EXAMEN MODULAR DE CONTRATOS DE OPCION Perfil Referencial:

Blended learning has multiple definitions. For the purposes of this thesis, definitions which combine technology and face-to-face learning are considered. This aligns with the view that the majority of blended learning approaches that are used in Higher Education purport to combine technology and face-to-face contact (Garrison and Vaughan, 2007; Littlejohn and Pegler, 2007; Sharpe et al., 2005).

Mac Donald (2006: 2) asserts that blended learning is “associated with the introduction of online media into a course or programme whilst recognising merit in retaining face-to-face contact”.

The University of Hertfordshire defines blended learning as “educational provision where high quality e-learning opportunities and excellent campus- based learning are combined or blended in coherent, reflective and innovative ways so that learning is enhanced and choice is increased”(HEFCE, 2004).

Garrison and Kanuka (2004:9) find “Blended learning is consistent with the values of traditional Higher Education institutions and has the proven potential to enhance both the effectiveness and efficiency of meaningful learning experiences”.

Garrison and Vaughan (2007:9) view blended learning as “the thoughtful fusion of face-to-face and online learning experiences”. “Students actively engage with the technology alongside traditional face-to-face meetings and class contact” is stated byDoolan et al (2006: 14).

Critics of ‗blended learning‘ argue that the term ‗blended learning‘ is “ill- defined and inconsistently used” (Oliver and Trigwell, 2005: 24). However, what is important, argue Beetham and Sharpe (2007) is that the technology used is effective in meeting the needs of the learners‘ context.

Blended learning is widely used to enhance learning. (Garrison and Kanuka, 2004) explored how various instructional strategies transferred to text-based Internet learning environments, and the effectiveness of these in facilitating higher levels of learning. The results showed that the instructional strategies under investigation translated effectively to the online classroom and that some strategies used were more effective than others at creating the conditions necessary to facilitate higher levels of learning.

MacDonald and McAteer (2003) explored strategies for blended learning in distance and campus based environments' at the Open University and at the University of Glasgow. This work focused on tutors and the use of different media blendsto provide learning support. A comparison was made between distance and campus based learner support models and the different media blends used by the tutors. The results showed that written, email and face to face interaction was dominant in the distance and campus based environments under study. Where VLEs were used computer mediated conferencing featured in the results.

Doolan (2004) and Doolan and Barker, (2005) made a comparative study between online and offline group learning, evaluating the use of the institutional managed learning environment. The results showed that

students performed better in the online environment than offline, however students reported their preference for working offline using face-to-face group learning.

Sharpe et al (2005:2) carried out a review of over 300 studies on blended/e- learning on behalf of the Higher Education Academy in order ―to understand methodologically sound evidence of the impact on blended learning on the

student experience” in order to help guide policy, research and practice

across the HE sector. The study showed that there were three ways that blended learning was being used: to supplement resources for campus based course delivery, course redesign where technology was used to replace other modes of teaching and learning to facilitate interaction and communication. The study also found that some learners took a holistic view of their learning that included using their own technology to support their own learning. However, the use of learners‘ own technology used in a holistic way to support learning was, in this study, under-reported and under-researched. Sharpe‘s work highlighted the rationale for blended learning across the institutions studied and found that blended learning was contextualised and specific to an institution which included flexibility in provision, enhancing campus based provision, supporting diversity, efficiency and operating in a global context.

Doolan et al (2006) used a blend of technologies to support collaborative assessment in Computer Science, Health and with Radiography at the University of Hertfordshire.

In Computer Science Blogs, Discussion Forums and a Wiki were blended with on-campus learning to support group-based assessment. Group areas in the institutional Managed Learning Environment were utilised with students in Health to provide choice and support for groups undertaking assessed presentations in and out of class.

In the School of Radiography the blended approach to assessment comprised the institutional Managed Learning Environment and three assessed tasks which were found to support different learning modes for professional learning. What was common in these studies was that tutors promoted a mix of tasks were problems could only be addressed through a shared group consensus.

In the School of Physiotherapy and the School of Computer Science this resulted in high levels of student engagement with peers using the technology. A survey in the School of Physiotherapy revealed that 98% of learners rated the use of the MLE as ‗very useful‘. They valued the opportunities that the technology afforded to voice concerns and request clarification from others. Learners also highly rated the use of the technology as a repository for future reference, to broaden knowledge and to express and receive other points of view. In the School of Computer Science a statistical counter embedded in a Wiki showed the majority of engagement

took place on Thursday when the students were timetabled for the module. Results showed that students were working throughout the week, but with higher levels of activity on Sunday than Saturday. As might be expected there was a natural progression in learner activity (3,539 page loads) on the Thursday prior to the Tuesday assessment submission day. Thus in these different disciplines using technology in a blend to supplement class based student contact was deemed by the students to enhance the collaborative learning experience.

In the School of Radiography results showed that the first assessment was deemed to be successful by the students. However, for the second assessment one group experienced problems with working and relating with each other. It was reported that this group completely broke down and thus were unable to continue working together. The group failure was not deemed to be the result of technology rather of poor group dynamic and ill-prepared students prior to undertaking the group work. Thus it was found that problems experienced between group members impacted on the collaborative learning experience, the use of technology and task completion. Additionally, it underlined the importance of meaningful student preparation prior to the start of the group work.

The studies in the School of Physiotherapy and the School of Computer Science showed that learners in addition to the development in subject knowledge also developed work related skills, such as working and relating to others and this argued the relevancy for industry, in that employers want

graduates with such transferable skills (Harvey & Mason, 1996; Dearing, 1997; O‘Neil, 1998; Doolan & Barker, 2005).

Blended learning has been demonstrated to maximise the pedagogic benefits of face-to-face and online learning (Doolan 2004; Doolan and Barker, 2005). However, Vaughan (2007) and Tabor (2007) caution that when using a blended approach in learning that learners may perceive fewer face-to-face classes as needing to do less study. Indeed it has been argued (Doolan et al, 2006) that collaborative and blended learning approaches are seen as a way of dealing with large student numbers in the context of the UK government‘s wishes as set out in the White Paper to widen participation thus increasing student numbers and producing lifelong learners in Higher Education (Dearing, 1997).

Although now over ten years old the issues raised by increased student numbers still have relevance in UK Higher Education today and are influential in the rationale for using blended learning in the UK Higher Education sector (Sharpe et al, 2005). In reporting on 300 studies of blended learning published since 2000 and deemed to be representative of UK Higher Education learning environments, widening participation was a key component of the institutional blended learning agenda.

Doolan et al (2006) argue that technology when blended with face-to-face learning can be used as a strategic resource. In this work, this is perceived as a way of supporting teaching, learning and assessment with large student numbers. Indeed in a recent report into Higher Education (DBIS, 2009)

highlighted in 0, the United Kingdom government commitment to technology to meet learner expectations and provide flexible learning opportunities and a shift towards more distance learning is outlined. In line with this, the University of Hertfordshire 5 year strategic target is to deliver 25% of its educational provision through distance learning (UH strategy, 2010).

The infrastructure, such as the University of Hertfordshire MLE, is available, has been in use since 2001, and has been investigated for its potential to support collaborative and blended learning (Doolan, 2004; Doolan and Barker, 2005; Doolan et al, 2006, Doolan 2006; Doolan, 2007a; 2007b; 2007c; 2008; 2009; 2010a; 2010b). It is argued by Littlejohn and Pegler (2007) that using technology in a blended mode provides flexible opportunities in space and time to accommodate learning. Blended learning provides opportunities for learners to choose when it is convenient for them to learn (Altree and Thornton, 2004; Doolan et al, 2006).

However, complexities of blended learning relate to the teacher and how ‗best‘ to decide upon the ‗right‘ blend to promote learning. Doolan (2006: 53) recommends “the most effective blend is by maximising the pedagogic opportunities afforded by each methodology, often requiring module redesign, including a review of assessment practices”. This approach requires commitment by the tutor and an up-front investment in tutor time, but can result in a much more engaging and richer student learning experience (Sharpe et al, 2006).

According to Garrison and Kanuka (2004) effectiveness of blended learning has yet to be demonstrated. It is common amongst these texts that the most ‗effective‘ equilibrium or ‗blend‘ between class based and technology based learning is as yet unknown. There is a need for clarity of the “how much, or how little online learning is inherent in blended learning” (Garrison and Kanuka, 2004:96). The concept of blended learning is central to this study in the context of a blend of face-to-face and Web 2.0 technology including a Wiki, Blog and Podcast learning environment where learners engage in collaborative learning. To this end the Wiki, Blogs, and Podcasting as Web 2.0 technologies are critiqued in the next section.