Intercambio de mensajes SOC durante la fase de acondicionamiento

The majority of blended learning that is supplementary and occurs in HE is found to be more effective than only face-to-face, online instruction or distance learning; this is supported by numerous studies in several countries (Means, et al., 2010; Sitzmann, et al., 2006). A meta-analysis of 96 studies from 1996 to 2005 by Sitzmann et al. (2006) found that blended learning, they termed as ‘web-based instruction supplementary’, when compared to face-to-face, was a more effective method of delivery. Blended learning was found to best support ‘declarative

knowledge’ and procedural learning by 13% and 20% respectively better than face- to-face alone. Declarative knowledge can be defined as the abstract acquisition of knowledge where students to ‘describe a rule, fact or concept’, in contrast to ‘procedural knowledge’, which enables the student to ‘apply that fact or complex context and processes’ demonstrating deeper thinking or critical analytical skills. This study will aim to review if possible is this by virtue of being web-based or by being normal revision?

Active learning requires the use of all the senses, to confirm and reinforce the transfer information to the long-term memory, we remember 20% of what we read, 30% of what we hear, 40% of what we see, 50% of what we say, 60% of what we do, and 90% of what we read, hear, see, say and do (Buzan, 1995) – so building in as many activities in the blended learning environment will promote learning. Buzan also states that without revision we loose 95% of info in 3-4 weeks (1995) but can revision have to be virtual? Collins (2006) asserts that the process of shift between declarative knowledge to procedural knowledge forms the learner’s cognitive apprenticeship where the knowledge is being used and applied by practitioners to solve problems and carry out tasks. In addition, Means et al. (2010) analysis of over one thousand studies (1996 to 2008), were reduced to 50 meta-analysis studies of online instruction, blended learning and face-to-face; and revealed that blended learning had positive effects on learners, and was associated to providing learners with additional asynchronous learning time and instructional methods. The positive effects were not attributed to the blended learning mode, but its implementation. This study needs to evaluate does blended

learning challenge learner autonomy? As in HE previously the student is supported to organise this for himself or herself?

In a study based in Croatia was conducted on two groups of medical students undertaking problem-based learning (Taradi et al. (2005)) (PBL – use of a problem case or scenario to define and deliver learning objectives):

1) (n = 84), face-to-face traditional PBL.

2) (n = 37), PBL was combined with web technology (WBL-PBL).

WBL-PBLT methodology allowed learners and faculty members to collaborate and communicate online through: forums, chat and e-mail. Learners were also able to take quizzes, several self-assessments, access online tutorials, and study online as well as face-to-face.

The summative assessment grades, when analysed produced no significant difference between blended learning and face-to-face learners (Taradi et al., 2005). Other interesting positive results were found. The intervention group achieved marks that were significantly better than those who undertook only traditional learning (t = 3.3952; p = 0.0009). They reported greater satisfaction (intervention group scored 4.54 ± 0.10 out of 5, as opposed to control group who scored 3.56 ± 0.18 out of 5 for satisfaction). These scores are significantly different and tutor/student Interactions were exceptionally high (p = 0.0001) when compared to learners that only had face-to-face. The mean grade of the intervention group fell at the 76th _{percentile of the control group, therefore,} exerting a “medium” size effect, indicating the intervention group learning collaborative environment was positively affected by the use of technology. The

summative assessment grades, however, when analysed produced no significant difference between blended learning and face-to-face learners (Taradi et al., 2005).

Furthermore, a study by Yu et al. (2010) showed that although there was no statistical significant difference in the summative grades by students using web based instruction or non- web based instruction, ‘low achieving’ learners, however, the students performed better in their retention test 5 months after the initial learning of the problem-solving material. Yu et al. (2010) suggest the ‘delayed rate’ of improvement, this may be the result of learners internalising and mastering the problem-solving process. O’Toole and Absalom (2003) studied 176 final-year undergraduate teacher education students to determine the effects of blended learning they observed: 20% of students – attendance at lectures correlate to attainment, whereas for 25 students who attained zero they had only cursorily utilised the virtual learning environments, and if they has relied solely on information technology and communication approximately fifty per cent of students would have failed their module. The construct of the hybrid is vital to the enhancement of student attainment.

Other studies have also revealed that blended learning tools can be used to increase learner peer collaborations, active learning and to facilitate different learning styles (Attwell, 2007). It is argued that everyone has different styles of learning and they approach learning in different ways, but these all focus on learning, not development (Kolb, 1984; Coffield, et al., 2004; Honey & Mumford,

on a four stage learning cycle (Figure 2.3). Linked to learning theories are models of learning styles (Honey & Mumford, 1992). This would seem to be obvious, but theories and classifications do not reflect that learners may use different learning styles and different aptitudes in different circumstances and in response to different learning outcomes (Attwell, 2007; Kolb, 1984). Kolb highlights the limitations of his Learning Style Inventory pointing out that it only represents ‘elementary learning orientations’ in that it is not inclusive of the development of the learner (Kolb, 1984) see figure 2.3. In practice, it is likely that learners will have preferences for different pedagogic approaches, and virtual learning environments can be used to enhance or restrict certain pedagogic approaches to learning (Attwell & Hughes, 2010).

Figure 2.3 The Kolb learning cycle involves four processes that must be present for learning to occur: Diverging (concrete, reflective) – employs innovative and imaginative approach to doing things. Assimilating (abstract, reflective) – collates different observations and thoughts into an integrated whole. Converging

(abstract, active)- practical application of ideas and solving problems.

Accommodating (concrete, active) – uses trial and error rather than thought and reflection (Kolb, 1984).

A review of masters level students on a public health course in the USA who were already medical doctors and learners from other health related subjects, observed the face-to-face interactions in conjunction with seminar blogs and found that although 15% of learners had no prior experience with the software, 64% reported they were interested in using it for current study and for future employment as it enriched their development and inter-collaborative skills (Goldman, et al., 2008). Learners were able to engage in deeper learning. Socially blended learning tools (such as Quickstart, Facebook, Twitter, or Skype) helped reduce the alienation felt by non-traditional students at the beginning of university, through short message service text messaging to discuss their activities and weekly online tasks. It was

(Holley & Dobson, 2008). As with previous studies looking blended innovations, enhancement of student satisfaction was evident, but the effect in relation to student achievement is not clear.

Hadley and Puddicombe (2007) conducted a study at North Bristol NHS Trust, investigating the use of a managed learning environment called Beacon Online to support face-to-face sessions for eleven participants from mixed healthcare backgrounds. Findings highlighted that this system allowed learners to catch-up on missed work and information; learners were able to re-visit material at their own pace and as often as they wished. Financially the managed learning environment reduced the costs of copies for course material and administration because it could be used for subsequent courses; it was believed to potentially lower cost developments.

Typically many studies had noted that learners benefited from blended online instruction when learners gained increased control of their learning and had the opportunity for reflection (Means, et al., 2010). Geraldine Torrisi-Steel (2011) highlights blended learning can help meet the pedagogical challenges facing higher education institutions to satisfy todays ‘knowledge driven society’ and provide a high quality learning experience (see figure 2.4). Learners were also found to take a more empowered role as the tutors explained less and generally participated less during online discussions (Mentzer, et al., 2007; Chan, 2010). This theme is expanded in chapter seven where we discuss investigating individualized learning.

Overall, a blended approach in the majority of studies is almost always preferred to singular approaches of face-to-face, online instruction or distance learning, as blended learning is adaptable to learner needs. Blended learning is not restricted by time as with seminars and lectures as it can offer both synchronous and asynchronous opportunities for learning. Additional features found within virtual learning environments enabling learners to track their own progress through online assessments, quizzes, extension activities, and collaborate with their peers, given that the settings and conditions are right.

Figure 2.4 Planning approach for blended learning design (Torrisi-Steele, 2011).