Organismos e instituciones internacionales del sector turístico.

In approaching this study I set some objectives (see Section 1.3.3 on page 13) to guide the line of questioning that would ultimately lead to answering the main question of the study. In this section these objectives are briefly reviewed, providing structure to some concluding remarks.

Objective 1: Determine the understanding and use of blended learning by a selected teacher.

It was determined that “though the term blended learning is more often used to signify mixed methods of delivery, incorporating online and face-to-face interactions” (Moore & Gilmartin,

116 2010, p. 341) it would simply disqualify the subject of the case from being a typical blended learning teacher and that it was necessary to use the teacher’s own definition of blended learning by which to evaluate his perceptions on the topic. This effectively determined a perspective on blended learning that equated strongly to the purposeful and effective use of any technology in and out of the classroom that is employed to further the learning opportunity. On the fringe of his understanding was an inclusion of other methods of teaching and learning that did not require technology, being somewhat in line with Moore and Gilmartin (2010, p. 341) who see (as mentioned on page 46) blended learning as extending “beyond the media used to incorporate all aspects of, and inputs into the learning process”. The nature of the MSAFP, being an academic development programme, has proven one of its central strengths to be the face-to-face sessions, as the success of the programme has previously been built on paying close personal attention to all its students. Stuart, the teacher, found ways to enrich this experience with technology, such as with videos in and out of class, improved remote access to course resources and links without forgoing or replacing parts of the unit with formal online learning. This was a response to the unique challenge of developing a blended learning environment in an academic development programme with entrenched value in face-to-face sessions.

Objective 2: Determine the teacher’s openness to and motivation for using blended learning.

Stuart indicated a very receptive disposition towards using blended learning. This appeared to stem from his beliefs that blended learning, or incorporation of teaching technologies in a broader sense, could enhance the value of learning situations, find affinity with tech-savvy students and be relevant to global shifts in the future of education and work. The relationship between belief and practice was raised on page 46, supported by Hativah, (2002) and Martin, Prosser, Trigwell, Ramsden, & Benjamin (2002). The teacher’s receptive beliefs underlie a “willingness to accept new technologies [that] could significantly affect the success of blended learning development” (Benson et al., 2011, p. 145).

Objective 3: Determine the teacher’s perspective on blended learning as a quality mechanism in academic development.

The teacher’s perception on quality was coloured with anecdotes about the best teacher he had ever known when he was at university - this person had kept rapt audiences with no more than some notes as a reference. There may have been circumstantial factors that gripped

117 Stuart and may not have done with his peers, but it clearly left him with the belief that there is no substitute for a great teacher. It should be kept in mind that when this impression was made on Stuart as a student in the mid-1970’s, the technology that is available to teachers today simply did not exist and technology in general did not play nearly such a central role in the average student or teacher’s life as it does currently. This generational reality likely would distinguish an average student’s view of a great teacher today from that of Stuart’s. The point is perhaps highlighted by an interview comment made by Shirley, who was a still a student in mid-2000:

“What worked ten years ago has shifted so much and we find situations where students are operating at a level higher than us in terms of engaging with technology, and again I see my students...and this sounds terrible, but almost as consumers and if you want them to consume what you are trying to ‘sell’ them, you have to do it in a way that they are comfortable with.” (Shirley, Interview)

Not everyone would necessarily agree with Shirley’s perspective, but it does highlight the different mind-set that a student today might have compared to one 40 years ago.

Stuart cautioned against seeing blended learning as a silver bullet, but that said, Stuart clearly expressed his belief that if the context warrants it and an appropriate technology can be applied, that blended learning could most certainly be a catalyst for quality academic development. The perspective he presented indicated that technology should be employed, but not for the sake of using it but because it could achieve the desired outcomes he had designed. This stance resonates with the sentiment of Boughey (2007, p. 8) in that academic development practices should be nuanced and contextualised in order to contribute to differentiated learning needs at programme level. These considerations do raise questions of methodological approach for the teacher of modern university students. Perhaps, as the distinctions between life and technology increasingly blur, the distinction between learning with or without technology will increasingly blur, diffusing the efforts and rhetoric to blend the two supposedly distinct worlds of education and technology and simply allow learning to occur within the ‘natural’ environment of the learner.

Objective 4: Identify the barriers experienced with blended learning and the professional support required to mediate.

Beadle and Santy (as cited in Harris, Connolly, & Feeney, 2009, p. 158) warn that the “Lack of [skills] training is identified as a considerable risk”. It was evident throughout the interviews with Stuart that he perceived himself as inadequately equipped with skills and

118 knowledge to effectively employ Moodle and other blended learning techniques into his teaching, resigning to a slow incremental improvement as he learned a few more skills over time. Interviewing him twice, almost a year apart, highlighted the small steps he had taken over that period from using Moodle primarily as a repository for resources and links to inching into the area of administrative use, being no closer to using the quizzes he had hoped to master since the first interview.

He stated his frustration in misdirected training, even though it had been offered, which was not specific to his needs. Stuart mentioned on more than one occasion how much he would value and make use of one-on-one support if it were available.

The most noticeable obstacles identified were his poor self-conception as a technology learner. He was not uncomfortable with technology or the idea of using it, but claimed no natural affinity to learning new skills in it. The complexities of Moodle stood in his way of self-coaching while he also recounted the experience of dictatorial attitudes from leadership as unnecessary. Stuart’s generally positive beliefs, however, did mitigate the barriers to an extent. Time to learn new skills or even fully apply the ones that he had mentioned frequently, was probably the most persistent detractor from moving forward and made him less susceptible to the charms of a positive outlook. This reinforced the perspective of Van der Merwe and Mouton (2005, p. 35) who claim time as the primary barrier to the integration of ICT’s in teaching and learning activities. Interestingly, the second most prominent position on their list of barriers emphasises intrinsic rather than extrinsic factors, highlighting Stuart’s self-doubts once more.

Objective 5: Understand the effects of change from introducing blended learning expectations and the requirements for change management in the MSAFP.

Harris et al. (2009) (see page 43) spoke of the importance of comprehensive and accessible support. This would represent good advice on the basis of Stuart’s experience. He dutifully soldiered on slowly coming to grips with Moodle and although not averse at all to the ideas and promises of blended learning, frustrated by the perceived obstacles that the change has introduced into his teaching life. He seemed not to perceive an option as a diligent teacher but to continue for the reasons of keeping abreast with the trends and needs of students and also because of the institutional requirement to use Moodle. However, there were a few other voices in the MSAFP that, under the cloak of anonymity in the survey, were quite outspoken about their resistance to the changes and their resentment of having to give more time and

119 effort to learn new skills for something that they were not even convinced had merit. Monash has made training available at times and provided online support, but some of the most noticeable comments were in relation to the frustrations of not being able to learn the skills or have accessible face-to-face support to assist in acquiring them. A lack of institutional support and the diversity of faculties changing roles was cited by Ocak (2011, p. 697) as a concern, noting from that study the faculty requirement for continuous administrator support to overcome challenges of blended learning. Ocak mentioned, as noted on page 42, that teachers had to overcome their resistance to technology to become competent in e-learning environments, which would be facilitated by institutional support.

Objective 6: Understand the articulation of the Monash Education Strategic Plan through one teacher’s experience in the MSAFP and so contribute to the necessary conversation on blended learning in MSA.

The Monash Education Strategic Plan clearly stipulates its intention of provisioning the university with resources to facilitate the implementation of blended learning as a means to delivering academic excellence. Most of this backing appears to have manifested in the development of a customised Moodle 2.0 platform, which allows freedom for educators to develop a “blended learning” course. With the roll out of Moodle, there was accompanying training provided, primarily from visiting teams once a semester in the first year. How this strategic move has articulated in Stuart’s case, is that he was indeed using Moodle, but in a very restricted format compared to its capabilities. He obviously required guidance and would prefer small group or individual tutoring, which he had not found available. The consequence appeared to be that in his case he was using the system inadequately and despite his classes being well rated, the full potential for blended learning to contribute to excellent academic learning and performance was being lost. The responsibility for this value attrition lies at the door of the institution, which, despite its existing efforts have not adequately assessed the experience of the teaching staff and addressed their concerns nor fully explained the rationale and approach to blended learning that they wished to embed in the university as a whole.