On the Potential of Blended Learning

1. On the Potential of Blended Learning Paul Reid-Bowen Bath Spa University

2. Contextualisation • Philosophy and Ethics @ Bath Spa. • New programme, first intake: 2006-7. • Major, joint and minor honours degrees. • Small department with a specific market identity: • Philosophy as a global phenomenon. • Subject specific thinking skills. • Applied and contemporary.

3. Constructive Alignment • John Biggs (2003, 2007) • Consistency through alignment. • Intended learning outcomes define the assessment criteria, assignments and teaching and learning activities. • If for most students the assessment is the curriculum, then construct assessment items that effectively ‘trap’ students and guarantee that they meet the learning outcomes.

4. ‘A’ Level to UG Year One (1) • Managing a transition from what? • Good experiences of ‘A’ level Philosophy are widely reported. • “Stimulating, exciting” • “Brilliant teacher” • “Inspired” • Arguably, “there is no spoon”

5. ‘A’ Level to UG Year One (2) • But there is a need to introduce and inculcate: • University expectations and conventions (in terms of referencing, research and style), • subject specific requirements (e.g. a need to argue and debate), • the development of precise communications and presentation skills, and • the collaborative nature of philosophical enquiry.

6. Assessment - Year One • Formative work: • argument and • bibliography. • Substantive: • Essay (25%) • Presentation (25%) • Presentation (25%) • Examination (25%)

7. Years Two and Three • Increased emphasis on: • the performance of critical tasks; • applied and project work of varying forms; • progression towards independence of learning; • an ability to apply philosophical and ethical knowledge and skills in diverse contexts; • utilisation and assessment of online discussion fora.

8. Blended Learning • Five factors for success (Sharpe, 2006): • utilise the term; • make it applicable to the disciplinary context; • utilise it as ‘a transformative driver for course redesign’; • support the student understanding of their role within the process; and • communicate the results of evaluations.

9. Discussion Fora (1) • Some limitations: • infrastructure requirements, • varying set up and technological costs, • the need for specialist knowledge and/or training, • a loss of sensory cues and context that would otherwise be available in face-to-face synchronous communications.

10. Discussion Fora (2) • Some advantages: • tends to promote more careful reflection and conceptual precision than face-to-face verbal communication; • facilitates a ‘community of inquiry’ (Ganura and Hanuka, 2004: 97); • provides space and time for dialectical reasoning.

11. Discussion Fora (3) • As Ganura and Hanuka add, online discussion fora are a: • ‘platform where participants can confront questionable ideas and faulty thinking in more objective and reflective ways than might be possible in a face-to-face context’ (Ganura and Hanuka, 2004: 99).

12. Discussion Fora (4) • Furthermore, there is: • less distraction than at the face-to-face level, • greater ability to focus on the core concepts or substantive issues, • more time to formulate a response, counterargument or gather evidence; and, • a greater capacity for ‘task-oriented communication’ (Locke, 2007: 188).

13. Assessment Criteria • relate to the questions, themes and/or topics? • advance an argument? • make points clearly and concisely? • demonstrate good communication skills? • contain an appropriate level of analysis? • engage with relevant concepts, debates and theories? • reflect on and respond to other contributions in a critical and constructive manner? • contain appropriate acknowledgement of scholars’ ideas and sources of information? • avoid spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors? • cover the number of questions, themes and/or topics specified? • conform with the wordage specified?

14. Analysis and Evaluation (1) • Students demonstrated engagement, coupled with: • a development of the debates initiated in the workshops; • a responsiveness to the arguments and ideas of fellow students; and • reflection and evidence of metacognition.

15. Analysis and Evaluation (2) • Any effective educational community of inquiry requires (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004: 97-98): • social presence, • cognitive presence and • teaching presence. • However, the teaching presence in online discussion fora can be rather limited.

16. Analysis and Evaluation (3) • However: • a colleague’s experiences were rather different qua negative; • numbers of students are relevant; • factual and procedural errors must be addressed; • students experience the blend differently (Sharpe et al 2006: 4); • ‘community design is never final’(Stuckey and Barab, 2007: 442).

17. Bibliography (1) • Andrews, R. and Haythornthwaite, C. eds. (2007) The SAGE Handbook of E-learning Research. London: SAGE. • Athanasopoulos, C. (2008) ‘Bibliographical Resources for e-Learning in Philosophical and Religious Studies’ [online] available from: http://prs.heacademy.ac.uk/ view.html/prsdocuments/397 • Biggs, J and Tang C. (2007) Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill and Open University Press. • Biggs, J (2003) Aligning Teaching and Assessment to Curriculum Objectives. Imaginative Curriculum Project, LTSN Generic Centre • Garrison, D. R. and Kanuka, H. (2004) ‘Blended Learning: Uncovering its Transformative Potential in Higher Education’. Internet and Higher Education, 7, pp. 95-105.

18. Bibliography (2) • Locke, T. (2007) ‘E-Learning and the Reshaping of Rhetorical Space’. In: Andrews, R. and Haythornthwaite, C. eds. The SAGE Handbook of E-learning Research. London: SAGE, pp. 179-201. • Salmon, G. (2002) E-tivities: The Key to Active Online Learning. London: Kogan Page. • Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G. and Francis, R. (2006) ‘The Undergraduate Experience of Blended E-learning: A Review of UK Literature and Practice.’ The Higher Education Academy. [online] available from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/ourwork/research/literature_reviews/blended_elearning_exec_summary_1.pdf • Stuckey, B. and Barab, S. (2007) ‘New Conceptions for Community Design’. In: Andrews, R. and Haythornthwaite, C. eds. The SAGE Handbook of E-learning Research. London: SAGE, pp. 439-465.