Plantas leñosas

Research in technology enhanced university learning, including blended learning, is relatively immature, particularly in comparison with other fields of inquiry into how students learn in higher education. A considerable amount of investigations into students’ e-learning experiences consists of case studies (Phillips, McNaught & Kennedy, 2012) since many researchers and practitioners are still at the stage where they endeavour to distinguish the constituents of the online learning experience and, most importantly, what makes for higher quality learning when face-to-face learning is supported by online teaching strategies. Consequently, they appear to be more at ease when conducting case studies so that they avoid the pitfalls of employing some variables that are not adequately

determined. Bluic et al. (2007) comment that teachers often research their own practice and this is a crucial dimension that is often overlooked in the process of evaluating the robustness of these studies. Case studies in blended learning are usually evaluative studies and they may centre on various aspects of the learning context with a narrow or a wide focus. Their methodology designs tend to be unsophisticated; case studies, nevertheless, can serve as useful tools to unearth key features of a particular setting and provide a teacher's views on the programme of study, how students engage with learning and how the institution supports teaching and learning.

Surveys also have a long tradition in social sciences as well as in education, and typically investigate how different aspects of the learning environment relate to each other (Gideon, 2012). A variety of methods are employed here with a focus either on blended learning (Aspden & Helm, 2004; Ausburn 2004) or exclusive online delivery (Jelfs, Nathan & Barrett, 2004). I presented survey-type studies in section 2.5.2 of the literature reviews (e.g. Bromage, 2004; Hoskins & van Hoof, 2005) and highlighted the limitations of this approach when it is employed as a stand alone method: surveys may examine associations between certain variables and tend not to deal with issues of holistic nature, such as those of priority in qualitative methodologies.

Additionally, I considered the methodology of comparing cases as well as more holistic approaches. Comparative studies focus on comparisons of blended and exclusive online learning (Schweizer, Paechter & Weidenmann, 2003), blended and exclusively face-to-face learning (Parkinson et al., 2003) or blended and distance education modes (Harker & Koutsantoni, 2005). Comparison studies mainly examine isolated components rather than integrated wholes. Holistic approaches, on the other hand, set out to produce richer accounts of the context with the focus on how different components of learning are integrated. A meta-study into blended learning in higher education ascertained that more holistic research approaches were needed, and reported that, due to philosophical or methodological preferences, very few studies took a holistic methodology to researching blended learning in higher education (Sharpe et al., 2006). Some examples, however, can be found of combinations of methods employed to research blended learning in higher education. They combined quantitative and qualitative approaches to reveal patterns in the data that relate to face-to-face and online learning (Akyol & Garrison, 2011). Consequently, I

considered the relatively limited knowledge on the constituents of online learning and, most importantly for the scope of this study, how these relate to the face-to- face experience. This limited knowledge base was evident in the early stage of the development of new methodologies to investigate blended learning in higher education settings. I therefore decided to adopt a semi-exploratory approach (Goodyear et al., 2005), striking a balance between existing, pre-conceived constructs (deep, strategic, surface approach to learning in face-to-face teaching) and emerging concepts (how approaches to learning are demonstrated in online and blended learning contexts).

3.3 Data collection and analysis

The selection of cases was dictated by the focus of this cross-case study analysis, i.e. how student approaches to learning relate to the use of technology in the context of blended learning environments. Denscombe (2007) suggests four different types of cases: a typical instance where a case seems typical of other cases in different contexts; an extreme instance where the way a case contrasts with a typical case is explored; a test-site for theory where the case would be explored to see whether it corroborates an existing theory; and a least- likely instance which verifies a theory’s validity in an atypical setting (Gerring, 2007). One of the tasks of cross-case study is the selection of cases to study and a justification for selecting these particular cases. As a result, I set three criteria: the case’s relevance to the context, the extent to which the case provides diversity across contexts, and the extent to which the case enhances the understanding of the context’s complexity.

Additionally, the design of the study aimed to achieve diversity of contexts. Firstly, achieving diversity in terms of examining the phenomena across different subject areas situated within contrasting departmental cultures and, secondly, with varying levels of VLE usage. Regarding the first criterion, anecdotal evidence suggested that VLEs might be beneficial for disciplines such as the Humanities, where there is a greater need for discussion, rather than in fields such as Engineering or Computing (White & Liccardi, 2006). This proposition is examined by comparing the case studies—it was expected that comparison across the cases would increase the relatability of the findings. The selection of cases was not intended to represent the full range of programmes

available on the VLE and the case, an undergraduate module, was the fundamental unit of analysis as defined by the boundaries outlined below:

• physical borders: I researched the face-to-face and online teaching experience of Middlesex University students across three schools, corresponding to four different departments.

• population: Students, lecturers, teaching assistants were the concern of this study. Besides these core populations, contacts were made with other members of staff involved in provision of learning.

• range of activities: The case primarily focused on the use of the university VLE, the weekly lectures and supplementary seminars facilitated between the lectures. I considered the role of peripheral activities such as staff development provided by the university’s Centre for Learning and Quality Enhancement aiming to develop lecturers’ skills. • time span: Students experiences were observed across a five-month semester for the first two case studies and across a nine-month term for the third and fourth case study.

Certain modifications occurred in the process of conducting the studies. For example, the items produced by students through the asynchronous communication tool were not investigated, although this area could have yielded rich insights. In the next section, I outline the design and the tools of analysis within each case and across all case studies.