Lewis, D. (2006). The impact of membership of a virtual learning community on individual learning careers and professional identity. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(6), 841-852. Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., & Garrett, R. (2007). Blending in. The extent and promise of blended learning in the United States. Sloan-C Report. Retrieved on April 9, from http://www.blendedteaching.org/system/files/ Blending_In.pdf
American Association of Physics Teachers (1977), compiled (1999). A Guide to Introductory Physics Teaching, from http://www.aapt.org/Policy/goaloflabs.cfm Anderson, B. (2004). Dimensions of learning and support in an online community. Open Learning, 19(2), 183-190. Anderson, B. (2005). Interaction and control in online communities. In K. W. Lai (Ed.), e-Learning communities. Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago Press. Anderson, B. (2006). Writing power into online discussion. Computers and Composition, 23, 108-124. Anderson, B., & Simpson, M. (2004). Learning and affective support in small group and class contexts. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(3). Retrieved February 7, 2005 from http:// www.irrodl.org/content/v5.3/ander-simp.html Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing environment. Retrieved July 12, 2004, from http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/jaln-vol5issue2v2.htm Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks (JALN), 5(2), 1-17. Aniebonam, M. C. (2002). Improving Human Capital Development in Africa through Effective Distance Education. In Internet and Multimedia Systems and Applications Conference Proceedings.
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Compilation of References
Applebee, A. C., Ellis, R. C., & Sheely, S. D. (2004). Developing a blended learning community at the University of Sydney: Broadening the comfort zone. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer, & R. Phillips (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference 5-8 December, Perth. Retrieved 5 April 2007 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/ applebee.html Arbaugh, J. (2000). Virtual classroom versus physical classroom: An exploratory study of class discussion patterns and student learning in an asynchronous Internetbased MBA course. Journal of Management Education, 24(2), 213-233. Archer, W., Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Rourke, L. (2001). A framework for analysing critical thinking in computer conferences. Paper presented at the European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Maastricht. Aspden, L., & Helm, P. (2004). Making the connection in a blended learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 245-252. Aspden, L., & Helm, P. (2004). Making the connection in a blended learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 245-252. Attwell, G. (2005). E-learning and sustainability. EdTechPost: Technology for Learning, Thinking and Collaborating. Retrieved August 17, 2006 from http:// www.ossite.org/Members/GrahamAttwell/sustainibility/attach/sustainibility4.doc Ausburn, L. J. (2004). Course design elements most valued by adult learners in blended online education environments: An American perspective. Educational Media International, 41(4), 327-337. Bain, J., McNaught, C., Mills, C., & Lueckenhausen, G. (1998). Understanding CLF practices in higher education in terms of academics’ educational beliefs: Enhancing Reeves’ analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE), December 12-14, Wollongong, Australia.
Baird, I., Peacock, D., Dobbins, S., & Walton, G. (2006). Exploring health pre-registration students use of learning resources whilst on clinical placement: Replication of case study at Northumbria and Teesside Universities, UK. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 23(4), 286-290. Baldwin-Evans, K. (2006). Key steps to implementing a successful blended learning strategy, Industrial and Commercial Training, 38(3), 156-163. Ballantyne, R., Green, A., Yarrow, A., Millwater, J. (1999). Reciprocal mentoring: Preparatory learning materials for teacher development. Teacher Development, 3(1), 79-94. Bannon, L. (1997). Activity Theory. University of Limerick. Retrieved November, 2004, from: http://www. sv.cict.fr/cotcos/pjs/TheoreticalApproaches/Actvity/ActivitypaperBannon.htm Barab, S. A., &, Duffy, T. M. (2000). From Practice Fields to Communities of Practice. (2000) in D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments (pp. 25-55). Mahwah, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Barab, S., Kling, R., & Gray, J. (2004). Introduction: Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning. In S. Barab & R. Kling & J. Gray (Eds.), Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of learning (pp. 3-15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barab, S., MaKinster, J., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Designing System Dualities: Characterizing an Online Professional Development Community. In S. Barab & R. Kling & J. Gray (Eds.), Designing Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning (pp. 53-90). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barab, S., Schatz, S., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Using activity theory to conceptualize online community and using online community to conceptualize activity theory. Mind, Culture and Activity, 11(1), 25-47. Barnum, C. & Paarman, W. (2002). Bringing induction to the teacher: A blended learning model. THE Journal 30(2), 56-60.
313
Compilation of References
Bates, A. W. (1997). Restructuring the University for Technological Change. Paper delivered at Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching – What Kind of University? London, June, 1997. Retrieved April 11, 2008, from http://bates.cstudies.ubc.ca/carnegie/carnegie.html. Bates, A. W., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bates, A.W. (2000). Managing technological change: Strategies for college and university leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Baym, N. K. (1998). The emergence of on-line community. In S.G. Jones (Ed.), CyberSociety 2.0: Revisiting computer-mediated communication and community (pp. 35-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Becher T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Beetham, H., & Sharpe, E. (2007). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age. Designing and delivering e-learning. London: Routledge. Bell, F. (2003). Framing e-learning communities within a wider context. In Cook, J. & McConnell, D. (Eds.), ALTC 2003 Research Proceedings, Communities of Practice (pp. 13-26). 8-10 September, Sheffield University: UK. Bell, M., & Bell, W. (2005). It’s installed ... now get on with it! Looking beyond the software to the cultural change. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 643-656. Bell, M., Bush, D., Nicholson, P., O’Brien, D., & Tran, T. (2002). Universities online. A survey of online education and services in Australia. Canberra, ACT: Department of Education, Science and Training. Retrieved February 7, 2008, from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/publications_resources/summaries_brochures/ universities_online.htm
314
Bereiter, C. (1994). Constructivism, Socioculturalism and Popper’s World 3. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 21-23. Berlin, L. M. (1993). Beyond programming understanding: a look at programming expertise in industry. In C. R. Cook, J. C. Scholtz & J. C. Spohrer (Eds.), Empirical studies of programmers: fifth workshop (pp. 6-25). New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Company. Bernard, R. M., Rojo de Rubalcava, B., & St-Pierre, D. (2000). Collaborative online distance learning: Issues for future practice and research, Distance Education, 21(2), 260-277. Bersin & Associates (2003). Blended Learning: what works? Retrieved February 4, 2008 from http://www. e-learningguru.com/wpapers/blended_bersin.doc Bersin, J. (2004). The Blended Learning Book. San Francisco: John Wiley Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed.). Berkshire: Open University Press. Bigum, C. (2001). Actor-network theory and online university teaching: Translation vs diffusion. In L. Rowan & B. A. Knight (Eds.), Researching futures oriented pedagogies (pp. 7-22). Flaxton, Qld: Post Press. Bigum, C., Green, B., Fitzclarence, L., & Kenway, J. (1993). Multimedia and monstrosities: Reinventing computing in schools again? Australian Educational Computing, 8, 43-49. Billett, S. (1996). Situated learning: bridging sociocultural and cognitive theorising, Learning and Instruction, 6(3), 263-280. Billett, S. R. (2001). Learning in the workplace: Strategies for effective practice. Crows Nest NSW: Allen & Unwin. Bird, L. (2001). Virtual learning in the workplace: the power of ‘communities of practice’. Paper presented at the Meeting at the Crossroads. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, December 9-12, Melbourne.
Compilation of References
Blackmore, P., & Blackwell, R. (2006). Strategic leadership in academic development. Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 373-387. Blanchette, J. (2001). Questions in the online learning environment. Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l’enseignement à distance, 16(2), 37-57. Retrieved February 2008, from: http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol16.2/ blanchette.html. Bleed, R. (2001). A hybrid campus for the new millennium. Educause, Jan/Feb, 17-24. Bleed, R. (2006). The IT leader as alchemist: Finding the true gold. EDUCAUSE review, January/February, 33-42. Bliuc, A., Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Research focus and methodological choices in studies into students’ experiences of blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(4), 231-244. Bonk, C. J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Searching for learner-centered, constructivist and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic Collaborators: Learner-centred technologies for literacy, apprenticeship and discourse (pp. 25-50). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (Eds.). (2006). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Bonk, C. J., & Kim, K. A. (1998). Extending sociocultural theory to adult learning. In M. C. Smith & T. Pourchot (Eds.), Adult learning and development: Perspectives from educational psychology (pp. 67-88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bonk, C. J., Kim, K., & Zeng, T. (2006). Future Directions of Blended Learning in Higher Education and Workplace Learning Settings. In C. J. Bonk, & C. R. Graham (Eds), The Handbook of Blended Learning: global perspectives, local designs (pp. 550-567). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Bonk, C. J., Olson, T. M., Wisher, R. J., & Orvis, K. L. (2002). Learning from focus groups: An examination of blended learning. Journal of Distance Education, 17(3), 97-118. Bouvin, N. O., Christensen, B. G., Hansen, F. A., & Nielsen, K. L. (2005). Supporting mobile and nomadic learning. In WWW ‘05: Workshop Proceedings of the 14th international conference on World Wide Web. Available at: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/article/bouvin05supporting. html Retrieved 19 March, 2008. Boyer, E. (1999). Scholarship reconsidered. Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Boyle, T. (2005). A dynamic systematic method for developing blended learning. Education Communication and Information, 5(3), 221-232. Bridge, P., & Appleyard, R. (2005). System failure: A comparison of electronic and paper-based assignment submission, marking, and feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 669-671. Brill, J., Bishop, M., & Walker, A. (2006). An investigation into the competencies required of an effective project manager: A web-based delphi study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 54(2), 115-140. Brook, C., & Oliver, R. (2003). Online learning communities: investigating a design framework. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(2), 139-160. Brook, C., & Oliver, R. (2003). Online learning communities: Investigating a design framework. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(2), 139-160. Brookfield, S. (1995). Adult learning: an overview. In A. Tuinjman (Ed.), International encyclopedia of education. Retrieved June 28, 2008, from http://www.fsu. edu/~elps/ae/download/ade5385/Brookfield.pdf Brookfield, S. (2000). Adult cognition as a dimension of lifelong learning. In J. Field & M. Leicester (Eds.), Lifelong learning: Education across the lifespan (pp. 89-101). London: Routledge Falmer.
315
Compilation of References
Brookfield, S., & Preskill, S. (1999). Discussion as a Way of Teaching. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. Brown, L., Murphy, E., & Wade, V. (2006). Corporate e-learning: Human resource development implications for large and small organizations. Human Resource Development International, 9(3), 415-427. Brown, M., & Edelson, D. (2003) Teaching as design: Can we better understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support their change in practice? (Design Brief). Evanston, IL: Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools. Bruce, C., Edwards, S., & Lupton, M. (2006). Six frames for information literacy education: A conceptual framework for interpreting the relationships between theory and practice. Italics, 5(1), 1-18. Bruneau, E., & Lacroix, M. (2001, November). Information sector: towards a 2007 classification. Paper presented at the ACN conference, Paris, France. Bullen, M. (1998). Participation and critical thinking in online university distance education. Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l’enseignement à distance, 13(2), 1-32. Retrieved February 01, 2008, from: http://cade. athabascau.ca/vol13.2/bullen.html. Bullough, R. V., Young, J., Erickson, L., Birrell, J., Clark, D. C., Egan, M. W., et. al. (2002). Rethinking field experience: Partnership teaching versus singleplacement teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, (53) 68, 68-80. Bunker, A., & Vardi, I. (2001). Why use the online environment with face to face students? Insights from early adopters. Short Paper Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE) (pp. 111-116). Melbourne: Biomedical Multimedia Unit, University of
316
Melbourne. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http:// www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne01/pdf/papers/bunkera.pdf Burge, E., Laroque, D., & Boak, C. (2000). Baring professional souls: Reflections on web life. Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l’enseignement à distance, 15(1), 81-98. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from: http://cade. athabascau.ca/vol15.1/burge.html. CAD contributes to National e-Learning Guidelines Project (2008, July). aCADemix, 4, 10. Cahoon, B. (1998). Adult learning and the Internet: Themes and things to come. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 78, 71-76. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Callon, M., Law, J., & Rip, A. (1986). How to study the force of science. In M. Callon, J. Law & A. Rip (Eds.), Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: Sociology of science in the real world (pp. 3-18). London: Macmillan Press. Campbell, G. (2005). There’s Something in the Air: Podcasting in Education. EDUCAUSE, (pp. 33-46). Carlen, U., & Jobring, O. (2005). The rationale of online learning communities. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 1(3), 272-295. Carvalho, A. A. (2008). Master Students’ Reactions to Peer Review. Paper presented at 53rd International Council on Education for Teaching - World Assembly, Braga, Portugal. Cavanaugh, C. (2004). Email in the Workplace: Coping with Overload. London: University of Western Ontario (Retrieved from author November, 2005). Cebeci, Z., & Tekdal, M. (2006). Using Podcasts as Audio Learning Objects. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 2, 47-57. Retrieved
Compilation of References
May 19, 2007, from http://ijklo.org/Volume2/v2p047057Cebeci.pdf
ence and the Science of Learning. (pp. 85–97). National Science Teachers Association. Washington. DC.
Chan, A., Lee, M., & McLoughlin, C. (2006). Everyone’s learning with podcasting: A Charles Sturt University experience. Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference: Who’s learning? Whose technology? - ASCILITE 2006? (pp. 111-120). Sydney: The University of Sydney. Retrieved March, 15, 2007 from http://www.ascilite.org. au/conferences/sydney06/proceeding/pdf_papers/p171. pdf
Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13-20.
Chandra, V., & Lloyd, M. (2008). The methodological nettle: ICT and student achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1087-1098. Chapman, C., Ramondt, L., & Smiley, G. (2005). Strong community, deep learning: exploring the link. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 42(3), 217-230. Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. (2004). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. Assessed May 5th, 2004 at http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven. html Christensen, T. (2003). Finding the balance: Constructivist pedagogy in a blended course. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(4), 235-243. Chu, C. M., & Hernandez-Carrion, J. R. (2006). Harnessing ICT to develop community and identity: a model for academic departments. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 2(1), 70-80. Clark, I., & James, P. (2005). Blended learning: an approach to delivering science courses online. Proceedings of the Blended Learning in Science Teaching and Learning Symposium, 30 September 2005, The University of Sydney: UniServe Science, (pp. 19-24). Clarke, A., Lewis, D., Cole, I., & Ringrose, L. (2005). A strategic approach to developing e-learning capability for healthcare. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 22(2), 33-41. Clough, M. P. (2002). Using the laboratory to enhance student learning. In R. W. Bybee (Ed.), Learning Sci-
Collins, B., & Van der Wende, M. (2002). Models of technology and change in higher education: an international comparative survey on the current and future use of ICT in higher education (Technical Report). Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies. Collis, B., Bianco, M., Margaryan, A. & Waring, B. (2005). Putting Blended Learning to Work:a case study from a multinational oil company. Education, Communication & Information, 5(3), 233-250. Chute, A.G., Williams, J.O.D. & Hancock, B.W. (2006). Transformation of sales skills through knowledge management and blended learning. In C.Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Globalperspectives, local designs (pp. 105-119). San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons. Collis, B. & Strijker, A. (2004). Technology and human issues in reusing learning objects. Journal of Interactive Media in Education(4), Special Issue on the Educational Semantic Web. Retrieved February 27, 2008, from http:// www-jime.open.ac.uk/2004.4 Collis, B. (1997). Pedagogical reengineering: A pedagogical approach to course enrichment and redesign with the WWW. Educational Technology Review (Autumn/ Winter 1997), 11-15. Collis, B. (1998). New didactics for university instruction: why and how? Computers & Education, 31, 373-393. Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world. London, UK: Kogan Page. Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2007). The Contributing Student: Philosophy, Technology and Strategy. In M. Spector (Ed.), Finding Your Online Voice: Stories Told by Experienced Online Educators (pp. 19-31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Collis, B., & van der Wende, M. (2002). Models of technology and change in higher education: An inter-
317
Compilation of References
national comparative survey on the current and future use of ICT in higher education Netherlands: Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies, Universiteit Twente http://www.utwente.nl/cheps/documenten/ictrapport. pdf. [accessed 15 August 2008] Collis, B., Bianco, M., Margaryan, A., & Waring, B. (2005). Putting Blended Learning to Work: a case study from a multinational oil company. Education, Communication & Information, 5(3), 233-250. Comeaux, P., & McKenna-Byington, E. (2003). Computer-mediated communication in online and conventional classrooms: Some implications for instructional design and professional development programs. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(4), 348-355. Computing Research Association. (2005). Cyberinfrastructure for education and learning for the future: A vision and research agenda. Washington, DC. Concannon, F., Flynn, A., & Campbell, M. (2005). What campus-based students think about the quality and benefits of e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 501-512.
Conole & M. Oliver (Eds.), Comtemporary perspectives in e-learning research:themes, methods and impact on practice. London: Routledge. Cook, K., Owston, R., & Garrison, R. (2004). Blended learning practices at COHERE universities. Technical report 2004-5. Toronto: York University Institute for Research on Learning Technologies. Retrieved February 17, 2008, from http://www.yorku.ca/irlt/reports/BLtechnicalreportfinal.pdf Cooper, S. (2004). This is the Learning Theories Web. Retrieved 22 June, 2004, from http//:www.konnections. net/lifecircles/constructivism.htm. Cottrell, D., & Robison, R. (2006). Blended learning in an accounting course. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 261-269. Coupal, L. (2004). Constructivist learning theory and human capital theory: shifting political and educational frameworks for teachers’ ICT professional development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 5(35), 587596.
Conner, C. (2004). Professional development for the future by building on the past. Teacher Development, 7(1), 91-106.
Cox, G., Carr, T., & Hall, M. (2004) Evaluating the use of synchronous communication in two blended courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 183–193.
Connery, A., & Hasan, H. (2005). Social and commercial sustainability of regional web-based communities. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 1(3), 246-261.
Cox, R. (2005). Online education as institutional myth: Rituals and realities at community colleges. Accessed January 25th, 2008 at http://www.tcrecord.org/Content. asp?ContentID=12095
Conole, G. (2003). Understanding Enthusiasm and Implementation: Elearning Research Questions and Methodological Issues. In J. Seale (Ed.), Learning Technology in Transition: From Individual Enthusiasm to Institutional Implementation (pp. 129-146). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Cragg, C. E., Dunning, J., & Ellis, J. (2008). Teacher and student behaviours in face-to-face and on-line courses: dealing with complex concepts. Journal of Distance Education, 23(3), 1-13.
Conole, G., & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the affordances of information and communication technologies? ALT-J, 12(2), 113-124. Conole, G., White, S., & Oliver, M. (2007). The impact of e-learning on organisational roles and structures. In G.
318
Craig, E. M. (2007). Changing paradigms: Managed learning environments and Web 2.0. Campus Wide Information Systems, 24(3), 152-161. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing among five traditions. London: Sage Publications.
Compilation of References
Cross, J. (2005). Informal Learning. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publications.
reflections. Retrieved July 14, 2007 from http://eprints. ecs.soton.ac.uk/14600/
Cross, J. (2006). Foreword In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. xvii -xxiii). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Davis, H. C., & Fill, K. (2007). Embedding blended learning in a university’s teaching culture: Experiences and reflections. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(5), 817-828.
Culley, A. (2006). Learning Management Systems. Available at: http://www.instructionaldesign.com.au Retrieved 11 March, 2008.
Dawson, K., & Nonis, A. (2000). Preservice teachers’ experiences in a k-12 / university technology-based field initiative: benefits, facilitators, constraints and implications for teacher educators. Journal of computing in teacher education, 17(1), 4-11.
Curtis, R. (2002). Teaching research methods online: course development and comparison to traditional delivery. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2002 pp.141-145). Norfolk VA: AACE. Cuthell, J. (2004). What does it take to be active? Teacher participation in online communities. Paper presented at the Web-based Communities Conference Proceedings, Lisbon. (pp. 1-9). Retrieved January 21, 2008, from: http://www.virtuallearning.org.uk/changemanage/ecommunities/Teacher%20participation%233912A.pdf. Daniel, J. S. (1996). Mega-Universities and Knowledge Media: Technology Strategies for Higher Education. London: Routledge.
Dawson, K., Swain, C., Johnson, N., Ring, G. (2004). Partnership strategies for systemic integration of technology in teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(4), 482-495. de Souza, C., & Preece, J. (2004). A framework for analyzing and understanding online communities. Interacting with Computers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 16(3), 579-610. Dede, C. (1996). The evolution of distance education: emerging technologies and distributed learning. The American Journal of Distance Education, 10(2), 4-36.
Darmofal, D. L., Soderholm, D. H., & Brodeur , D. R. (2002, November 6-9). Using concept maps and concept questions to enhance conceptual understanding. 32nd ASEE/IEEE Paper presented at Frontiers in Education Conference. Boston, MA. USA.
Dempster, J., & Deepwell, F. (2003). Experiences of National Projects in Embedding Learning Technology into Institutional Practices in Higher Education. In J. Seale (Ed.), Learning Technology in Transition: From Individual Enthusiasm to Institutional Implementation (pp. 45-62). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Daugherty, M., Grubb, A., Hirsch, J., & Gillis, H. (2000). The scholarship of Web-based teaching. In R. Cole (Ed.), Issues in Web-Based Pedagogy (pp. 183-210). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Denis, B. (2003). A conceptual framework to design and support self-directed learning in a blended learning programme. A case study: the DES-TEF Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 115-127.
Davies, A., Ramsay, J., Lindfield, H., & Couperthwaite, J. (2005). A blended approach to learning: added value and lessons learnt from students’ use of computer-based materials for neurological analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 839–849.
Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (1998). The landscape of qualitative research. Theories and issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Davies, H. C., & Fill, K. (2007). Embedded blended learning in university’s teaching culture: experiences and
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1-29). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
319
Compilation of References
Derrick, L. C. (2002). Globalisation, knowledge, education and training in the information age.
tives in e-learning research: Themes, methods and impact on practice (pp. 82-97). London: Routledge.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
Dysthe, O. (2002). The learning potential of a web-mediated discussion in a university course. Studies in Higher Education, 27(3), 339- 352.
DeVaus, D. (2001). Research design in social research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.
Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., & Moskai, P. (2004). Blended learning. Boulder, CO: Educause Centre for Applied Research.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan. Donelly, R. (2006). Blended problem-based learning for teacher education: Lessons learned. Learning. media and technology, 31(2), 93-116. Driscoll, M. (2002). Blended Learning: Let’s get beyond the hype. Retrieved June 4, 2008, from https://www07.ibm.com/services/pdf/blended_learning.pdf
Dzuiban, C., Hartman, J., Juge, F., Moskal, P. & Sorg, S. (2006). Blended learning enters the mainstream. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 195208). San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons. Ecipa (2005). BrainFrame: le tecnologie dell’informazione e della comunicazione nel sistema della Formazione Professionale. Verona, Italy: Ecipa 2005.
Dron, J. (2007). Control and constraint in e-learning: Choosing when to choose. Hershey: Idea Group Publishing.
Edirisingha, P., Rizzi, C., & Rothwell, L. (2007). Podcasting to provide teaching and learning support for an undergraduate module on English language and communication. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 87-107. Retrieved January 4, 2008, from http://tojde. anadolu.edu.tr/tojde27/articles/article_6.htm
Dron, J., Seidel, C., & Litten, G. (2004). Transactional distance in a blended learning environment. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 12(2), 163-174.
Eib, B. J., & Miller, P. (2006). Faculty development as community building. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(2), 1-15.
Ducatel, K., Webster, J., & Herrmann, W. (2000). The information society in Europe: Work and life in an age of globalization. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
eLearning Guidelines for New Zealand (n.d.). Retrieved September 9, 2008, from http://elg.massey.ac.nz/index. php?title=Main_Page
Duffy, T., & Cunningham, D. (1996). Constructivism : Implications for the Design and Delivery of Instruction. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 170-198). New York: Simon &Schuster.
Elgort, I. (2005). E-learning adoption: Bridging the chasm. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE) December 4-7, Brisbane, Australia. Retrieved February 16, 2008, from http://www. ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane05/blogs/proceedings/20_Elgort.pdf
Durbridge, N. (1984). Audio cassettes. In A. W. Bates (Ed.), The Role of Technology in Distance Education (pp. 99-107). Kent, UK: Croom Helm. Dyke, M., Conole, G., Ravenscroft, A., & de Freitas, S. (2007). Learning theory and its application to e-learning. In G. Conole & M. Oliver (Eds.), Contemporary perspec-
320
Elias, J. L., & Merriam, S. B. (1980). Philosophical Foundations of Adult Education. First Edition. Malabar, Florida: Krieger.
Compilation of References
Elias, J. L., & Merriam, S. B. (2005). Philosophical Foundations of Adult Education. Third Edition. Malabar, Florida: Krieger. Elliot, B. (2008). E-pedagogy: does e-learning require a new approach to teaching and learning? Retrieved February 4, 2008 http://d.scribd.com/docs/ 22rc8wz72z067xrb1fpk.pdf. Ellis, A., & Phelps, R. (2000). Staff development for online delivery: A collaborative, team-based action learning model. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, l6(1), 26-44. Retrieved April 11, 2008, from http://www. ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet16/ellis.html. Ellis, R. A., Steed, A. F., & Applebee, A. C. (2006). Teacher conceptions of blended learning, blended teaching and associations with approaches to design. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(3), 312-335. Ellis, R., Goodyear, P., O’Hara, A., & Prosser, M. (2007). The university student experience of face-to-face and online discussions: coherence, reflection and meaning. ALT-J, 15(1), 83-97. Ely, D. P. (1990). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Journal of Research in Computing in Education, 23(2), 298 - 305. Ely, D. P. (1999). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Educational Technology, 39(6 November/December), 23-27. Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.
Feenberg, A. (1989). The Written World : On the Theory and Practice of Computer Conferencing. In R. Mason & A. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press. http://www-icdl.open.ac.uk/mindweave/resopurce2 accessed 09/08/00 Feiman Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103, 1013 -1055. Feisel, L. D., & Rosa, A. J. (2005). The Role of the Laboratory in Undergraduate Engineering Education. J. Eng. Educ., 93(2005), 121. Fetterman, D. (2002). Empowerment evaluation: building communities of practice and a culture of learning. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(1), 89-102. Fill, K. (2006). Quality versus time: a rationale for blended learning? British Educational Research Association Conference. Retrieved July 14, 2007 from http://www. leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/157113.htm. Fill, K. (2006). Refreshed and reflective: the impact of an eLearning project on university teachers. Proceedings of the First International Conference on eLearning, Montreal, Canada. Retrieved June 18, 2007 from http:// www.academic-conferences.org/icel/icel-proceedings/ proceedings-icel06.htm. Fisher, K., Phelps, R., & Ellis, A. (2000). Group processes online: Teaching collaboration through collaborative processes. Educational Technology & Society, 3(3). Retrieved April 30, 2006, from http://ifets.massey. ac.nz/periodical/vol_3_2000/f06.html
Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. Croom Helm Ltd, Kent, United Kingdom.
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), 25-35.
Fabro, K., & Garrison, D. (1998). Computer conferencing and higher-order learning. Indian Journal of Open Learning, 7(1), 41-53.
Forsyth, R. (2002). Making professional development flexible: A case study. Open Learning, 17(3), 251-258.
Fahy, P. (2002). Assessing critical thinking processes in a computer conference.From http://cde.athabascau. ca/softeval/reports/mag4.pdf.
Forsyth, R. (2003). Supporting e-learning: an overview of the needs of users. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 9(1), 131-140.
321
Compilation of References
Fox, R., & Hermann, A. (2000). Changing media, changing times: Coping with adopting new educational technologies. In T. Evans & D. Nation (Eds.), Changing university teaching (pp. 73-84). London: Kogan Page.
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended Learning: Uncovering its Transformative Potential in Higher Education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105.
Freitas, S. (2007). Post-16 e-learning content production: A synthesis of the literature. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 349-364.
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105.
Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. London: The Falmer Press.
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. (2007). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gallini, J. K., & Barron, D. (2001). Participants’ perceptions of web-infused environments: A survey of teaching beliefs, learning approaches, and communication. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(2), 139-156. Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(1), 18-33. Garrison, D. R. (2003). Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The role of reflective inquiry, self direction and metacognition. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Practice and direction (Vol. Volume 4 in The Sloan C Series). Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium. Garrison, D. R. (2006). Online collaboration principles. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 25-34.
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. (n.d.). Learning technologies: Changing the dynamics of university education. Retrieved on April 9, 2007 from http://tlc.ucalgary. ca/community/stories/learning_technologies_changing_the_dynamics_of_university_education Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended Learning in Higher Education: framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.
Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge/Falmer.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence and computer conferencing in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 1-17.
Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2000). A transactional perspective on teaching and learning: A framework for adult and higher education. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Garrison, D. R., Kanuka, H., & Hawes, D. (n.d.). Blended learning in a research university. Calgary, AB: The University of Calgary.
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2003). Critical factors in student satisfaction and success: Facilitating student role adjustment in online communities of inquiry. Invited paper presented to the Sloan Consortium Asynchronous Learning Network Invitational Workshop, Boston, MA, September
Garrison, D., & Anderson , T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century. A framework for research and practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
322
Garrison, R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105.
Compilation of References
Garrison, R., & Vaughan, N. (2008). Blended learning in higher education. Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Garton, L. in collaboration with Wolfe, R., & Wellman, B. (1998). Computer-Mediated Educational Networks: A Report on the Electronic Conferencing Activity of the Education Network of Ontario/Réseau éducatif de l’Ontario (ENO) January 1996 through October 1998. Toronto: University of Toronto. Geoghegan, M., & Klass, D. (2005). Podcast Solutions: the complete guide to podcasting. Friendsofed, Apress. Retrieved November 17, 2007, from http://www.friendsofed.com Gerber, M., Grund, S., & Grote, G. (2008) Distributed collaboration activities in a blended learning scenario and the effects on learning performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 4(3), 232-244. Gerbic, P. (2006). On-campus students’ learning in asynchronous environments. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Deakin University, Melbourne. Gerbic, P. (2006). Chinese learners and online discussions: New opportunities for multicultural classrooms. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(3), 221-237. Gerbic, P. (2006). On-campus students’ learning in asynchronous environments. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Deakin University, Melbourne. Gerbic, P., & Stacey, E. (2005). A purposive approach to content analysis: Designing analytical frameworks. Internet and Higher Education, 8, 45-59. Gilbert, J. (2005). Catching the knowledge wave? The knowledge society and the future of education. Wellington: NZCER Press. Gilbert, L., & Moore, D. R. (1998). Building interactivity into web courses:Tools for social and instructional interaction. Educational Technology, 38(3), 29-35. Gilding, A. (1996). Student construction of a knowledgebased system as an actor network. Unpublished PhD thesis, Deakin University, Melbourne.
Ginns, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Quality in blended learning: Exploring the relationships between on-line and face-to-face teaching and learning. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 53-64. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, Aldine Publishing Company. Goldman, S. (2001). Professional development in a digital age: Issues and challenges for standards-based reform. Interactive Educational Multimedia, 2, 19-46. Retrieved April 11, 2008, from http://www.ub.edu/multimedia/iem/ down/c2/Professional_Development.pdf. Gonzales, C., & Thompson, V. (1998). Reciprocal mentoring in technology use: reflecting with a literacy educator. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 7(2), 163-178. Goodfellow, R. (2005). Virtuality and the Shaping of Educational Communities. Education, Communication & Information, 5(2), 113-129. Goodlad, J. (1994). Educational renewal: better teachers, better schools. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Goolnik, G. (2006). Effective Change Management Strategies for Embedding Online Learning within Higher Education and Enabling the Effective Continuing Professional Development of Its Academic Staff. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 7(1), 9-21. Retrieved April 11, 2008, from http://tojde.anadolu.edu. tr/tojde21/pdf/Volume7Number1.pdf#page=9. Grabinger, S., & Dunlap, J. (2000). Rich Environments for Active Learning: A Definition. In D. Squires & G. Conole (Eds.), The Changing Face of Learning Technology, Cardiff: University of Wales Press, (8-38). Graham, C. (2006). Blended learning systems. Definitions, current trends and future directions. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: John Wiley and Graham, C., & Robison, R. (2007). Realizing the transformation potential of blended learning. In A. Picciano & C.
323
Compilation of References
Dziuban (Eds.), Blended learning. Research perspectives (pp. 83-110): The Sloan Consortium. Graham, C., Allen, S., & Ure, D. (2003). Blended learning environments. A review of the research literature. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. Graham, M., & Scarborough, H. (1999). Computer mediated communication and collaborative learning in an undrgraduate distance education environment. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 15(1), 20-46. Gray, B. (2004). Informal learning in a community of practice. Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 20-35. Gray, B. (2004). Informal learning in an online community of practice. Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l’enseignement à distance, 19(1), 20-35. Gray, C. (2006). Blended Learning: Why Everything Old Is New Again—But Better. Retrieved April 9, 2008, from http://www.learningcircuits.org/2006/March/gray.htm Gray, J., & Tatar, D. (2004). Sociocultural Analysis of Online Professional Development A Case Study of Personal ,Interpersonal, Community, and Technical Aspects. In S. Barab & R. Kling & J. Gray (Eds.), Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning (pp. 404-435). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grisham, D. L., Ferguson, J. L., & Brink, B. (2004). Mentoring the mentors: student teachers’ contributions to the middle school classroom. Mentoring and Tutoring, 12(3), 307-319. Gröber, S., Vetter, M., Eckert, B., & Kodl, H. J. (2007). Experimenting from a Distance – Remotely Controlled Laboratory (RCE L), Eur. J. Phys., 28(2007), May No., 127. Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2000). What makes teacher community different from a gathering of teachers?, An occasional paper co-sponsored by Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy and Center on English Learning and Achievement (CELA) (pp. 61). Washington: University of Washington. Guba, E. (1990). The paradigm dialog. London: Sage Publications.
324
Guertin, L. A., Bodek, M. J., Zappe, S. E., & Kim, H. (2007). Questioning the Student Use of and Desire for Lecture Podcasts. MERLOT – Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 1-9. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol3no2/guertin.htm Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26. Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397-431. Gunn, C., & Cavallari, B. (2007). Instructional Design, Development and Context Expertise: A Model for “Cross Cultural” Collaboration. In M. Keppell (Ed.), Instructional Design: Case Studies in Communities of Practice (pp.127-151). Hershey, PA: Idea Group. Ha, T. S. (2007). Workplace learning of information technology workers in Hong Kong. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Deakin University, Geelong. Hammond, N., Gardner, N., Heath, S., Kibby, M., Mayes, J., McAleese, R., Mullings, C., & Trapp, A. (1992). Blocks to the Effective Use of Information Technology in Higher Education. Computers and Education, 18(13), 155-162. Hannon, J. (2008). Doing staff development: Practices, dilemmas and technologies. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 15-29. Retrieved April 11, 2008, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/ hannon.html. Hanson, K. S., & Clem, F. A. (2006). To blend or not to blend: A look at community development via blended learning strategies. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 136-149). San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analyses of online discussion in an applied educational
Compilation of References
psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115152. Harasim, L. (2000). Shift happens: Online education as a new paradigm in learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 3, 41-61. Harasim, L. M., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning network: a field guide to teaching and learning online. London: The MIT Press. Harris, D. (1993). Effective ‘teaching’ and ‘study skills’: the return of the technical fix. In Evans, T and Murphy, D (Eds) Research in Distance Education (RIDE) 3, 1993, Geelong, Australia. Hartley, J. R. (1999). Effective Pedagogies for Managing Collaborative Learning in On-line Learning Environments. Educational Technology & Society, 2(2). Hartman, J. L., & Truman-Davis, B. (2001). Institutionalizing support for faculty use of technology at the University of Central Florida. In R. M. Epper, and Bates, A. W. (Eds.), Teaching faculty how to use technology: Best practices from leading institutions. Westport CT: Oryx Press. Haughey, M., & Anderson, T. (1998). Networked learning. The pedagogy of the Internet. Toronto: Cheneliere/ McGraw-Hill. Heaton-Shrestha, C., Edirisingha, P., Burke, L. & Linsey, T. (2005). Introducing a VLE into campus-based undergraduate teaching: Staff perspectives on its impact on teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(6), 370-386. Heinze, A., & Procter, C. (2004). Reflections on the Use of Blended Learning. Education in a Changing Environment conference proceedings, University of Salford, Salford, Education Development Unit. Retrieved April 9, 2008 from http://www.ece.salford.ac.uk/proceedings/papers/ah_04.rtf Hendron, J. G. (2008). RSS for Educators: blogs, newsfeeds, podcasts, and wikis in the classroom. Washington, DC: ISTE.
Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden Papers (pp. 117-136). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Henri, F. (1995). Distance learning and computer-mediated communication : Interactive, quasi-interactive or monologue? In C. O.Malley (Ed.), Computer Supported Collaborative learning (pp. 145-161). Berlin: Springer Verlag. Hicks, M., Reid, I., & George R. (2001). Enhancing on-line teaching: Designing responsive learning environments. The International Journal for Academic Development, 6(2), 143-151. Hill, C. (2008). Teaching with e-learning in the Lifelong Learning Sector (Second Edition). Exeter: Learning Matters. Hill, J., & Hannafin, M. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. ETR& D, 49(3), 37-52. Retrieved January 29. 2008, from http://sage.sdsu.edu/compswiki/uploads/ CompsWiki/Teaching_and_Learning_in_Digital_Environments. Hiltz, S. R. (1998). Collaborative learning in Asynchronous Learning Networks: Building learning communities. Retrieved August 24, 1999, from http://eies.njit. edu/~hiltz/collaborative_learning_in_asynch.htm. Hodgson, P. (2005). Early adopters’ journey into new learning technologies. In A. Brew & C. Asmar (Eds.). Higher education in a changing world. Proceedings of the 2005 Annual International Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (Herdsa) (pp.183-192), 3-6 July 2005, University of Sydney, Australia. Retrieved February 5, 2008, from http://conference.herdsa.org.au/2005/pdf/refereed/paper_159.pdf Hodgson, V., & Reynolds, M. (2005). Consensus, difference and ‘multiple communities’ in networked learning. Studies in Higher Education, 30(1), 11-24. Hofmann, J. (2006). Why blended learning hasn’t (yet) fulfilled its promises: Answers to those questions that
325
Compilation of References
keep you up at night. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 27-40). San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.
Hur, J., & Hara, N. (2007). Factors cultivating sustainable online communities for K-12 teacher professional development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(3), 245-268.
Hollingworth, R. W., & McLoughlin, C. (2001). Developing science students’ metacognitive problem solving skills online, 1, 50-63.
Huysman, M., & Wulf, V. (2005). The role of information technology in building and sustaining the relational base of communities, The Information Society, (21), 81-89.
Holt, D., & Thompson, D. (1995). Responding to the technological imperative: the experience of an open and distance education institution. Distance Education, 16(1), 43-64.
Huysman, M., Steinfield, C., Jang, C.-Y., David, K., Huis in ‘T Veld, M., Poot, J., et al. (2003). Virtual teams and the appropriation of communication technology: Exploring the concept of media stickiness. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 12, 411-436.
Houle, C. O. (1961). The inquiring mind. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Housego, S., & Freeman, M. (2000). Case studies: Integrating the use of web based learning systems into student learning. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 15(3), 258-282. Howell, S. L., Williams, P. B., Lindsay, N. K., & Laws R. D. (2004). Trends affecting Distance Education and Distance Learning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. Retrieved 2005, from http://www.teenet. net/thirtytwotrends.htm. Hubbal, H., Collins, J., & Pratt, D. (2005). Enhancing reflective teaching practices: Implications for faculty development programs. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, XXXV 30, 57-81. Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M.B. (2002). The qualitative researcher’s companion. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Hudson, B. (2002). Critical dialogue online: Personas, Covenants, and candlepower. In K. E. Rudestam & J. Schoenholtz-Read (Eds.), Handbook of online Learning: Innovations in higher education and corporate training. Sage, London. Hung, D. W., & Chen, D. T. (2001). Situated cognition, Vygotskian thought and learning from the communities of practice perspective: Implications for the design of Wed-based e-learning. Education Media International, 38(4), 281-288.
326
Imel, S. (1998). Using adult learning principles in adult basic and literacy education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED425336). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, Center on Education and Training for Employment. Intelligent School Experimental System (ISES) (2008). Developed at the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics. Charles University in Prague, Czecg Republic. Retrieved October 13, 2008 from http://www.ises.info/index. php/en/systemises Irelan, R. (2008). Planning your Podcast. In M. W. Geoghegan (Ed.), The Business Podcasting Book, (pp. 99-125). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Jacobsen, D. M. (1998). Adoption patterns and characteristics of faculty who integrate computer technology for teaching and learning in higher education. Unpublished PhD, University of Alberta, Calgary, Alberta. Jacobsen, M. (2000). Excellent teaching and early adopters of instructional technology. Presented at ED-MEDIA: World Conference on Educational Multimedia/Hypermedia & Educational Telecommunication, June, 2000. Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Jaramillo, J. A. (1996). Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and contributions to the development of the constructivist curricula. Education, 117(1). Jarvis, P. (1999). The practitioner-researcher: Developing theory from practice. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Compilation of References
Jelfs, A., Nathan, R., & Barrett, C. (2004). Scaffolding students: Suggestions on how to equip students with the necessary study skills for studying in a blended environment. Journal of Educational Media, 29(2), 85-96. Jensen, K. (2002). The Qualitative Research Process. In K. Jensen (Ed.), A Handbook of Media and Communication Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies. (pp. 235-253) New York: Routledge. Jerram, C. (2002). Âpplying adult education principles to university teaching. Paper presented at the Annual conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Perth, Australia. Jipson, J., & Paley, N. (2000). Because no one gets there alone: Collaboration as co-mentoring. Theory Into Practice, 39(1), 36-42. Johnson, C. M. (2001). A survey of current research on online communities of practice. The Internet and Higher Education, 4(1), 45-60. Johnson-Gentile, K., Lonberger, R., Parana, J., & West, A. (2000). Preparing preservice teachers for the technological classroom: A school-college partnership. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2), 97-109. Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7- 26. Jurie, J. D. (2000). Building capacity: organizational competence and critical theory. Journal of Organization Change Management, 13(3), 264-274. Kandlbinder, P. (2001). Peeking under the covers: Understanding the foundations of online academic staff development. Paper presented at the ASET/HERDSA 2000 Flexible Learning for a Flexible Society, 2-5 July 2000, University of Southern Queensland, Australia. Kandlbinder, P. (2003). Peeking under the covers: Online academic staff development in Australia and the United Kingdom. International Journal for Academic Development, 8(1/2), 135-143.
Kanuka, H. (2002). Guiding principles for facilitating higher levels of Web-based distance learning in post-secondary settings. Distance Education, 23(1), 163-182. Kanuka, H. (2002). A principled approach to facilitating diverse strategies for web-based distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 71-87. Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57-74. Kanuka, H., & Garrison, D. R. (2004). Cognitive Presence in Online Learning. Journal of Computing in higher Education, 15(2), 30-48. Kaplan-Leiserson, E. (2005). Trend: Podcasting in Academic and Corporate Learning. Retrieved May 20, 2006, from http://www.learningcircuits.org/2005/ jun2005/0506_trends.htm Kayrooz, C., & Trevitt, C. (2005). Research in organisations and communities. Tales from the real world. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Kear, K. L., & Heap, N. W. (2007). ‘Sorting the wheat from the chaff’: Investigating overload in educational discussion systems. British Journal of Educational Technology, 23(3), 235-247. Kearsley, G., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). Preparing teachers to teach online. Educational Technology, 44(1), 49-52. Keller, J. B., Bonk, C. J., & Hew, K. (2005). The TICKIT to teacher learning: Designing professional development according to situative principles. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(4), 329-340. Keogh, M. (1998). Successful models for enterprise vocational education: Distributed learning strategies. In C. McBeath, C. McLoughlin, & R. Atkinson (Eds.), Planning for Progress, Partnership and Profit. Proceedings of EdTech ‘98, Perth, Australian Society for Educational Technology. Retrieved 9 September, 2008 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/aset-archives/confs/ edtech98/pubs/articles/keough.html Kerres, M., & De witt, C. (2003). A didactic framework for the design of blended learning arrangements. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 101-112. 327
Compilation of References
Khine, M. S., & Lourdusamy, A. (2003). Blended learning approach in teacher education: combining face-to-face instruction, multimedia viewing and online discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 671675. Kim, D. M., & Choi, C. (2004). Developing future leaders at Hyundai Motor Company through blended learning, Industrial and Commercial Training, 36(7), 286-290. Kimble, C., Hidreth, P., & Wright, P. (2000). Communities of practice: going virtual. In Y. Malhotra (Ed.), Knowledge management and business model innovation (pp. 216-230). Hershey: Idea Group Publishing. Kirschner P. A., Sweller,J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, Discovery, Problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. Kirsh, D. (2000). A few thoughts on cognitive overload. Intellectica, 1(30), pp.19-51. Retrieved January 12, 2008, from: http://interruptions.net/literature/Kirsh-Intellectica00-30.pdf. Klamma, R., Chatti, M. A., Duval, E., Hummel, H., Hvannberg, E. T., Kravcik, et al. (2007). Social software for lifelong learning. Educational Technology & Society, 10(3), 72-83. Klecuń, E. (2004). Conducting critical research in information systems: Can actor-network theory help?. In B. Kaplan, D. P. Truex III, D. Wastell, T. A. Wood-Harper & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Information Systems Research (pp. 259-274). Manchester: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Kling, R. (2002). Call for papers for the special issue on the Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) and Community Networking. The Information Society, 12(5), 1-2. Kling, R., & Courtright, C. (2004). Group Behaviour and Learning in Electronic Forums: A Socio Technical Approach. In S. Barab & R. Kling & J. Gray (Eds.), Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning. (pp. 91-119) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
328
Knight, P. (2006). Quality enhancement and educational professional development. Quality in Higher Education, 12(1), 29-40. Knowles, M. S. (1984). Introduction: The art and science of helping adults learn. In M. S. Knowles & Associates (Ed.), Andragogy in action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Knowles, M. S. (1990). The adult learner. A neglected species (4th ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing. Kochan, F. K., & Trimble, S. B. (2000). From mentoring to co-mentoring: Establishing collaborative relationships. Theory Into Practice, 39(1), 20-28. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc. Kramer, B., Walker, A., & Brill, J. M. (2007). The underutilization of internet and communication technology-assisted collaborative project-based learning among international educators: A delphi study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(5), 527-543. Lang, G. (2000). Using the Web in live lectures: Examples and issues. In R. Cole (Ed.), Issues in Web-based pedagogy (pp. 261-272). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishers. Lapadat. J. C. (2002). Written interaction: A key component in online learning. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 7(4). Retrieved April 8, 2004, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol7/issue4/lapadat.html. Latour, B. (1987) Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artefacts. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/Building society: Studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Laurillard, D. (1995). Multimedia and the changing experience of the learner. British Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3), 179-189.
Compilation of References
Laurillard, D. (2001). Rethinking university teaching (2nd ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
ties: A guide for practitioners. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching. A conversational framework for effective use of learning technologies. (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Lewis, N. J., & Orton, P. Z. (2006). Blended learning in business impact: IBM’s case for learning success. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 61-75). San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.
Laurillard, D. M. (1993). Rethinking University Teaching, A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology. London & New York: Routledge. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Li, Y., & Lindner, J. R. (2007). Faculty adoption behaviour about web-based distance education: A case study from China Agricultural University. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(1), 83-94.
Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of actor-networks: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(4), 379-393.
Light, P., & Light, V. (1999). Analysing asynchronous learning interactions. In V. Littlejohn & P. Light (Eds.), Learning with Computers : Analysing Productive Information (pp. 162-178). London: Routledge.
Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575-614.
Ligorio, M. B., & van der Meijden, H. (2008). Teacher guidelines for cross-national virtual communities in primary education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(1), 11–25
Lea, M. (2001). Computer Conferencing and Assessment: New Ways of Writing in Higher Education. Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), 163 - 183.
Lindquist, B. (2006). Blended learning at the University of Phoenix. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 223-234). San Francisco: John Wiley andSons.
Lea, M. (2001). Computer conferencing and assessment: New ways of writing in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), 163-181. Lee, M. J., & Chan, A. (2007). Reducing the Effects of Isolation and Promoting Inclusivity for Distance learners Through Podcasting. The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8(1), 85-104. Retrieved January 4, 2008, from http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde25/articles/ Article_7htm Lefoe, G., Smigiel, H., & Parrish, D. (2007). Enhancing Higher Education Through Leadership Capacity Development: Progressing the Faculty Scholars Model. In Enhancing Higher Education, Theory and Scholarship, Proceedings of the 30th HERDSA Annual Conference, (CD-ROM) (pp. 228-234). Adelaide, South Australia. Lewis, D., & Allen, B. (2005). Virtual leaning communi-
Lin, L., Cranton, P., & Bridglall, B. L. (2005). Psychological type and asynchronous written dialogue in adult learning. Retrieved January 25th, 2008 from http://www. tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=12096 Lipponen, L. (2002). Exploring foundations for computersupported collaborative learning. Retrieved 4 July, 2002, from http://newmedia.colorado.edu/cscl/31.html. Litosseliti, L. Marttunen, M., Laurinen, L., & Salminen, T. (2005). Computer-based and face-to-face collaborative argumentation in secondary schools in England and Finland. Education, Communication & Information, 5(2), 131-146. Littlejohn, A., & McGill, L. (2004). Detailed report for elearning and pedagogy research study: Effective resources for e-learning. Glasgow, Scotland: University of Strathclyde. Retrieved February 22, 2008, from http://www.jisc.
329
Compilation of References
ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Detailed%20report%20resources-first%20draft_Lou_McGill.doc Littlejohn, A., & Pegler, C. (2007). Preparing for Blended e-Learning. London: Routledge. Lock, J. V. (2006). A new image: Online communities to facilitate teacher professional development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(4), 663-678. Ludwig-Hardman, S. (2003). Case study: Instructional design strategies that contribute to the development of online learning community. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Denver, CO. Ludwig-Hartman, S., & Dunlap, J. (2003). Learner support services for online students: scaffolding for success. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(1). Retrieved on 10 February 2008 from http:// www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/131/211 Lueg, C. (2002, October). Where is the Action in Virtual Communities of Practice? Paper presented at E-Learn 2002, Montreal, Quebec. Lustigova, Z., & Zelenda, S. (1996). Remote Laboratory for Distance Education of Science Teachers . In: Collaborative Learning and Working with Telematics. IFIP WG 3.6 Working Conference Vienna. Austria. Lustigová, Z., & Zelenda, S. (2001). Remote and Open Web Based Laboratory for Science Education (ROL). In Proceedings of International Conference on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies and Applications. ICETA. (pp. 235-241). Kosice. Slovak Republic. ISBN 80-89066-06-2. Lynch, R., & Dembo, M. (2004). The relationship between self-regulation and online learning in a blended learning context. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2). Retrieved on 1 February, 2008 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/189/271 Ma, J., & Nickerson, J.V. (2006). Hands-On, Simulated, and Remote Laboratories: A Comparative Literature Review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3), 7, September 2006.
330
MacDonald, J. (2004). Developing competent e-learners: the role of assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(2), 34-41. Macdonald, J. (2006). Blended learning and online tutoring: A good practice guide. Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing Limited. Macdonald, J., & McAteer, E. (2003). New approaches to supporting students: Strategies for blended learning in distance and campus-based environments. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 129-146. Magin, D. J., & Reizes, J. A. (1990). Computer simulation of laboratory experiments: An unrealized potential. Comput. and Education, 14(3), 263–270. Mainka, C. (2007). Putting staff first in staff development for the effective use of technology in teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(1), 158-160. Maisie, E. (2006). The blended learning imperative. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 22-26). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Maloney-Krichmar, D., Abras, C., & Preece, J. (2002, June). Revitalizing an Online Community:Beyond UserCentered Design. Proceedings of the 2002 International Symposium on Technology and Society, Raleigh, NC. USA. Maor, D., & Volet, S. (2007). Interactivity in professional online learning: A review of research based studies. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2), 269-290. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Martin, B. (2006, February 17). You can’t create community! Blog posting to http://caeexam.blogspot. com/2006/02/you-cant-create-community.html Marton, F., & Trigwell, K. (2000). Variatio est mater studiorum. Higher Education Research and Development, 19, 381-395.
Compilation of References
Martyn, M. (2003). The hybrid online model: Good practice. Educause Quarterly, 26(1), 18-23. Masie, E. (2006). The blended learning imperative. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 22-26). San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Mason, R. & Rennie, F. (2006). Elearning: The key concepts. London: Routledge. Mason, R. (1993). The textuality of computer networking. In R. Mason (Ed.), Computer conferencing: The last word. Beach Holme Publishing Ltd, Victoria, British Columbia. Mason, R. (2005). Guest editorial. Education, Communication and Information, 5(3), 217-220. Mason, R., & Rennie, F. (2006). Elearning. The key concepts. London: Routledge. Matthias, M., Pfeiffer, O., Thomsen, Ch., & Tschirner, N. (2006). Design and Realization of Multimedia-Examinations for large Numbers of Participants in University Education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning iJET, 1. Mayer, R. (2001). Multimedia Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mayes, J., & Fowler, C. (1999). Learning technology and usability: A framework for understanding courseware. Interacting with computers, 11(1999), 485-497. Mayes, T. (2002). Learning technology and learning relationships. In J. Stephenson (Ed.), Teaching and learning online. Pedagogies for new technologies. (pp. 16-26). London: Kogan Page. Mayes, T., & Freitas, S. (2004). Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models: JISC e-learning models desk study. Cited in de Freitas, S. (2007) Post-16 e-learning content production: A synthesis of the literature. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 349-364. McConnell, D. (2006). E-learning groups and communities BerksMargaryan, A., Collis, B. & Cooke, A. (2004). Activity-based blended learning. Human Resource Development International, 7(2), 265-274.
Margaryan, A., Collis, B. & Cooke, A. (2004). Activitybased blended learning. Human Resource Development International, 7(2), 265-274 McCracken, J., & Dobson, M. (2004). Blended Learning Design. In V. Uskov (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh IASTED International Conference on Computers and Advanced Technology in Education (pp. 37-48), Kauai, Hawaii, USA. McDermott, L. C., & Redish, E. F. (1999). Resource Letter: PER-1: Physics Education Research, Am. J. Phys., 67(9), 755. McGill, T. J., & Hobbs, V. J. (2007). How students and instructors using a virtual learning environment perceive the fit between technology and task. British Journal of Educational Technology, doi: 10.1111/j.13652729.2007.00253.x McKavanagh, C., Kanes, C., Beven, F., Cunningham, A., & Choy, S. (2002). Evaluation of web-based flexible learning, Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research. McKenzie, W., & Murphy, D. (2000). “I hope this goes somewhere”: Evaluation of an online discussion group. Australian Journal of Educational Information Technology, 16(3), 239-257. McLaughlin, T. (2003). Teaching as a practice and a community of practice: the limits of commonality and the demands of diversity. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 37(2), 339-352. McLoughlin, C. (2001). Inclusivity and alignment: Principles of pedagogy, task and assessment design for effective cross-cultural online learning. Distance Education, 22(1), 7-29. McLoughlin, C. (2002). Learner support in distance and networked learning environments: Ten dimensions for successful design. Distance Education, 23(2), 149-162. McLoughlin, C. (2004). Achieving excellence in teaching through scaffolding learner competence. Proceedings of the 12th Annual Teaching and Learning Forum, 9-10 February, 2004. Perth, WA: Murdoch University. Re-
331
Compilation of References
trieved February 24, 2008, from http://www.lsn.curtin. edu.au/tlf/tlf2002/mcloughlin.html
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. No. 89 (pp. 3-14). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McLoughlin, C. E. (1997). Investigating conditions for higher order thinking in telematics environments. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA.
Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (Rev. ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McLoughlin, C., & Luca, J. (2000). Cognitive engagement and higher order thinking through computer conferencing: We know why but do we know how? Paper presented at the 9th Annual teaching learning Forum, Perth. McLoughlin, C., & Oliver, R. (2000). Designing learning environments for cultural inclusivity: A case study of indigenous online learning at tertiary level. Australian Journal of Educational technology, 16(1), 58-72. McNaught, C. (2003). Identifying the Complexity of Factors in the Sharing and Reuse of Resources. In A. Littlejohn (Ed.), Reusing Online Resources: A Sustainable Approach to Elearning (pp. 199-211) . London and Sterling VA, Kogan Page. McPherson, M., & Nunes, M. B. (2004). The failure of a virtual social space (VSS) designed to create a learning community: Lessons learned. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(3), 305-321. McShane, K. (2004). Integrating face-to-face and online teaching: Academics’ role concept and teaching choices. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(1), 3 -14.
Meyer, K. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussion: The role of time and higher order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55-65. Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55-65. Retrieved January 23, 2008 from http://www. sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v7n3/v7n3_meyer.asp Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5-8. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. An Expanded Sourcebook. (Second Edition ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Ministry of Education (2006). Enabling the 21st Century Learner: An e-Learning Action Plan for schools, 20062010.: Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
McShane, K. (2006). Integrating face-to-face and online teaching: Academics’ role concept and teaching choices. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(1),1-10.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 10171054.
Meredith, S., & Newton, B. (2004). Models of eLearning: Technology promise vs. learner needs literature review. The International Journal of Management Education, 4(1), 43-56.
Mitchell, A., & Honore, S. (2007). Criteria for successful blended learning, Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(3), 143-149.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. In S. B. Merriam (Ed.), The new update on adult learning theory. New
332
Mitchell, C., Dipetta, T., & Kerr, J. (2001). The frontier of Web-based instruction. Education and Information Technologies, 6(2), 105-121. Molesworth, M. (2004). Collaboration, reflection and selective neglect: Campus-based marketing students’ experiences of using a virtual learning environment.
Compilation of References
Innovations in Education and Training International, 41(1), 79-92. Monash University. (2005). Technology and services to manage information: Information technology strategic plan - 2005 update. http://www.monash.edu.au/about/ itsp/2005/update/2005_ITSP_Update-Final.pdf Monash University. (2008, 2 January 2008). Monash statistics. http://www.monash.edu.au/about/stats.html [accessed 10 March 2008] Moore, J., & Barab, S. (2000), The inquiry learning forum: a community of practice approach to online professional development. TechTrends, 46(3), 44-49. Moore, M. (2005). Editorial. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 129-132. Moore, M. (2006). Foreword. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Fransisco: John Wiley and Sons. Moore, M. G. (1997). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical Principles of Distance Education (pp. 22-38). New York: Routledge. Morrison, D. (2003). E-learning strategies: How to get implementation right first time. West Sussex: Wiley. Mott, V. (1996). Knowledge comes from practice: Reflective theory building in practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, #72, 57-63. Motteram, G. (2006). Blended education and the transformation of teachers: a long-term case study in postgraduate UK Higher Education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(1), 17-30. Moura, A. M., & Carvalho, A. A. (2006). Podcast: para uma Aprendizagem Ubíqua no Ensino Secundário. In L. P. Alonso, et al. (Eds), 8th Internacional Symposium on Computer in Education2, 379-386. León: Universidad de León. Mullen, C. (2000). Constructing co-mentoring partnerships: Walkways we must travel. Theory Into Practice, 39(1), 4-11.
Nel, L., & Wilkinson, A. (2006). Enhancing collaborative learning in a blended learning environment: applying a process planning model. Systems Practice Action Research, 19, 553-576. Nersessian, N. J. (1991). Conceptual change in science and in science education. In History. Philosophy, and Science Teaching. M. R. Matthews (Ed.), OISE Pres. Toronto. Canada. (pp. 133–148). Neuman, W. L. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. New Zealand Teachers’ Council. (2005). Guidelines for the approval of teacher education programmes. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Teachers’ Council. Newman, D. R., Johnson, C., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1997). Evaluating the quality of learning in computer supported co-operative learning. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(6), 484-495. Newman, D. R., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1995). A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning. Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, 3(2), 56-77. Newton, D., Hase, S., & Ellis, A. (2002). Effective implementation of online learning: a case study of the Queensland mining industry. Journal of Workplace Learning, 14(4), 156-165. Nichols, M. (2008). Institutional perspectives: The challenges of e-learning diffusion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 598-609. Niven, J., Harris, R. A., & Williams, D. (2002, March). Motivation to use Online Communities: A Methodological Outline. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Networked Learning. Sheffield University, Sheffield, UK. Retrieved June 20, 2008 from: http://www. networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2002/proceedings/papers/27.htm. Noel, R. W., & Hunter, C. M. (2000). Mapping the physical world to psychological reality: Creating synthetic envi-
333
Compilation of References
ronments. In Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, New York. (pp. 203–207). Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2001, August). Why Lurkers Lurk. Paper presented at America’s Conference on Information Systems, Boston, USA. Retrieved January 15, 2008 from: http://www.cis.uoguelph.ca/~nonnecke/ research/whylurk.pdf. Nonnecke, B., Preece, J., & Andrews, D. (2004). What lurkers and posters think of each other [online community]. 37th Annual Hawaiian International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA. Retrieved 5 September, 2008 from http://csdl2.computer.org/persagen/DLAbsToc.jsp?resourcePath=/dl/proceedings/&toc=comp/proceedings/hicss/2004/2056/07/2056toc.xml O’Reilly, M., Ellis, A., & Newton, D. (2000). The role of university web pages in staff development: Supporting teaching and learning online. Paper presented at AusWeb2K, the Sixth Australian World Wide Web Conference, 12-17 June, Cairns, Australia. Retrieved March 2, 2008, from http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw2k/papers/o_reilly/paper.html Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can ‘Blended Learning’ Be Redeemed? E–Learning, 2(1), 17-26. Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can Blended Learning be Redeemed? Elearning, 2(1), 17-26. Accessed online at http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate. asp?j=elea&vol=2&issue=1&year=2005&article=3_Oliver_ELEA_2_1_web 24th March 2008. Oliver, R. (2002). Learning settings and activities. In H. Adelsberger, B. Collis & J. Pawlowski (Eds.), Handbook on information technologies for education and training. (pp. 119-231). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Oliver, R., & Herrington, J. (2001). Teaching and learning online. A beginner’s guide to e-learning and e-teaching in higher education. Perth, WA: Centre for Research in Information Technology and Communications, Edith Cowan University. Oliver, R., & McLoughlin, C. (1999). Curriculum and learning resources issues arising form the use of web-
334
based course support systems. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 5(4), 419-435. Oliver, R., O’Donoghue, J. et al. (2003). Institutional Implementation of ICT in Higher Education: An Australian Perspective. In J. Seale (Ed), Learning Technology in Transition: From Individual Enthusiasm to Institutional Implementation (pp. 101-116). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2008). e-Community Ontario, Online Collaborative and Professional Development Site, Province of Ontario. Retrieved June 13, 2008 from : http://www.elearningontario.ca/eng/ecomm/Default.aspx Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments: definitions and directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227233. Paccagnella, L. (1997). Getting the seats of your pants dirty: Strategies for ethnographic research on virtual communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(1). Retrieved June 20, 2008 from: http://jcmc. indiana.edu/vol3/issue1/paccagnella.html. Pallof, R., & Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual student : A profile and guide to working with on line learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Palloff, R. & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2000). Making the transition: Helping teachers to teach online. Proceedings from EDUCAUSE 2000, Nashville, TN, October 10-13. Retrieved 30 April, 2006, from http://www.educause. edu/conference/e2000/proceedings.html Parry, S., & Dunn, L. (2000). Benchmarking as a meaning approach to learning in online settings. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 219-234. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Compilation of References
Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks (JALN), 8(3), 33 - 46. Pena-Shaff, J., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analysing computer interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers and Education, 42(3), 243-265. Pentland, B. T. (1997). Bleeding edge epistemology: practical problem solving in software support hotlines. In S. R. Barley & J. E. Orr (Eds,), Between craft and science: technical work in U.S. setting (pp. 113-128.). New York: Cornell University Press. Picciano, A. G. (2006). Blended learning: Implications for growth and access. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(3). Retrieved January 15, 2008 from: http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v10n3/ v10n3_8picciano.asp Pink, D. (2006). A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future. New York, NY: Penguin Group. Pipek, V. (2005). From Tailoring to Appropriation Support: Negotiating Groupware Usage. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Oulu, 2005. Retrieved June, 2007, from: http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514276302/ isbn9514276302.pdf . Poell, R. F., Chivers, G. E., Van der Krogt, F. J., & Wildesmeersch, D. A. (2000). Learning-network theory: organizing the dynamic relationships between learning and work. Management Learning, 31(1), 25-49. Pratt, D. (1989). Three stages of teacher competence: A developmental perspective. In E.R. Hays (Ed.). Effective Teaching Styles. New Directions in Continuing Education, #43, 77-87.
Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: designing usability, supporting sociability. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Preece, J. (2004). Etiquette, empathy and trust in communities of practice: Stepping-stones to social capital. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 3(10), 294-302. Preece, J., & Maloney-Krichmar, D. (2003). Online Communities: Focusing on sociability and usability. In J. Jacko & A. Sears, A. (Eds.), The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook (pp. 596-620). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. Preece, J., Abras, C., & Maloney-Krichmar, D. (2004). Designing and evaluating online communities: research speaks to emerging practice. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 1(1), 2-18. Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004). The top 5 reasons for lurking: Improving community experiences for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 201-223. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game based learning. New York: McGraw Hill. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Prensky, M.(2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(8). Retrieved May 01, 2008 from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/ Price, S., & Oliver, M. (2007). Technology and change in educational practice (Guest editorial). Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 14-15. Price, S., & Oliver, M. (2007). A framework for conceptualising the impact of technology on teaching and learning. Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 16-27.
Pratt, D., & Associates (1998). Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education. Malabar, Florida: Krieger.
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research and teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
Pratt, D., & Collins, J. (2006). Teaching Perspectives Inventory Website. Retrieved 30 August, 2006, from http://www.teachingperspectives.com/
Qin, D., Johnson, W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competititive efforts and problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 129-143. doi:10.2307/1170710
335
Compilation of References
Quinlan, K. (1997). Case studies of academics’ educational beliefs about their discipline: Towards a discourse on scholarly dimensions of teaching. Paper presented at the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia Annual Conference, 8-11 July, Adelaide, South Australia.
Reeves, T. C. (2006). Design Research From a Technology Perspective. In J. van den Akker, K Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Niveen (Eds.), Educational Design Research (pp. 52-66). Routledge: London.
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education (2nd ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2005). Design research: a socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 97-115.
Ramsey, C. (2003). Using virtual learning environments to facilitate new learning relationships. The International Journal of Management Education, 3(2), 31 - 41.
Renninger, K. A., & Shumar, W. (Eds.) (2002). Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Recker, M. (2006). Perspectives on teachers as digital library users: Consumers, contributors, and designers. D-Lib Magazine, 12(9).
Rheingold, H. (1992). Virtual communities. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Recker, M., & Palmer, B. (2006). Using content across digital libraries. Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, (pp. 241-242). New York: ACM. Recker, M., & Palmer, B. (2006, June). Using content across digital libraries. Paper presented at the ACM IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, Chapel Hill, NC. Recker, M., Dorward, J., & Nelson, L. (2004). Discovery and use of online learning resources: Case Study Findings. Educational Technology & Society, 7(2), 93-104. Recker, M., Dorward, J., Dawson, D., Liu, Y., Mao, X., Palmer, B., et al. (2005). Teaching, creating, sharing: A context for learning objects. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1, 197-216. Recker, M., Giersch, S., Walker, A., Halioris, S., Mao, X., & Palmer, B. (2007, June). A study of how online learning resources are used. Paper presented at the 2007 ACM IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, Vancouver, British Columbia. Recker, M., Walker, A., Giersch, S., Mao, X., Palmer, B., Johnson, D., et. al. (2007). A study of teachers’ use of online learning resources to design classroom activities. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 13(2), 117 - 134.
336
Rheingold, H. (2000). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier (Rev Edition ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press. Riverin, S., & Stacey, E. (2008). Sustaining an online community of practice: A case study. Journal of Distance Education, 22(2), 43-58. Roberts, G. (2004). Teaching using the Web: Conceptions and approaches from a phenomenographic perspective. In P. Goodyear, S. Banks, V. Hodgson & D. McConnell (Eds.), Advances in research on networked learning. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Roberts, J. (2006). Limits to communities of practice. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 623-639. Robey, D., Khoo, H. M., & Powers, C. (2000). Situated learning in cross-functional virtual teams. IEEE Transaction on Professional Communication, 43(1), 51-66. Robey, D., Khoo, H. M., & Powers, C. (2000). Situated learning in cross-functional virtual teams. IEEE Transaction on Professional Communication, 51-66. Roblyer, M. D. (2003). Integrating educational technology into teaching (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Compilation of References
Rodgers, C. R., & Scott, K. H. (2008). The development of the personal self and professional identity in learning to teach. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre & K. E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge and the Association of Teacher Educators. Rogers, C. (1994). Freedom to Learning (3rd Edition). New York: Merrill. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press. Rogers, J. (2000). Communities of practice: a framework for fostering coherence in virtual learning communities. Educational Technology and Society, 3(3), 384-392. Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2002). Using Peer Teams to Lead Online Discussions. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1, 1 - 21. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing Social Presence in Asynchronous Text-based Computer Conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 51-70. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 8-22. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from: http://aied.inf.ed.ac.uk/members01/archive/vol_12/rourke/full.html Rovai, A. P. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319-332. Rovai, A., & Jordan, H. (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) Retrieved on 2 February, 2008 from http://www.irrodl. org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/192/274 Rowan, L., & Knight, B. A. (2001). Researching futures oriented pedagogy. In L. Rowan & B. A. Knight (Eds.), Researching futures oriented pedagogies (pp. 1-6). Flaxton, Qld: Post Press.
Ruth, L. (2006). Converting my course converted me: How reinventing an on-campus course for online environment reinvigorated my teaching. Teaching Theology and Religion, 9(4), 236-242. Sadler-Smith, E., & Tsang, F. (1998). A comparative study of approaches to studying in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. British Journal of Psychology, 68, 81-93. Sadler-Smith, E., Gardiner, P., Badger, B., Chaston, I., & Stubberfield, J. (2000). Using collaborative learning to develop small firms. Human Resource Development International, 3(3), 285-306. Salmon, G. (2000). E-Moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page. Salmon, G. (2004). E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page. Salmon, G., Nie, M., & Edirisingha, P. (2007). Informal Mobile Podcasting and Learning Adaptation (IMPALA) (e-Learning research Project Report 06/07). Leicester: University of Leicester, Beyond Distance Research Alliance. Salomon, G. (1998). Novel constructivist learning environments and novel technologies: Some issues to be concerned with. Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction, 1, 3-12. Salter, D. (2006). E-Scholars: Staff Development Through Designing for Learning. In L Markauskite, P. Goodyear, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Who’s learning? Whose technology? Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE), (pp. 1023–1025)University of Sydney, Sydney. Samarawickrema, G., & Stacey, E. (2007). Adopting web-based learning and teaching: A case study in higher education. Distance Education 28(3), 313-333. Samarawickrema, R. G. (In Press) Technology adoption: Voices of teaching academics, educational designers and students. Verlag: Germany. Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997) Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press 337
Compilation of References
Sandoval, W. A. (2004). Developing Learning Theory by Refining Conjectures Embodied in Educational Designs. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 213-223. Schauer, F., Kuritka, I., & Lustig, F. (2006). Creative Laboratory Experiments for Basic Physics Using Computer Data Collection and Evaluation Exemplified on the Intelligent School Experimental System (ISES), in Innovations, World Innovations in Engineering Education and Research, iNEER Special Volume 2006 (pp. 305-312), ISBN 0-9741252-5-3. Schauer, F., Lustig, F., & Ožvoldová, M., (2007). Remote Meterials Science Internet Experiments: Solid State Photovoltaic Cell Characterization. Journal of Materials Education, 29(3-4): pp. 193-200, ISSN: 0738-7989 Schlager, M., & Fusco, J. (2004). Teacher Professional Development, Technology, and Communities of Practice: Are We Putting the Cart before the Horse? In S. Barab, & R. Kling, & J. Gray (Eds.), Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning (pp. 120-153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schlager, M., Fusco, J., & Schank, P. (2002). Evolution of an on-line education community of practice. In K.A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace. New York: Cambridge University Press, (pp. 129-158). Schumacher, D. (2007). Student undergraduate laboratory and project work. Editorial to the special issue, Eur. J. Phys., 28, May. Schweizer, K., Paechter, M., & Weidenmann, B. (2003). Blended Learning as a strategy to improve collaborative task performance. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 211-224. Schwen, T. M., & Hara, N. (2003). Community of practice: A metaphor for online design? Information Society, 19(3), 257-270. Schwen, T., & Hara, N. (2003). Community of practice: a metaphor for online design? The Information Society, 19, 257-270. Seitzinger, J. (2006). Be Constructive: Blogs, Podcasts and Wikis as Constructive Learning Tools. The eLearning
338
Guild’s – Learning Solutions - Practical Applications of Technology for Learning e-Magazine, July 31, 1-16. Retrieved March 28, 2008, from http://www.elearningguild.com/pdf/2/073106DES.pdf Selwyn, N., Gorard, S., & Furlong, J. (2006). Adult learning in the digital age: Information technology and the learning society. London: Routledge. Seufert, S., & Euler, D. (2003). Sustainability of eLearning innovations: findings of expert interviews. Retrieved December 3, 2004 from: http://www.scil. ch/publications/docs/2003-06-seufert-euler-sustainability-elearning.pdf. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13. Sharpe, R. (2004). How do professionals learn and develop? Implications for staff and educational developers. In D. Baume and P. Kahn (Eds.), Enhancing staff and educational development (pp. 132-153 ), Routledge Falmer, London. Sharpe, R., & Oliver, M. (2007). Supporting practitioners’ design for learning: Principles of effective resources and interventions. In Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (Eds), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age. Designing and delivering e-learning. (pp. 117-128). London: Routledge. Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G., & Francis, R. (2006). The undergraduate experience of blended learning: A review of UK literature and practice. Retrieved on 1 February, 2008 from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/projects/detail/lr_2006_sharpe Shea, P. (2006). Towards a conceptual framework for learning in blended environments. In A. Picciano & C. Dziuban (Eds.), Blended Learning. Research Perspectives. United States of America: The Sloan Consortium. Shea, P., Pickett, A., & Sau Li, C. (2005). Increasing access to higher education: A study of the diffusion of online teaching among 913 college faculty. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 6(2), http://www.irrodl.org/content/v6.2/shea.html
Compilation of References
Shea, P., Swan, K., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2005). Developing learning community in online asynchronous college courses: The role of teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(4). Retrieved January 27, 2008 from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v9n4/v9n4_shea.asp Shephard, K. (2004). The role of educational developers in the expansion of educational technology. International Journal for Academic Development, 9(1), 67-83. Retrieved April 11, 2008, from http://www.informaworld. com/index/714023653.pdf. Sherer, P. D., Shea, T. P., & Kristensen, E. (2003). Online communities of practice: A catalyst for faculty development. Innovative Higher Education, 27(3), 183-194. Sheridan, T. B. (1992). Musings on telepresence and virtual presence. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ.1, (pp. 120–125). Sherry, L. (1998). An integrate technology adoption and diffusion model. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 4(2/3), 113-145. Sherry, L., Tavalin, F., & Billig, S. H. (2000). Good online conversation: Building on research to inform practice. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), 85-127. Shovein, J., Huston, C., Fox, S., & Damazo, B. (2005). Challenging traditional teaching and learning paradigms: Online learning and emancipatory teaching. Nursing Education Perspectives, 26(6), 340-343. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. Simpson, M. (2003). Distance delivery of pre-service teacher education: Lessons for good practice from twenty-one international programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA. Simpson, N. (2000). Studying innovation in education: The case of the ConnectEd project. http://www.aare.edu. au/00pap/sim00027.htm [accessed 15 August 2008]
Simpson, N. (2001). Diffusion theory and actor-network theory. In L. Rowan & B. A. Knight (Eds.), Researching futures oriented pedagogies (pp. 23-40). Flaxton, Qld: Post Press. Sims, R. (1997). Interactivity: A forgotten art? Retrieved September 8, 1999, from http://intro.base.org/docs/interact/. Singh, H. (2006). Blending learning and work. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 474490). San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Singh, H., & Reed, C. (2001). A White Paper: Achieving Success with Blended Learning. ASTD State of the Industry Report. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training & Development. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from http://www.centra.com/download/whitepapers/ blendedlearning.pdf Sloman, M. (2007) making sense of blended learning. Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(6), 315-318. Smith, M., & Kollock, P. (2001). Invisible Crowds in Cyberspace: mapping the social structure of the Usenet. In M. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace (pp. 195-219), New York: Routledge.Smith. Smith, P. J. (2000). Flexible delivery and apprentice training: preferences, problems and challenges, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 52(3), 483-502. Smith, P. J. (2000). Preparedness for flexible delivery among vocational learners, Distance Education, 21(1), 29-48. Smith, P. J. (2001). Enhancing flexible business training through computer-mediated communication. Industrial and Commercial Training, 33(5), 120-125. Smith, P. J., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2006). Learning in Organisations: Designing for Diversity. London: Routledge. Smith, P. J., & Stacey, E. (2003). Quality practice in computer supported collaborative learning: Identifying research gaps and opportunities. In G. Davies & E. Stacey
339
Compilation of References
(Eds.), Quality Education @ A Distance (pp. 119-128). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Smith, P. J., Barty, K., & Stacey, E. (2007). Teaching and learning online: older adults in a community setting. In C. Abbott & Z. Lustigova (Eds.), Information Technologies for Education and Training, (pp. 162-169). Charles University, Prague: ETIC. Smith, P. J., Robertson, I., & Wakefield, L. (2002). Developing preparedness for flexible delivery of training in enterprises. Journal of Workplace Learning, 14(6), 222-232. So, H., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51, 318-336. Soden, R., & Halliday, J. (2000). Rethinking vocational education: a case study in case. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19(2), 172-182. Speck, M., & Knipe, C. (2001). Why Can’t We Get It Right? Professional Development in Our Schools. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. Stacey, E. & Wiesenberg, F. (2007). A Study of Faceto-Face and Online Teaching Philosophies in Canada and Australia. Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 19-40. Stacey, E. (1999). Collaborative learning in an online environment. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 14-33 Stacey, E. (1999). Collaborative learning in an online environment. Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l’enseignement à distance. 14(2), 14-33. Stacey, E. (2002). Quality online learning: Establishing social presence. In T. Evans (Ed.), Research in Distance Education 5: Revised papers from the fifth Research in Distance Education conference, (pp. 138-153). Deakin University 2000 Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University.
340
Stacey, E. (2002). Social presence online: networking learners at a distance. Education and Information Technologies, 7(4), 287-294. Stacey, E. (2002). Quality online participation: establishing social presence. Paper presented at the Research in Distance Education 5: Revised papers from the 5th Research in Distance Education Conference, Geelong. Stacey, E. (2002). Social presence online: networking learners at a distance. Education and Information Technology, 7(4), 287-294. Stacey, E. (2005) A constructivist framework for online collaborative learning: adult learning and collaborative learning theory. In T. Roberts (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning in higher education, (pp. 140-161), London: Idea Group Publishing. Stacey, E., & Gerbic, P. (2003, December). Investigating the impact of computer conferencing: content analysis as a manageable research tool. Paper presented at the G. Crisp, D. Thiele, I. Scholten, S. Barker & J. Baron (Eds.), Interact, Integrate, Impact: proceedings of the 20th annual conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, (pp. 495503), ASCILITE, Adelaide. Stacey, E., & Gerbic, P. (2007). Teaching for blended learning - Research perspectives from on-campus and distance students [Online version]. Educational and Information Technologies, 12(3), 165-174. Stacey, E., & Rice, M. (2002). Evaluating an online learning environment. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 18(3), 323-340. Stacey, E., & Wiesenberg, F. P. (2006). A cross-cultural study of face-to-face and distributed teaching philosophies in Canada and Australia. Paper presented at the Conference of the Canadian Association of Distance Education, Montreal, Canada. 23-26 May. Stacey, E., Barty, K., & Smith, P. (2005). Designing for online communities of learning. In H. Goss (Ed.), Balance, fidelity, mobility: maintaining the momentum? Proceedings of the 22nd annual conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in
Compilation of References
Tertiary Education, (pp. 629-635). Brisbane, Australia: Queensland University of Technology.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stacey, E., Smith, P. J., & Barty, K. (2004). Adult learners in the workplace: Online learning and communities of practice. Distance Education, 25(1), 107-123.
Suddaby, G., & Milne, J. (2008). Coordinated, collaborative and coherent: developing and implementing elearning guidelines within a national tertiary education system. Campus Wide Information Systems, 25(2), 114-122.
Staff and Educational Development Association (SEDA). (2005). What is SEDA-PDF? Professional Development Framework document accessed online June 22nd 2007 at http://www.seda.ac.uk/pdf/PDF%20Publication%20ma y%202005%2024pp.pdf. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage Publications. Stake, R. (2000). Case Studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Stebbins, M. W. & Shani, A. B. (1995). Organization design and the knowledge worker. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 16(1), 23-30. Stein, S. J., Isaacs, G., & Andrews, T. (2004). Incorporating authentic learning experiences within a university course. Studies in Higher Education, 29(2), 239-258. Stenhouse, L. (1978). Case study and case records: Towards a contemporary history of education. British Educational Research Journal, 4(2), 21-39. Stephenson, J. (Ed.) (2001). Teaching and learning online: Pedagogies for new technologies. London: Kogan Page. Stockdill, S. H., & Morehouse, D. L. (1992). Critical factors in the successful adoption of technology: A checklist based on TDC findings. Educational Technology, January, 57-58. Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Surry, D. W. (1997). Diffusion theory and instructional technology. http://www. .gsu.edu/~wwwitr/docs/diffusion/ [accessed 15 August 2008] Susman, E. B. (1998). Cooperative Learning: A review of factors that increase the effectiveness of cooperative computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18(4), 303-322. Sutton, L. (2001). The Principal of vicarious interaction in computer-mediated communications. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(3), 223242. Swain, C., & Dawson, K. (2006). The teacher village: Growing partnerships to integrate educational technology into curricula and classrooms. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2). Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306-331. Tabor, S. (2007). Narrowing the distance: Implementing a hybrid learning model for information security education. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 47-57. Tatnall, A., & Burgess, S. (2004). Using actor-network theory to identify factors affecting the adoption of ecommerce in SMEs. In M. Singh & D. Waddell (Eds.), E-business innovation and change management (pp. 152-169). London: IRM Press. Tatnall, A., & Lepa, J. (2003). The internet, e-commerce and older people: An actor-network approach to researching reasons for adoption and use. Logistics Information Management, 16(1), 56-63.
341
Compilation of References
Taylor, J. A. (2003). Managing staff development for online education: A situated learning model. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 25(1), 75-87. Tearle, P., Davis, N., & Birbeck, N. (1998). Six case studies of information technology-assisted teaching and learning in higher education in England. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 7(1), 51-70. Thomas, M. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures : the space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 351 - 366. Thompson, A. D., Schmidt, D. A., Davis, N. E. (2003). Technology collaboratives for simultaneous renewal in teacher education. Educational Technology Research & Development, 51(1), 73-89. Thompson, D., & Holt, D. (1996). Tertiary pedagogy encounters the technological imperative. Distance Education, 17(2), 335-354. Thompson, M. M. (1998). Distance learners in higher education. In C. C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance learners in higher education: Institutional responses for quality outcomes. Madison, WI: Atwood. Thompson, T. L. (2006, May). Innovating (e)learning as it innovates you: Intersections and questions from the global field. Paper presented at Canadian Association of Distance Educators (CADE) Conference, Montreal, Canada. Thompson, T. L. (2008). The virtual classroom @ work. In P. Zemliansky & K. St. Amant (Eds.), Handbook of research on virtual workplaces and the new nature of business practices (pp. 272-288). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Traditional Universities. In Proceedings of the Conference: EDUCA online, ISWE GmBH, Berlin. Thomsen, S., Straubhaar, J., & Bolyard, D. (1998, March). Ethnomethodology and the Study of Online Communities: Exploring the Cyber Streets. Information Research, 4(1), Retrieved June 20, 2008 from: http://informationr. net/ir/4-1/paper50.html. Thomson, R. & Wilson, G. (2008). Promoting staff learning about assessment through digital representations of practice. Evaluating a pilot project. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2), 143-149. Retrieved March 11, 2008, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ ajet24/thomson.html Tiene, D. (2000). Online discussions : A survey of advantages and disadvantages compared to face-to-face discussions. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(4), 371-384. Tikkanen, T. (2002). Learning at work in technology intensive environments. Journal of workplace learning, 14(3), 80-97. Tiwana, A., & Bush, A. (2001). A social exchange architecture for distributed Web communities. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(3), 242-249. Torrisi, G., & Davis, G. (2000). Online learning as a catalyst for reshaping practice – the experiences of some academics developing online learning materials. The International Journal for Academic Development, 5(2), 166-176. Trasier, J. (2002). Effective learning depends on the blend. Industrial and Commercial Training, 34(5), 191-195. Trentin, G. (2004). E-learning and the third age. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(1), 21–30
Thompson, T. L. (2008, March). Learning in online communities. An array of spaces and places. Paper and poster presented at American Educational Research Association (AERA) Conference, New York.
Trentin, G. (2006). The Xanadu Project: training faculty in the use of ICT for university teaching. International Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 182-196.
Thomsen C., Jeschke, S., Pfeiffer, O., & Seiler, R. (2005). e-Volution: eLTR - Technologies and Their Impact on
Trentin, G. (2007). A multidimensional approach to elearning sustainability. Educational Technology, 47(5), 36-40.
342
Compilation of References
Trentin, G. (2008). TEL and university teaching: different approaches for different purposes. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(1), 117-132. Trigwell, K., Martin, E., Benjamin, J., & Prosser, M. (2000). Scholarship of Teaching: A model. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(2), 155-168.
Vaughan, N., & Garrison. D. R. (2006). How blended learning can support a faculty development community of inquiry. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(4), Retrieved January 23, 2008 from: http://www. sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v10n4/v10n4_vaughan. asp.
Tu, C. H., & Corry, M. (2001). A paradigm shift for online community research. Distance Education, 22(2), 245-263.
Vavasseur, C., & MacGregor, K. (2008). Extending content-focused professional development through online communities of practice. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 517-536.
Tu, C-H. (2001). How Chinese perceive social presence: an examination of interaction in online learning environment, Education Media International, 38(1), 45-60.
Veen, W., & Vrakking, B. (2006). Homo Zappiens: Growing up in a digital age. London: Continuum.
Twigg, C. (2003). Improving learning and reducing costs: models for online learning. EDUCAUSE review (September/October), 29-38. Twigg, C. (2003). Improving learning and reducing costs: New models for online learning. Educause Review, September/October 2003, 29-38. Underwood, J. (2007). Rethinking the Digital Divide: Impacts on student-tutor relationships. European Journal of Education, 42(2), 213-222. Van Schaik, P., Barker, P., & Beckstrand, S. (2003). A comparison of on-campus and online course delivery methods in southern Nevada. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 40(1), 5-15. Varis, T (2004). Social perspective of e-learning in the national education system. Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento (RUSC), 1(1). Retrieved January 13, 2008 from http://www.uoc.edu/rusc/dt/eng/ varis0704.pdf. Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 81-94. Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2005). Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty development community. Internet and Higher Education, 8(1), 1-12.
Vignare, K. (2006). Review of literature. Blended learning: Using ALN to change the classroom - will it work for you? In M. Pittinsky & C. Dziuban (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives. United Sates of America: The Sloan Consortium. Viskovic, A. (2006). Becoming a tertiary teacher: learning in communities of practice. Higher Education Research & Development, 25(4), 323-339. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Proceeses. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Wallace, L. (2007). Online teaching and university policy: Investigating the disconnect. Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 87-100. Warner, D., Christie, G., & Choy, S. (1998). The readiness of the VET sector for flexible delivery including on-line learning. Brisbane: Australian National Training Authority. Warshauer, M. (1999). Electronic Literacies. Language, Culture and Power in Online Literacies. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Weaver, D. (2006). The challenge facing staff development in promoting quality online teaching International Journal on E-Learning 5(2), 275-286.
343
Compilation of References
Weisenberg, F., & Stacey, E. (2005). Reflections on teaching and learning online: quality program design, delivery and support issues from a cross-global perspective. Distance Education 26(3), 385-404.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2004). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Welker, J., & Berardino, L. (2005). Blended learning: Understanding the middle ground between traditional classroom and fully online instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(1), 33–55.
Wheatley, M. J. (1999). Leadership and the new science: discovering order in a chaotic world. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Weller, M., Pegler, C., & Mason, R. (2005). Students’ experience of component versus integrated virtual learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 21(4), 253-259. Wellman, B. (2005). Connecting Community: On- and Offline. [Personal web page-Wellman]. Retrieved September, 2007, from: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/ netlab/PUBLICATIONS/_frames.html. Wellman, B., & Guila, M. (1999). The network basis of social support: a network is more than the sum of its ties. In B. Wellman (Ed.), Networks in the global village (pp. 83-118). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press: New York. Wenger, E., & Snyder, W. (2000). Communities of practice: the organisational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 139-145. Wenger, E., & Snyder, W. (2001). Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier, Harvard Business Review on Organizational Learning (pp. 1-20). Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Wheeler, S. (2005). British distance education: A proud tradition. In Y. Visser, L. Visser and M. Simonson (Eds) Trends and Issues in Distance Education: An International Perspective. Greenwich, Connecticut, USA: Information Age Publishers. Wheeler, S. (2007). Something wiki this way cometh: Evaluating open architecture software as support for nomadic learning. Paper presented at the EDEN 2007 Annual Conference, Citta della Scienza, Naples, Italy. 13-16 June. White, S. (2006). Critical success factors for institutional change: some organisational perspectives. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(5), 840-850. Whitworth, A. (2005). The politics of virtual learning environments: Environmental change, conflict, and elearning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 685-691. Wiberg, M. (2007). Netlearning and learning through networks. Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 49-61. Wieman, C. (2006). New instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey. Phys. Rev. Spec. Topics- Phys. Educ. Res., 2(010101). Wieman, C., & Perkins, K. (2006). A powerful tool for teaching science. Nature physics, 2(2006), 290.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Wiesenberg, F. P. (1999). Teaching online: one instructor’s evolving ‘theory of practice’. Adult Basic Edcation, 9( 3),149-161.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice, Boston: Harvard University Press.
Wiesenberg, F. P. (2002). Quality online participation: Conceptualizing my practice. Chapter 12 in Research in
344
Compilation of References
Distance Education, 5. Deakin University, Melbourne, Au. Wildman, T. M., Magliaro, S. G., Niles, R. A., & Niles, J. A. (1992). Teacher mentoring: An analysis of roles, activities, and conditions. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 205-213 Wilson, B. G., Ludwig-Hardman, S., Thorman, C. L., & Dunlap, J. C. (2004). Bounded community: Designing and facilitating learning communities in formal courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(3). Retrieved 17 November, 2004 from http://www.irrodl.org/content/v5.3/wilson.html Wilson, B., Ludwig-Hardman, S., Thornam, C., & Dunlap, J. (2004). Bounded community: Designing and facilitating learning communities in formal courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(3), 1-22. Wilson, B., Sherry, L., Dobrovolny, J., Batty, M., & Ryder, M. (2000). Adoption of learning technologies in schools and universities. In H. H. Adelsberger, B. Collis & J. M. Pawlowski (Eds.), Handbook on information technologies for education and training. New York: Springer-Verlag. http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~lsherry/pubs/newadopt.htm. [accessed 15 August 2008]
Woods, R., & Keeler, J. (2001). The Effect of Instructor’s Use of Audio E-Mail Messages on Student Participation in and Perceptions of Online Learning: A Preliminary Case Study. Open Learning, 16(3), 263-278. Woods, R., Baker, J., & Hopper, D. (2004). Hybrid structures: Faculty use and persception of web-based courseware as a supplement to face-to-face instruction. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 281-297. Wyn, J., & Dwyer, P. (2000). New patterns of youth transition. International Socal Science Journal, 52(164), 147-159. Wyn, J., & Dwyer, P. (2000). New patterns of youth transition. Unesco 2000, 147-159. Yamagata-Lynch, L. (2003). Using activity theory as an analytic lens for examining technology professional development in schools. Mind, Culture and Activity, 10(2), 100-119. Yildez, S., & Bichelmeyer, B. (2003). Exploring electronic forum participation and interaction by EFL speakers in two web-based graduate-level courses. Distance Education, 24(2), 175-193. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research design and methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Wilson, B., Sherry, L., Dobrovolny, J., Batty, M., & Ryder, M. (2002). Adoption factors and processes. In H. H. Adelsberger, B. Collis & J. M. Pawlowski (Eds.), Handbook on information technologies for education and training (pp. 293-307). New York: Springer.
Young, S., & Mitchell, J. (2000). The emergence of new types of communities of practice: the framing the future case study 1997-2000. Paper presented at the Conference Working Knowledge: Productive Learning at Work, University of Technology, Sydney, 11-13 December.
Wilson, G. (2007) Using information and communications technology in higher education. Unpublished doctoral folio, Deakin University, Australia.
Zabusky, S. E. (1996). Computers, clients, and expertise: negotiating technical identities in a nontechnical world. NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wilson, G., Thomson, R., & Malfroy, J. (2006). Gathering online representations of practice about assessment for use as a professional development tool: A case in progress. In L. Markauskaite, P. Goodyear, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Whose learning? Whose technology? Proceedings of 23rd Annual ASCILITE Conference (Vol 2, pp. 893-897). Sydney: Sydney University Press. Retrieved August 24, 2008 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney06/proceeding/pdf_papers/p47.pdf
Zemsky, R., & Massy, W. F. (2004). Thwarted innovation: what happened to e-learning and why. Final Report for The Weatherstation Project of the Learning Alliance at University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved February 27, 2005 from http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/ WeatherStation_Report.pdf. Zhao, Y., & Rop, S. (2001). A critical review of the literature on electronic networks as reflective discourse
345
Compilation of References
communities for inservice teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 6(2), 81–94.
February 1, 2008 from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content. asp?ContentID=12098
Zhao, Y., Yan, J. L., Lai, C., & Tan, S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Retrieved
Zinn, L. (1998). Identifying your philosophical orientation. In M.W. Galbraith (Ed.). Adult Learning Methods: A Guide for Effective Instruction, (pp. 37-72 ). 2nd Edition. Malabar, Florida: Krieger.
346
347
About the Contributors
Elizabeth Stacey is an associate professor in the School of Education at Deakin University. She has researched, supervised research students and taught about topics covering a range of interactive communication technologies including online learning via the Internet, computer conferencing and collaborative learning through blended, flexible open and distance education. She has published regularly in international journals of distance education and educational technology. Philippa Gerbic is an active practitioner and researcher in the e-learning field. She teaches undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in teacher education and adult learning at the Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand. She has recently completed a substantive investigation into undergraduate student approaches to learning when online discussions are included within a campus based programme. Other research interests include blended environments, the development of online and flexible learning, computer mediated communication, online learning design and student perspectives on learning. She is currently investigating the role of e-portfolios within a lifelong learning framework, and issues regarding their placement within blended environments. *** Bill Anderson is the director, Distance Learning at the University of Otago. Bill has taught in the areas of distance and online education, and teacher education for many years. He has published and presented many papers concerning distance and online learning, focusing his initial research work on the online learning of distance students. His current work is more strategy and policy focused. Current projects include study of system-wide course retention rates for distance students and the learning experiences of full-time distance students. Bill is currently president of the Distance Education Association of New Zealand. Adam Blake began working in educational design and professional development in the latter half of the 1990s. He has managed projects for staff orientation to elearning, learning management system development and implementation, creation of blended and fully-online courses, and implementation of elearning initiatives across a range of university programmes. He facilitates the online course, ‘ELearning & Clinical Education’, as part of the University of Auckland’s post-graduate programme in clinical education. Adam’s research interests span learning design, knowledge visualisation, and professional development and change management for elearning. He holds a conjoint BCom/LLB degree from the University of Auckland and a Master’s in educational technology from the University of British Columbia. Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
About the Contributors
Kristy Bloxham is a PhD student in the Department of Instructional Technology at Utah State University, USA. Her current research interests include online learning communities, web enhanced learning, and gender issues involving science and math education. She is involved in Instructional Architect (IA) as a research assistant. Kristy received her BA in elementary education in 1986 at USU and her Master’s degree in 1988, also at USU. After finishing her Master’s degree she started her own educational software development and marketing company. Ana Amélia A. Carvalho is assistant professor and researcher at the School of Education, University of Minho, Portugal. She is a member of the Department of Curriculum and Educational Technology. She works with undergraduate and postgraduate teaching programs in face-to face and online courses, as well as online courses only. Her research is related to applying learning theories to structure content and to promote knowledge transfer to new situations. A model to structure learning objects has been developed based on cognitive flexibility theory, focusing on multiple perspectives to deconstruct case studies. This model is applied to advanced knowledge acquisition. More recently, she is studying ways of supporting students online, particularly with podcasts. Ruth Geer is a lecturer in the School of Education at the University of South Australia. Her expertise lies in the integration of information and communication technologies (ICT) to enhance student learning. She has responsibility for ensuring that the School stays abreast with the development of learning technologies in teacher education. In addition, Ruth is the program director of two teacher education programs, the Master of Teaching and the Graduate Diploma in Education. Ruth has been a consultant for a number of projects on the evaluation of ICT on student learning for the South Australian Department of Education and Children’s Services. She is currently a principal researcher for a 3 year longitudinal study on the “Delivery of ICT learning using contemporary learning environments”. She has published in this area for a number of years and her doctoral dissertation examined interactions and cognition in online learning communities. Cathy Gunn has worked in the field of Academic Development specializing in technology-facilitated learning since the early 1990s. She has contributed to teaching, learning and organizational development within a large research-intensive university in New Zealand for fourteen years. Research interests span a range of contemporary issues in elearning, including strategy implementation and impact evaluation. Cathy has produced a long list of sole and co-authored publications reflecting this breadth of experience. She is currently serving a second term as president of The Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ascilite). She has a PhD in computer based learning research and an MSc in human computer interaction from Heriot-Watt University in Scotland. Tak Ha, assistant director of the Center for Enhanced Learning and Teaching of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology began his career in education as a teacher in a secondary school in Hong Kong. He later moved on to doing research work in the education department of the Hong Kong Government. In 1996, he joined the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. He has been involved in several major teaching development projects funded by Hong Kong University Grants Committee, most of which aimed to promote the use of technology in higher education. His research interests include theories of student learning, workplace learning, evaluation of institutional effectiveness, on-line teaching evaluation, education assessment, and use of technology in education. Tak obtained
348
About the Contributors
his Bachelor of Science, Certificate in Education, and Master of Education (test and measurement) from the University of Hong Kong, and his PhD from Deakin University, Australia. Heather Kanuka is academic director and associate professor at the University of Alberta, Canada. Prior to her recent appointment to the University of Alberta, she was a Canada Research Chair in eLearning at Athabasca University. Her current research focus revolves around philosophies of educational technology. Heather Leary is a doctoral student at Utah State University in the Department of Instructional Technology and Learning Sciences. She is a research assistant for the Digital Libraries Connect research group where she focuses on determining the quality of online educational resources and updating the Instructional Architect’s online course. She is also the digital library assistant at Utah State University’s Merrill-Cazier Library in the Digital Initiatives Department where she is the digital imaging expert. There she advises on and works with hardware, software, and digital images as well as assisting in creating the department’s digital collections. Her research interests include problem-based learning, online educational resources, digital libraries, and distance education. František Lustig received his MS degree in didactics of physics from Charles University in Prague in 1976. He received his PhD degree in plasma physics from Charles University in Prague in 1986. In 2005 he was appointed associate professor in didactics of physics. He is one of the authors of ISES (Intelligent School Experimental System) and iSES (internet School Experimental Studio). His main activities are computer-aided experiments, remote laboratories, and videoconferencing in experimental laboratory. Zdena Lustigova, associate professor, head of the Lab. of Online Learning, Charles University gue, received her PhD from Charles University in fuzzy logic. Research interests include the design of virtual learning environments using advanced learning technologies. She is one of the developers of ISES system for computer aided laboratories and the leading developer of Telmae LOR. In order to help building virtual communities of science teachers she participated in the large governmental projects, where she supported alphabetization towards ICT concepts and helped to design educational software. The Lab is involved in several European projects and support for research comes also from Czech government and contracts with firms. She teaches computer aided experimenting, simulations and modeling. She is mainly involved in teacher education. Julie Mackey is a senior lecturer, and head of the School for Literacies and Arts in Education, in the College of Education, University of Canterbury, Christchurch. Her teaching, in initial teacher education and professional development programmes for teachers, is focused on e-learning and the use of information and communication technologies across the curriculum. Her research interests focus on the use of information and communication technologies for online and blended learning, communities of practice, and teacher professional development. Julie is an experienced online educator with a strong interest in the design of student-centred online learning, and the processes of interactivity and engagement which promote adult learning.
349
About the Contributors
Mimi Recker earned a Bachelor’s degree in mathematics from the University of Pennsylvania. After a few years as software engineer in Silicon Valley she returned to graduate school at the University of California, Berkeley where she received her PhD in 1992. Mimi worked for two years at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and four years at Victoria University in New Zealand, then came to Utah State in 1998. Her research focuses on helping the education sector reap the benefits of cyber-learning. Her goals are to help provide teachers and learners with access to a network of high-quality, interactive and free online learning resources. Suzanne Riverin is an educator with more than 25 years experience in the K-12 sector. She has specialized in instruction in drama, media studies, and alternative education with an emphasis on integrating technology into her classrooms. She was previously seconded to The Education Network of Ontario/ Le Réseau éducatif de l’Ontario (ENO/REO) as its executive director and professional development coordinator where she became involved in elearning through an online community of practice. Suzanne is now serving as a regional e-learning contact for the Ministry of Education, Ontario, Canada and has a PhD from Deakin University, Australia, focusing on online communities of practice and professional development. M. Brooke Robershaw is currently a PhD student at Utah State University in Instructional Technology in Logan, Utah, USA. She holds a BA from Oglethorpe University in Atlanta, Georgia, USA in elementary education and a MEd from the University of Georgia, USA in intstructional technology. Before starting her PhD program at USU she was a peace and human justice activist in Eugene, Oregon, USA. Her interests include technological pedagogical content knowledge, localization of open educational resources, interfaith and intercultural communication, and uses of instructional technologies in the peace movement and as tools to empower oppressed populations both in the United States and around the world. Gayani Samarawickrema, PhD, has experience in areas of educational design and has developed a range of e-learning resources for a variety of learning contexts. She works as a lecturer in the Institute of Teaching and Learning at Deakin University, Australia and is involved in professional development and research in teaching with technology in higher education; technology adoption by higher education institutions and implications; policy related to technology use in higher education and its impact on teaching and learning; and issues related to Web 2.0, staff development, technology adoption, and learning design. Her contribution to this book is drawn from her doctoral work, which has been published by Verlag. Mary Simpson is currently a senior lecturer in the College of Education at the University of Otago teaching in the University’s teacher education programme. Mary has worked in leadership roles in New Zealand teacher education and has taught courses in policy, leadership and administration in distance and online education, research methods and professional inquiry and practice. Mary has worked extensively in distance education and teacher education (pre-service and in-service) for over twenty years as well as researching and publishing in the field of distance education/e-learning. Mary has been part of research teams working in the areas of initial teacher education, e-learning policy, evaluation of online environments and the student experience of distance and online learning. Her ongoing research interests are in distance and online education and teacher education.
350
About the Contributors
Peter Smith has spent his career in the mining industry, in higher education and in vocational education and training. Prior to joining Deakin University in 1999 he had been at the Gordon Institute of TAFE for 15 years, finishing there in 1998 as general manager – business development. Peter has a long experience in management and leadership roles in advanced education and in vocational education and training, prior to joining the university sector. Since joining that sector he has become a senior researcher, focusing on the flexible delivery of teaching and learning in higher education, vocational, and workplace environments. He has published some thirty papers in refereed journals in the fields of VET, flexible delivery and online learning, and has recently published the book: Smith, P.J. & SadlerSmith, E. (2006) Learning in Organisations: Complexities and Diversities, London: Routledge. Terrie Lynn Thompson is a PhD candidate in the Faculty of Education at the University of Alberta, Canada. Research preoccupations include work-related learning in online communities; fostering elearning teaching and learning excellence (faculty development); quality standards for e-learning; the ins and outs of blended learning in graduate programs; and exploring how web-based technologies, used for e-learning purposes, can be a tool of social development. Her background includes management, facilitation, curriculum design, and research in a range of settings: internationally in developing countries, higher education, not-for-profit sport, the corporate sector, and high tech. Guglielmo Trentin is with the Institute for Educational Technology (ITD) of the Italian National Research Council (CNR). His studies have largely focused on the use of ICT in formal and informal learning. In this field he has managed several projects and scientific activities, developing technological applications and methodological approaches to support networked collaborative learning. He is contributing editor of Educational Technology (USA) and member of the TP&E Editorial Board (International Journal of Technology, Pedagogy & Education - UK). Since 2002 he teaches Network Technology & Human Resources Development at the University of Turin - Faculty of Political Science. Andy Walker is currently an assistant professor in the Department of Instructional Technology at Utah State University. Andy holds a bachelor’s degree in English from Washington State University, and his Master’s and PhD degrees in instructional technology from USU. Between earning his PhD from USU and returning to start his current position he spent three years at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, USA. His research interests are in problem-based learning, collaborative filtering (recommender systems) for educational purposes, and meta-analysis. Steve Wheeler is senior lecturer in education and information technology in the Faculty of Education at the University of Plymouth, UK. He has worked in educational media and learning technology since 1976, predominantly in nurse education and teacher training. His main research interests centre on e-learning, distance education, classroom technologies, student support and the psychological issues surrounding technology mediated education. He serves on the boards of 7 international peer reviewed journals and is regularly invited to speak at education and technology conferences worldwide. His current role in the university is to co-ordinate education development and technology mediated learning, and he is also the convenor of the university’s e-learning research network. Steve is a fellow of EDEN and chair elect of IFIP Working Group 3.6 (Distance Education). His most recent book, entitled ‘The Digital Classroom’ was published in 2008 by Routledge.
351
About the Contributors
Gail Wilson is associate professor and manager teaching and learning services at Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia. Her current research focuses on blended learning and course re-design and teachers’ use of purpose-built campus learning spaces that support blended learning. Gail has published in the area of professional development for faculty for e-learning, most recently in the area of digital resources as tools for professional learning. Other research interests include the use of electronic portfolios as a form of e-scholarship to document faculty achievements in teaching and course development. Gail serves on the Steering Committee of an Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) national project Preparing Academic Teachers in Higher Education, and is a member of the Executive of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA). Her career spans across thirty years as an adult educator, human resource developer, and senior manager in the public and corporate sectors Faye P. Wiesenberg, PhD, is an associate professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Calgary. She teaches primarily in distributed learning programs (counseling, workplace learning) in the Division of Applied Psychology. Her key research areas are: adult career /continuing professional development; program development and evaluation; workplace learning; and teaching/learning via distance technology.
352
353
Index
A academic development 160, 219, 256, 260, 263, 268, 277, 279 academic practice 259, 260, 269, 273, 276 accreditation 120, 259, 260 actor-network theory 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 237, 238 administrative activities 228 adult learning 5, 59, 62, 66, 72, 77, 218, 219, 299 advanced communication technologies 205 asynchronous media 5
B behaviourism 80 Blackboard 79, 82, 84, 86, 89, 223 blended environment 7, 9, 11, 17, 21, 27, 31, 33, 168, 187, 192, 195, 300, 308 blended frameworks 310 blended learning 1–19, 21, 22, 23, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40–65, 70–97, 100, 101, 103, 105, 106, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 121, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 134, 135, 136, 137–199, 201, 204, 205, 206, 207, 209, 210, 211, 213, 214, 217–299, 300–311 blended learning environment 40, 42, 103, 256, 257, 239, 296
blended learning in organizational settings 129 blended learning practice 301 blended learning practices 1, 3, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 40, 91, 149, 254, 303 blended solutions 107 blended teaching 207 brainstorming 6, 35 broader framework 21 buffet model 3
C campus-based environments 18, 22, 34 campus-based students 26, 36, 121, 260 case study 6, 7, 16, 18, 21, 27, 28, 36, 39, 60, 120, 122, 141, 143, 148, 159, 161, 168, 169, 170, 172, 174, 175, 179, 180, 187, 200, 207, 219, 222, 223, 224, 237, 238, 239, 240, 243, 244, 258, 280, 281, 282, 286, 287, 294, 299 cognitive development 40, 41, 44, 45, 47, 52, 54, 55, 56, 58 cognitive tracks 54 cognitivism 80 collaborative learner-centred activities 67 collaborative learning 10, 18, 26, 41, 42, 43, 59, 60, 68, 80, 83, 92, 93, 103, 107, 109, 112, 125, 126, 128, 138, 139, 141, 142, 146, 148, 219, 248
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Index
communication technologies 204 communicative 47, 52, 54, 71, 72, 128, 241, 246 communities of practice 13, 126, 145, 164, 183, 302 communities of practice (CoP) 145 community members 68, 136, 148, 184, 305 community of inquiry (CoI) 5, 11, 43, 50, 68, 206, 207, 210, 211, 212, 213, 216, 217, 299, 309 community of inquiry framework 210, 211, 212, 213, 216, 217 community of inquiry model 11, 50, 68 community of learners 3, 42, 69, 107, 127, 146, 250 community of learning 126, 130, 133, 134, 136 comprised of university instructors 144, 151 computer-mediated conferencing (CMC) 4, 22 computer mediated communication (CMC) 126, 127 computer supported collaborative learning 37 conceptual frameworks 5 concomitant property of learning 146 constructivism 36, 37, 40, 41, 59, 80, 99, 171 content-driven 106, 111 CoP 145, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159 copyright 230 copyright and ownership 230 courses designed 1
D definitions 2, 5, 22, 103, 104, 146, 166, 217, 266, 282, 296, 306 design-based research 259, 261, 263, 264, 267, 269, 270, 274, 275, 277, 299, 301, 304 diffusion of innovations 226 diffusion of innovation theory 222, 223 digital audio programs 82 digital divide 308, 309, 311 digital immigrants 106, 122, 182, 200 digital natives 106, 182, 281 dimension of learning 106
354
discussion forums 38, 47, 48, 49, 52, 54, 55, 57, 71, 72, 175, 185, 186, 189, 192, 230 distance delivery 64, 65, 216 distance education 6, 9, 10, 37, 59, 63, 64, 76, 77, 81, 82, 118, 123, 126, 133, 160, 198, 208, 220, 236, 237, 256, 276 distance model 2 distance settings 1, 9, 302
E e-labs 93 e-learning 2, 17, 37, 76, 77, 96, 103, 273, 277, 311 e-simulations 98 early adopter 7, 211, 225 elearning guidelines 261, 267, 269, 271, 273, 274, 279 empirical evaluation 6 establishing communities 12, 14 establishing social presence 61, 82, 135 evaluative model (SCIA) 57
F F2F social events 158 face-to-face activities 21, 110, 212 face-to-face class 5, 32, 36, 83, 84, 196, 208, 209, 211, 215, 304 face-to-face classes 3, 8, 9, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 81, 82, 209, 211, 245, 247, 251, 308 face-to-face classroom 11, 30, 31, 136, 166, 191, 204, 205, 206, 209, 211, 216, 244, 247 face-to-face classroom learning 30 face-to-face component 2, 11, 14 face-to-face conversation 3 face-to-face delivery 64, 65, 70, 74, 146 face-to-face discussions 8, 19, 22, 26, 32, 177, 210, 300 face-to-face interaction 6, 9, 12, 13, 80, 113, 185 face-to- face paradigm 7 face-to-face period 81
Index
face-to-face sessions 6, 8, 31, 35, 36, 80, 82, 86, 145, 185, 196 face-to face instructor 81 face to face situations 41 flexible learning 22, 264, 276 formal and informal learning 107 forum 32, 38, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 69, 84, 85, 86, 131, 141, 147, 151, 152, 189, 241, 247, 248 framework 4, 5, 6, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 28, 34, 37, 39, 40, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 54, 57, 58, 59, 64, 70, 72, 75, 101, 107, 109, 128, 140, 141, 148, 159, 161, 163, 166, 168, 170, 179, 183, 187, 188, 198, 199, 206, 210, 211, 212, 213, 216, 217, 219, 223, 224, 231, 232, 233, 235, 236, 240, 241, 243, 251, 252, 256, 257, 263, 264, 269, 273, 274, 275, 281, 282, 283, 286, 291, 296, 300, 301, 304, 306, 309 fully online model 3, 11 Funding grants 227 future development 144
information communications technology (ICT) 2, 165, 281 institutional support dimension 239, 245, 246 instructional design 16, 39, 40, 41, 44, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 107, 110, 112, 113, 123, 217, 261, 267, 306 instructional strategies 5, 58 integration 2, 3, 5, 33, 40, 42, 45, 63, 64, 65, 69, 75, 83, 107, 109, 114, 139, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 156, 158, 164, 187, 206, 212, 223, 231, 234, 249, 260, 261, 262, 266, 271, 275, 282, 286, 290, 295, 301, 305, 308, 310 intellectual property 230, 232, 233, 234, 235, 276, 310 interactive pedagogies 5, 46, 58 interactive technologies 5, 44, 46, 47, 300, 304 Italian network-based education context 105 IT industry 130, 133 IT professionals 127, 130, 131
G
joint enterprise 67, 134
Geer’s framework 4 generic view 298 global learning communities 57
key role 41, 116, 260
H holistic model 5 hybrid learning 2, 19
I ICT-based education 107 ideology 206 immersive learning 261 impact of technology 161 impediments to the development 134 implementation 74 imprinting 52 informal communities 133, 148, 156 informal learning 14, 83, 92, 107, 126, 128, 131, 138, 139, 155, 157, 165, 305
J K L learning community 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 41, 43, 44, 45, 56, 67, 68, 77, 78, 106, 122, 134, 135, 136, 137, 159, 165, 167, 169, 178, 185, 197, 211 learning design 3, 5, 8, 9, 21, 22, 23, 33, 42, 56, 57, 58, 59, 81, 146, 206, 216, 240, 249, 261, 263, 266, 267, 268, 271, 274, 275, 276, 300, 304, 308, 309 learning management system 27, 65, 71, 79, 80, 115, 119, 133, 135, 168, 222, 223, 224, 225, 228, 230, 231, 236, 269 learning management system (LMS) 6, 9, 168, 223, 269
355
Index
learning process 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 26, 32, 41, 42, 47, 80, 96, 106, 110, 111, 112, 113, 119, 132, 166, 205, 206, 211, 212, 282, 304
M managed CoP 149 micro-communities 154, 157, 158, 305 microcomputer-based laboratories (MBL) 93 mixing contexts 81 mixing learning objectives 81 mixing media 81 mixing of online with face-to-face learning 81 mixing theories of learning 81 mobile device 89 moderator 24, 155, 185, 190, 194, 309, 311 modes of delivery 62, 63, 145 Monash University 223, 224, 231, 232, 237 MP3 player 83, 84, 85, 87 multi-layered approach 156 multi-membership 164 multi-membership of communities 164, 165, 178 multimedia educational materials (MEM) 84 Multimedia Systems course 84, 87
N nature of CoP 157 network-based education (NBE) 106 network communication 106 networked collaborative learning (NCL) 106, 107 network generation 105, 117 new communication medium 21 nomadic learning 115 nurture communities of practice 144
O online communities 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 41, 68, 76, 126, 128, 131, 132, 134, 141, 142, 147, 149, 152, 155, 160, 161, 166, 180, 182, 183, 184, 195, 199, 200, 201, 300, 309 online communities of learning 126
356
online community 13, 14, 42, 46, 67, 76, 126, 131, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 141, 142, 149, 161, 174, 182, 183, 184, 187, 188, 191, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 301, 305 online community of learning 126, 134, 136 online community of practice 136, 161, 183, 199 online component 2, 147 online conversation 279 online dimension 245 online discussions 22 online forums 131 online interaction 2, 9, 12, 69, 80, 128, 135, 175, 194, 205, 302 online learning 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 26, 27, 43, 44, 45, 47, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 65, 67, 68, 71, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 107, 110, 113, 119, 120, 126, 128, 129, 130, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 141, 142, 145, 146, 149, 157, 161, 164, 165, 166, 167, 169, 175, 176, 177, 178, 183, 184, 187, 193, 195, 197, 198, 201, 205, 210, 212, 216, 219, 239, 240, 250, 251, 254, 257, 258, 260, 265, 266, 280, 281, 283, 284, 285, 287, 296, 301, 302, 307, 308 online learning community 67 online learning resources 280 online learning technologies to support workplace training 128 open and distance learning 17, 19, 76, 78, 107, 110, 143, 159, 238
P pedagogic 31, 34, 36, 81, 193, 299, 300, 303, 309, 310 pedagogical approaches 5, 80, 234, 239, 240, 250, 253, 254 pedagogical dimension 106 pedagogical framework 39, 40, 42, 47, 54, 206 pedagogical richness 81 peripheral participation 17, 77, 140, 180, 184, 305
Index
personal agency 81 personalised learning 39, 105, 116, 118, 119, 173, 299, 300 podcasts 6, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 102, 299, 300, 303, 304 policy 229 political climate 230 political reasons 227 professional development 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 33, 34, 64, 67, 70, 71, 75, 76, 92, 115, 127, 130, 138, 141, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 175, 177, 178, 179, 182, 183, 184, 185, 187, 191, 192, 194, 195, 197, 198, 199, 201, 202, 214, 217, 228, 231, 234, 235, 239, 240, 244, 246, 252, 253, 254, 258, 261, 262, 264, 265, 266, 268, 269, 274, 275, 276, 277, 281, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 294, 295, 300, 301, 303, 305, 306, 308, 309, 310 professional development centres 13, 144, 145, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 157, 158, 159, 300, 303, 310 professional learning 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 164, 165, 168, 169, 172, 183, 191, 194, 195, 197, 253, 264, 299, 301, 302, 303, 306, 308, 309, 310, 311 programme redesign 64 project-based 107, 113, 296 purposeful sampling approach 244
R reciprocal mentoring (RM) 280, 281, 282 recommendations for practice 299 redesign 5, 12, 33, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 146, 205, 242, 253, 255, 262, 273, 275, 301, 302, 304, 305, 309
reflection 5, 10, 12, 18, 24, 25, 26, 29, 37, 40, 45, 82, 147, 153, 166, 168, 170, 171, 177, 193, 206, 211, 217, 223, 241, 260, 261, 264, 265, 274, 275, 289, 290, 291, 295, 298, 299, 301, 303, 304, 306, 308 resource-based learning (RBL) 240, 250 resource-based learning environments (RBLEs) 251 resources development 229 restructure learning 39 retrospective comparative case study 280 rewards and acknowledgement schemes 230
S SCIA model 58 shared repertoire 67, 134 simultaneous independent 146 situated e-learning 164 situated learning 67, 125, 128, 142, 161, 164, 168, 179, 261, 263, 264, 266, 267, 274, 276, 277, 306 social and teaching presence 45, 58, 211 social constructivist 25, 41, 128, 166 social interdependence 43, 45 social networking 117 social networking sites 105, 117, 307 social presence 41, 43, 60, 61, 219 social software 116, 118, 126, 155, 236 social web tools 58 socio-linguistic process 147 student-centred environment 41 student demand 227 student learning 15, 16, 21, 27, 37, 39, 41, 48, 58, 63, 66, 68, 72, 74, 83, 101, 125, 134, 145, 152, 206, 214, 217, 241, 247, 248, 249, 250, 256, 261, 264, 265, 281, 303, 305, 310 supplemental 3
T talkback radio-style segments 82 task-based learning 250
357
Index
teacher 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 16, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 39, 47, 48, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 85, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 133, 134, 135, 139, 160, 161, 162, 164, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 175, 176, 178, 180, 182, 186, 189, 190, 196, 197, 198, 199, 204, 205, 206, 207, 209, 210, 211, 213, 219, 226, 227, 229, 232, 239, 240, 241, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 254, 260, 261, 263, 264, 268, 275, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 300, 303, 304, 306, 308, 309, 311 teacher-student relationships 89 teacher education 16, 36, 39, 47, 48, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 199, 209, 295, 297, 311 teaching perspective 206, 213, 215 teaching philosophies 206 teaching presence 12, 44, 45, 55, 58, 59, 76, 78, 134, 206, 211, 212, 217 technological pedagogical content knowledge 280 technology-intensive automations 93 technology-mediated interaction framework 45 technology-mediated Interactions 4 technology-supported professional development activities 151 technology adoption 223 technology enhanced learning 107 technology obsolescence 130 technology shift 133 text-based 8, 22, 24, 25, 29, 30, 32, 36, 40, 57, 59, 69, 132, 146, 211, 247, 307 theoretical foundation 43 TMI framework 57, 58
358
tools
4, 11, 12, 40, 47, 54, 58, 59, 71, 75, 84, 85, 86, 91, 92, 93, 94, 98, 99, 100, 109, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 133, 147, 148, 155, 158, 159, 168, 175, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 192, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 227, 241, 242, 244, 247, 248, 249, 253, 254, 260, 261, 265, 268, 271, 274, 275, 276, 281, 294, 301, 305, 307
U uncertain situations 92 undergraduates 36 unstable technology 229, 230
V variation 3, 4, 5, 7, 34, 52, 89, 90, 152, 166, 167, 170, 171, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179, 225, 267, 274, 299, 301, 306, 307, 308, 309 variation theory of learning 4, 89, 267 virtual learning environment (VLE) 8
W web-based course components 69 web-based discussions 26 web-based learning 210 web-based technologies 151, 158 web-delivered components 69 WebCT 69, 117, 133, 135, 223, 226, 227 web enhanced learning 107 web explorer 120 web tools 58 workloads 229 workplace learning 130, 131, 133, 135, 142, 148, 166, 177, 309
Z zone of proximal development (ZPD) 44
