An E-learning Model for the University of Teesside. Dr. Lucy Armitstead-Pinkney

An E-learning Model for the University of Teesside. Dr. Lucy Armitstead-Pinkney This model aims to provide a basis for describing and prescribing levels of e- learning throughout the university as well as being used to guide the progression of staff training through the implementation of new technologies. In a recent benchmarking study undertaken by the University it was found that many members of academic staff were unsure of exactly how proficient their levels of e-learning are. It is hoped that by introducing an accessible model of e-learning for the university, it will become easier for staff to see where they are in terms of e-learning, where they need to be aiming for to keep up with the aims of the university and finally, to see what their training needs are and how they can address them. Much of the pedagogy involved in designing e-learning models discusses the need for students to feel active in their learning and to feel that they have some control over the learning process, that there needs to be transparency in teaching. 1 By providing a clear structure for e- learning at the University of Teesside, staff training in e-learning can be made more pedagogically sound. This report will provide an outline of the main modes of module delivery and the main pedagogical theories which will be used to support and guide the model, before explaining the model itself and how it will be used in promoting good practice in e-learning at the University of Teesside. Learning models teaching delivery One of the problems that needs to be dealt with early on in proposing such a model is the issue of what kind of module the online content is intended to support. The general descriptions of the three main modes of delivery are below: Face to Face learning. Face to face learning is a reference to what is commonly thought of as traditional teaching methods such as a lecture or tutorial. Blended learning. Blended learning refers to any module or teaching method which combines both face to face teaching with other forms of module delivery. The terms is generally used to refer to modules which use an element of online delivery. 1 Laurillard, D. (2002) Rethinking university teaching, 2 nd Ed. Routledge/Falmer, London. 1

Distance learning Distance learning has three possible characteristics. It is a term which refers to modules which are run with the student and the teacher in different locations or separated by time, a module where communication is generally asynchronous (although some real time discussions may take place over the internet or telephone) and is carried out via some form of technology, and which tend towards being student lead rather than dictated by the teacher. 2 The problem with these definitions is that almost everything can be argued to be put in the category of blended learning. There are fairly few modules which are purely delivered in person with absolutely no online or alternative methods involved and the majority of what are considered distance learning modules do in fact involve some degree of face to face interaction, such as visiting tutors or fieldtrips. If it is the case that it is only the extremes that belong in the separate categories of distance and face to face, it may appear that a model can be proposed that simply sees module delivery as a sliding scale moving from one extreme of blended learning to the other with distance learning as the highest level of teaching delivery. There are two main problems with such an approach. Firstly it assumes that it is desirable for modules to all become distance learning modules eventually. If we place teaching delivery methods on a scale with distance learning methods at the far end, this implies that all modules should eventually be taught in this manner. Secondly, it ignores the fact that a student who is being taught remotely has very different needs from a student who studies on the campus but still has some online provision. These definitions will therefore be altered slightly to account for how modules are practically used. Face to face learning Although there are few modules which are delivered completely in face to face mode, there are some modules which are more likely to be delivered with more face to face content. The suggestion of a model for guiding online teaching practices should not in any way attempt to suggest that one should move away from face to face interaction but rather it should offer a varied approach so as to better meet the needs of students. Blended learning 2 McConnell, D. (2000) Implementing computer supported cooperative learning. London: Kogan Page Limited. 2

Blended learning is unsurprisingly going to be the main category considered due to the fact that most modules have at least some resources online. Students on a blended learning module are on campus for all or a majority of their learning time. Distance learning Distance learning will be taken to mean those modules where the student is away from the main teaching site for the majority of their learning hours. These students may occasionally visit the campus, occasionally have university staff visit them, may have local tutors or may have no face to face contact with the university at all. Many e-learning models are based on the assumption that one can move smoothly from a traditional, face to face teaching situation, to a blended learning situation where some materials is delivered in person and some online, to a completely distance learning situation with little or no physical contact between the teaching staff and the student. This not only assumes that the needs of each stage are similar, but also does not properly explain exactly what each stage would consist of. The approach that will be taken here is to suggest that whilst these three modes of delivery are linked and have many overlaps, they are still very different approaches to teaching, all of which come with their own considerations. It is therefore important to stress that this model is mainly intended to be applied to blended learning and that a separate, though related, distance learning model would need to be proposed which will require further research in the future. 3

Learning Models The next step in designing an e-learning model is to examine some of the most commonly used models for designing teaching plans, both in terms of e- learning and more traditional teaching methods. This report will therefore move on to looking at seven of the main models (Pratt, Laurillard, Mason, Mayes and Fowler, Quinsee, Salmon, Oliver and Bloom) written either specifically for e-learning or most often applied to e-learning before going on to suggest a model that takes in to account the various possible approaches in order to find a model that could work for the University of Teesside. Pratt. The framework offered by Pratt differs from the other models offered in that it is not a prescriptive model for creating online resources but rather is a description of five main approaches to teaching. 3 Pratt argues that none of these approaches can be considered superior to any other and that most teachers and lecturers will tend to use more than one approach in planning their lessons. Transmission perspective The transmission perspective is a popular traditional approach which sees the teacher as dominant with the role of providing knowledge to the students. This tends to refer to the teacher as lecturer, providing the class with chosen information. Pratt claims that main actions for this type of teaching are setting module aims, providing answers to set problems and setting readings and assignments. Apprentice perspective The apprentice model of teaching is about creating a community of learners, led and facilitated by the teacher, that aims to achieve common goals. This model tends to use structured activities to facilitate learning and is based on the idea that students need to apply ideas to problems in order to understand them. The teacher s main role therefore is to provide scaffolding for knowledge and to guide students through learning activities. Development perspective 3 Mason, R. (2004) JISC e-learning models desk study Stage 1: Pratt s five perspectives on effective practice. JISC. Visited 21 st August 2007 4

The development perspective is based on the concept of constructivist learning. This model is far more focused on the learner than the teacher and is one of the most popular modern approaches to learning. The belief is that individuals base their beliefs on their experiences of the world and in that sense create their own worlds. Therefore any teacher needs to recognise that it is not sufficient to simply inform students that x is true ; students need to discover for themselves that x is in fact true. Like the apprentice model, one would expect to see activities used in this model, but the main point here is that students would be encouraged to research ideas themselves and to attempt to use the ideas to investigate how they work. Typical examples of such a feature would be the use of a student created blog or wiki as these are resources students can build themselves using knowledge they have learnt themselves. Nurturing perspective The nurturing perspective is teacher focused in that it argues that socialisation is essential to the success of any module and that therefore the teacher needs to create a feeling of community for students to learn. A model such as this would place a great deal of emphasis on items such as discussion boards as the belief is that students need to discuss their ideas with others in a supportive atmosphere. In this model the teacher is not dominant to the rest of the group, but rather is a member of the learning group that helps guide it in the right direction by making the subject studied relevant to the students. Social Reform perspective The last model is that of the social reform model and is the least commonly used model of those suggested by Pratt. This is the model for those who see teaching primarily as a method of providing social reform by promoting resources that benefit excluded learners or disadvantages learners. Although it is rare for this to be the main model used by a teacher, it is often taken into consideration by teachers, particularly those using blended learning who may be interested in introducing items such as podcasts that may make learning more accessible for part time students who have to work. Although Pratt s framework describes different teaching approaches rather than prescribing a model for e-learning, it is still extremely useful in considering the kind of teaching methods that need to be accommodated and in understanding the following models suggested for learning and blended learning. The approaches that 5

are most popular are the nurturing, apprentice and development perspectives and all of the following models include elements of at least one of these. Constructionism is a theory that is often mentioned in pedagogy and is particularly relevant to blended learning due to the opportunities for student created content it provides. The increasing use of web material, particularly web 2.0 items fits in well with the concept that knowledge is and should be created by the user as well as the relativist philosophy that is associated with constructivist thinking and which supports the idea that each individual can provide a unique perspective on any given piece of information or opinion. 4 The issue of communication is also a common theme as mentioned by Pratt. Again, this is an area in which blended learning can be particularly useful. Access to email, module announcements and discussion boards can all be useful for helping to create an atmosphere which is supportive and open for students to discuss issues. 5 Although Pratt s view does not provide an actual guide to creating a framework for blended learning, it does provide us with an understanding of the pedagogical elements that need to be considered in designing a framework for the University of Teesside. Laurillard. Laurillard argued that there are four main types of learning experience and that these four types can be used to construct an online learning resource for students. 6 Discursive This type of learning is connected to the relationship and communication between learner and teacher. Laurillard argues that students need to feel a degree of control over their learning on the module and that therefore there needs to be communication between teacher and student so that both agree on the learning objectives. Laurillard suggests two main ways in which this can be achieved in the context of an online module. The first of these is to provide a well organised module site that enables the student to clearly see when each element of the module will be taught and to access the materials in their own time. This gives the student a clear idea of what the module will require and will enable them to work towards the module in the way that best suits them. Laurillard also suggests that it can helpful to use 4 Goodman, N. (1978) Ways of Worldmaking, Harvester Press, Sussex. 5 Mason, R. (2004) JISC e-learning models desk study Stage 1: Pratt s five perspectives on effective practice. JISC. Visited 21 st August 2007 6 Laurillard, D. (2002) Rethinking university teaching, 2 nd Ed. Routledge/Falmer, London. 6

multiple choice questions to get more idea about how students are responding to the new ideas so that staff can respond to any areas that appear to be being misinterpreted by students. Adaptive The second type of learning that Laurillard suggests is adaptive learning and refers to the need for the student and teacher to adapt to the teaching situation. The student needs to adapt to any feedback given by the teacher and the teacher needs to be able to adapt the learning environment according to the knowledge the student already possesses. Laurillard feels that students should be able to construct their own learning task objectives in the order that they feel is appropriate and that they should have access to the module objectives so that they are able to monitor their own progress from a more informed viewpoint. Interactive The third learning aspect that Laurillard identifies is the interaction between the learner and the learning environment created by the teacher. She claims that it is the task of the teacher to ensure that the learning environment that is created is appropriate to both the learner and the teaching objectives they are trying to achieve. There also needs to be sufficient support and feedback for the students to assist them in meeting these objectives. Laurillard says again here that setting clear learning goals is imperative here and that feedback must be clear and well explained. Reflective This final aspect of learning that Laurillard refers to is the need for both the learner and teacher to be reflective, meaning that the teacher will need to adapt their teaching according to the students needs as they progress and that the student needs to reflect on their changing understanding of the subject being studied. Laurillard says that two elements that can assist this are firstly, to ensure that the learning materials are split into clear sections so that students can pace their work, and secondly to test how well learners are picking up the new ideas by requiring students to comment on each new idea introduced. Laurillard s approach focuses very much on working with the individual student and allowing them to choose their own learning pace. 7 Although it is undoubtedly extremely important to let students know what is expected from them on any given 7 Ball, S. et al. (2006) Models of learning and teaching with technology, JISC. Visited 21 st August 2007 http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits/effective-use-of-vles/intro-to-vles/introtovleapproaches/introtovle-models 7

module, and what the time frame is for achieving these learning goals, it may not be practical to attempt to create an e-learning model using a framework that places such emphasis on communication with individual students when the end product may well be applied to modules that are extremely large and therefore would not combine well with such an approach. The main points to be taken from Laurillard s approach are the necessity of the learning experience being transparent and the need for communication in general on a module. 8 One of the advantages is the fact that students can have easy access to features such as a module guide, module map and module calendar which can greatly improve a student s understanding of what a module is going to demand and allows them to plan how exactly they are going to achieve these objectives. An e-learning environment should also allow plenty of opportunity for using communication tools that enable the teaching staff to monitor the progress of students and to be alerted to any particular problem. In this sense therefore, Laurillard s model can lend some important findings to the creation of an e- learning model. Mason. Mason s model is one of the most common models that is referred to in e- learning and is a three tier model created by Robin Mason in 1998. 9 Mason looks at the progress of the introduction of e-learning from a basic level to a fully online module and argues that there are three main stages of integration of e-learning to teaching. Content and Support Model. The first model Mason describes is the Content and Support model and encompasses most modules. This model separates module content and tutorial support and therefore refers to modules that do not involve much student interaction online. Instead most online module content is actually in the form of printable documents such as online lecture notes. A student on a module of this type would be expected to spend only about 20% of their study time using the online resources. There may be limited use of collaborative elements by students but these will exist as external to the rest of the module. These modules are modules with standard materials that can be picked up and used by any instructor. The key element of this 8 Laurillard, D. (2002) Rethinking university teaching, 2 nd Ed. Routledge/Falmer, London. 9 Mason, R. (1998) Models of Online Courses, ALN magazine, Vol. 2, Issue 2. Visited 1 st August 2007. http://www.aln.org/publications/magazine/v2n2/mason.asp 8

model is that the materials and activities provided online are not integrated into the module due to the separation of content provision and student learning support within the module. This leads instead to a situation where the online elements exist as extras that may not always gel well with the rest of the teaching method which can lead to confusion for students. Wrap Around Model. The Wrap Around model applies to modules where the standard teaching materials (such as lecture notes, tutorials and textbooks) are supported by online interactive resources such as discussion boards. This differs from the Content and Support model in that it is more tailored to the module than being a generic site. 10 It is a more resource based approach to learning and that aims to give more control to students about how they choose to study. This wrap-around model then, is any module site that is created to actively work alongside the delivery of a particular module. Integrated Model. This third level of model is actually any module which has its main focus online. In such a module, the majority of learning takes places as part of the online environment through discussion boards, online quizzes and assignments and other online media. The online resource is not created to run alongside the module but is intended to be the nucleus of the module and any other activities are there to support this form of learning. Mason s model is helpful in that there is clearly progression through the levels to a more integrated approach. It seems however that Mason s approach could benefit from a more pedagogical approach. Whilst integration of online materials is an important issue, it would also be helpful to consider the levels of learning which the online resources would be used for. When one argues that the wrap-around approach would be more integrated than the basic level, it is not immediately clear what it is that staff need to do to achieve this. Whilst Mason does say that the Wrap Around model would involve more interactive elements such as discussion boards, it is not clear what the pedagogical motivation is for this apart from the staff desire to 10 Dempster, J. (2004) Pedagogical models to support the selection and evaluation of e- learning tools, E-Pedagogy working group, University of Warwick. Visited 17 th August 2007. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/cap/landt/elearning/epedagogy/epwg/epmodels121004.doc 9

integrate the online resource more. This then means that there is little significant difference from the Wrap Around model to the Integrated model, other than volume of resources. Mason s model is valuable in that it emphasises the importance of integrating the online aspects of the module with the traditional module package and will therefore be a major influence in the final proposed model, however a more pedagogical approach needs to be taken to ensure that technology is not promoted purely for the sake of using technology. Oliver Oliver put forward a four phase framework closely related to Mason s model which aims to build a blended learning model that progresses to a fully online module. 11 Phase 1 - Placing general information online This first phase is very commonly already the first stage of any module adding an online element and involves the adding of simple module information to the online facility. This tends to be items that would commonly appear in a module handbook such as the module aims or staff contact information. These are materials that are not interactive and are not necessarily connected to learning in that they tend to be information about the module. Phase 2 - Augmenting the module The second phase that Oliver identifies is the stage at which the teacher starts to add materials such as lecture notes which are, again, not interactive, but which are involved in the learning process rather than just the administrative side. Oliver claims that as learning materials are provided online, students start to have more control over their learning and are encouraged to seek out knowledge more as they are going online to access these materials. Phase 3 - Stand-alone instructional pieces At this stage the teacher would introduce some online resources that engage the student in learning activities. At this stage these activities stand alone from the rest of the module in that they are quizzes or discussion boards that exist apart from 11 Oliver, Kevin. (2006) Designing Instructional Strategies for the web. Educational Technologies, Virginia Tech. Visited 20 September 2007 URL: http://www.edtech.vt.edu/edtech/id/wbi/webstrat_template.doc 10

traditional delivery methods. The important point is that these are active ways in which the student can use the online resource and interact with the new ideas. Phase 4 - Totally online This stage would involve the leap to the module being completely online. There would need to be therefore, items such as a digital drop box or student folders available online, as well as all of the preceding levels of online resource. The problem with Oliver s approach is that it assumes that the creation of a fully online module is the end goal of providing resources online. This may not be appropriate for the module in question. Oliver s model otherwise generally reflects many other pedagogical models, even if he does not always make the pedagogical basis of his model explicit. Overall the model closely resembles the Mason model apart from the fact that he does try to break up what Mason refers to as the Wraparound model into two stages, the augmenting the module level and the standalone instructional pieces. In this sense he falls into the same difficulties as the Mason model in that, without a stronger pedagogical basis, the model does not really justify the need for an extra level. Mayes and Fowler Mayes and Fowler have created a three stage model that takes into consideration the kind of courseware appropriate to each level. Mayes and Fowler differ from the other models in that it is actually a cycle rather than a progressive framework. 12 Conceptualisation The first stage that Mayes and Fowler identify is the level of conceptualisation which refers to the stage at which students come into contact with other people s ideas in some way. Traditionally this is often in the form of a lecture but may also be through research or online resources. This stage is associated with primary courseware. This is material which is intended purely to deliver information. Construction 12 Mayes, T. & de Freitas, S. (2004) JISC e-learning models desk study Stage 2: Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models. JISC. Visited 21 st August 2007 http://www.essex.ac.uk/chimera/projects/jisc/stage%202%20learning%20models%20(versi on%201).pdf 11

The next stage is construction and is, as discussed by most of the other models, the idea that students deepen their understanding of a subject by creating their own resources about it such as student created presentations. This stage is associated with secondary courseware and is for active learning tasks such as online quizzes. Dialogue The third stage of Mayes and Fowler s model is dialogue and refers to the stage at which students start to test their ideas by discussing them with other students. This stage then links back in to the first stage of conceptualisation as it involves considering the ideas of others. 13 The courseware for this stage is tertiary and is therefore work constructed by other learners or materials which aid discussion such as discussion boards. Salmon Salmon s model leans, like many others, towards a constructivist pedagogy and places much emphasis on communication and the importance of the cohort is terms of the learning process. Each level is split into two factors: E-Moderating and Technical Support which divides the aims for each level into the learning requirements and the technical requirements. 14 Access and Motivation For the first level of Salmon s model, the facilitator is required to set up the system and provide access for the student. This is therefore a very basic level in terms of technical skill. The main aspect of this level is the teaching requirement to welcome and encourage students. Salmon argues that students need to feel confident communicating their ideas in order to maximise their potential for constructing ideas. It is therefore the role of the facilitator in these early stages to encourage students to use the online facility in such a way that they start to feel comfortable communicating with others through the online medium. Online socialisation 13 Ball, S. et al. (2006) Models of learning and teaching with technology, JISC. Visited 21 st August 2007 http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits/effective-use-of-vles/intro-to-vles/introtovleapproaches/introtovle-models 14 Heap, J. (2005) Salmon. Leeds Metropolitan University. Visited 21 st August 2007 http://www.lmu.ac.uk/lis/imgtserv/elstrat/explorations/salmon1.htm 12

The second level of Salmon s model is based around the technical skills of sending and receiving messages and is focused on creating an online community that students are comfortable using. Information Exchange The Information Exchange level involves the skills of searching for information and personalising the resource. This is the level at which students start to take part in tasks that necessitate the sharing of information. It is the facilitator s task therefore to encourage and guide students through this process online. Knowledge construction The fourth level of Salmon s model involves the facilitator encouraging students to use conferencing technology to share ideas and to link together similar ideas. This is the level at which students start constructing their knowledge through the sharing of opinions and projects online. Development The final stage of Salmon s model is the level at which learning is constructive and occurs at a more independent level with a smaller role for the teacher. Salmon s model is helpful in that it shows the role of communication necessary in achieving a constructive form of learning. It has been argued that the first two stages of Salmon s model are in fact unnecessary and that students, particularly those in Higher Education, do not need quite that level of socialisation before they will start to share ideas. It is however still a useful model to consider in that it shows the benefits of having students who are comfortable with their learning environment and are able to use items such as discussion boards to build their ideas. Quinsee Quinsee s model is a three stage model based on experience at City University. 15 It moves from a detached, mostly face-to-face form of teaching to a module which can be run with no or little face-to-face teaching. 15 Jara, M. & Mohamad, F. (2007) Pedagogical templates for e-learning. WLE Centre, Occasional Papers in Work-Based Learning 2, Institute of Education, University of London. Visited 11 th December 2007 http://www.wlecentre.ac.uk/cms/files/occasionalpapers/wle_op2.pdf 13

Foundation Basic Common Model The basic level of module is, according to Quinsee, one which has a basic web presence with only an administration level of materials such as announcements and module handbooks. Discussion boards are not moderated. Integration Intermediate Content and Communication Model At this second level Quinsee suggests that one would expect to see an online module presence which runs along side the traditional face-to-face teaching. Learning resources are likely to include materials created especially for the module as well as links to other online materials. Discussion forums are used to facilitate group work and are closely monitored by the module leader. Coursework is submitted electronically. Innovation Advanced and Integrated Model The third level of Quinsee s model is aimed at modules in which students may or may not be based on campus. It is possible for all interaction on this module to occur online with an option of face-to-face sessions for the students if appropriate. Module administration, resources and module activities are conducted online as well as assessment and feedback. Although Quinsee s model can be used support a distance learning model, it has the advantage that it does not assume that a fully online module is a better model in terms of e-learning. It is a useful model in that it emphasises the importance of integration and communication. Bloom Bloom s taxonomy is one of the most widely used and respected learning taxonomies written and is already used by many universities as a basis for their e- learning models. 16 It has six levels and is based on constructivist learning theory, meaning it progresses towards a level of learning where the student is able to construct ideas rather than simply being given facts. 17 Knowledge reproduction 16 Atherton, J.S. (2005) Learning and Teaching: Bloom's taxonomy Visited: 27 th August 2007 http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/bloomtax.htm 17 Madaus, G.F., Nuttall, R.L., Woods, E.M. (1973) A Causal Model Analysis of Bloom s Taxonomy. American Educational research Journal, Vol. 10, No. 4 Pp. 253-262 14

This first level of Bloom s taxonomy refers to the stage of teaching where students are presented with new information. Traditionally this takes place in the form of a taught lesson or lecture but in e-learning can be taken to refer to the provision of written materials such as lecture notes. The information is therefore, at this stage, simply the presentation of facts or ideas. Comprehension The second level that Bloom identifies is that of comprehension where the student reproduces the material in some way. This can be in terms of a translation, a description of the main idea or basic interpretation. This is a basic stage of the student using the ideas originally presented to the student in level 1. Application The level of application refers to the level of learning at which the learner starts to apply the new knowledge to solve or understand different problems such as using a learnt formula to solve a mathematical problem. Analysis The level of analysis involves moving to a deeper understanding of the subject as the learner is able to consider two taught items and explain the similarities, differences or logical links between the two. It is the ability to assess the given knowledge and analyse its validity. Synthesis The level of synthesis is the level at which the learner really starts to construct their own concepts. 18 This occurs when a student is able to put together the new taught concepts with their own logic, experience and opinions to create new links and ideas. This is part of the constructivist view of learning that argues that for a student to really understand an idea, they have to construct it themselves. If our beliefs about the world are constructed or relative to our experiences rather than a priori truths that one uncovers, then it is necessary for the educator to provide the student with experiences that lead the student to construct the beliefs for themselves or to understand why others might believe it to be true. 19 A typical example of synthesis is 18 Wersinger, R. (2001) Bloom's Taxonomy. Heald College, Oregon. Visited 17 th August 2007 http://homepage.mac.com/niganit/ulrncptr0401/common/bloomtaxonomy2.html 19 Goodman, N. (1996) The Way the World is in Ed. P.J. McCormick pp.3-10 15

the creation of an item such as a wiki which is constructed by students to explain ideas in their own terms. 20 Evaluation Evaluation is closely linked to synthesis and there has often been debate over whether it should be above or below synthesis as both are necessary for constructed learning to take place. Evaluation refers to the need of students at this stage to evaluate the new ideas and critique them. An example here would be for a student to compare and contrast recommended teaching methods. All of the above models provide elements which will be used in creating the e- learning model for the University of Teesside. Both Mason and Oliver are valuable for placing an emphasis on the need for e-learning resources to be integrated in the module whilst Salmon and Mayes and Fowler stress the importance of communication in learning. All of the models involve some aspect of constructivist learning and as Bloom s constructionism in particular has been hugely influential in modern teaching, it seems logic to refer to a model that teaching staff will find familiar and is most likely to fit it with their current methods. 21 One can assume therefore that it would be sensible to design an e-learning framework that is largely based on following Bloom s model and is supplemented by the other models ion terms of integration and communication. Designing a module support site The University of Teesside e-learning Model. This model is aimed at assisting staff in creating an online model presence which is appropriate for the module being taught. The model consists of two main stages. The first step involves looking at the types of module delivery that might be 20 Mobbs, R. (2003) How to be an e-tutor. Learning technology, University of Leicester. Visited 17 th August 2007 http://www.le.ac.uk/cc/rjm1/etutor/resources/learningtheories/bloom.html 21 Carver, C.A., Howard, R.A., Lane, W.D. (1996) Felder's learning styles, Bloom's taxonomy, and the Kolb learning cycle: tying it all together in the CS2 course. Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Proceedings of the twenty-seventh SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Pp. 227-231 16

appropriate for the module and the second looks at what standard of module is being aimed for and how this can be achieved. Types of Module Delivery. The first step in designing a module support site is to consider exactly what kind of module it is and what type of student is likely to take it. The kind of online module site will be affected by how dependant on it the student will need to be. The first issue to be addressed is to explain exactly what the model would be applied to. Many models follow the Mason model where e-learning is seen to progress from a document based site separate from the main module, to an online site that runs alongside or wrapped around the main teaching, to the end result of a fully online module such as a distance learning module. 22 It was felt however, that such a model gives the impression that a fully online or distance learning module is the pedagogical aim of introducing e-learning and that modules involving e-learning must eventually progress towards being fully online. This approach is misleading both in terms of the University of Teesside aims and in terms of pedagogical theory, as a distance learning module would be expected to have very different online requirements from a well integrated blended learning module and therefore the model can not be expected to incorporate distance learning as simply an extension of blended learning. The University of Teesside model will therefore attempt to take into account the fact that it is not always appropriate to have a module that is entirely online. To this end the following diagram has been created based mainly on the ideas put forward by Magdalena Jara and Fitri Mohamad in their 2007 paper Pedagogical templates for e-learning written for the Institute of Education, London 23. This table of module types aims to illustrate the possible range of integration of e- learning into a face-to-face module, a module which may be appropriate to Blended or Distance learning and finally a range of module set ups which may be appropriate to a Distance learning module. These module descriptors are not recommended levels of e-learning but are aimed to assist staff in deliberately choosing a module design which is most appropriate for the module the plan to deliver. The e-learning 22 Dempster, J. (2004) Pedagogical models to support the selection and evaluation of e- learning tools, E-Pedagogy working group, University of Warwick. Visited 17 th August 2007. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/cap/landt/elearning/epedagogy/epwg/epmodels121004.doc 23 Jara, M. & Mohamad, F. (2007) Pedagogical templates for e-learning. WLE Centre, Occasional Papers in Work-Based Learning 2, Institute of Education, University of London. Visited 11 th December 2007 http://www.wlecentre.ac.uk/cms/files/occasionalpapers/wle_op2.pdf 17

model itself leads on from this description of possible module types to look at what elements should be considered in creating a pedagogically sound module and how e- learning resources can be used appropriately. The diagram below lays out the main possible types of module which may be appropriate. 18

As demonstrated by the above diagram, there are three main types of delivery that would necessitate an online module presence. These are Blended learning modules, Blended/Distance modules and Distance learning modules. A blended learning module is a module which involves the traditional, face-to-face approach to teaching and is supported by a varying degree of online resources and activities. A distance 19

learning module is a module on which there is no or very little face-to-face contact between staff and students, necessitating a greater reliance on e-learning. The blended/distance modules refer to modules where there may be limited periods of face-to-face contact but most interaction takes place on line. This may be appropriate for modules such as work placements where a member of staff is regularly meeting with a student and yet much of the learning occurs away from a face-to-face environment or in the workplace. However a module is going to be delivered will take careful consideration to make sure that the specific needs of the students, and the module, are met. Pedagogical Model. The pedagogical model was created to enable staff to identify what needs to be considered when creating an online module presence and can be used in two ways. The model has four levels and four strands, enabling staff to either use it to create a new module site by identifying what they would like the module to achieve and what level would be appropriate, or to examine their existing modules for improvement by looking at each strand and identifying their skills in each and where improvements might be beneficial. The levels described in the model therefore do not mean that any module or module element will necessarily be able to be pigeon holed in any one level, but rather that the module leader would be able to judge where about the overall level of their module is by thinking about the progression of pedagogy and the value to the students involved. The model is intended to account for all of these factors and to therefore to provide flexibility for the module facilitator to create a module which is appropriate and specialised for the subject matter whilst also taking the teaching approach they feel is most appropriate. 20

Level Presentation Organisation Communication Construction 1 Minimum VLE template no customisation. Documents placed online with no or little organisation. Online materials are standard documents rather than created specifically for the module. 2 Customised items Some use of folders to organise documents. Descriptions added to file attachments. Some materials are created specifically for the module. 3 Banner image, some images in module. 4 Thematic graphics in module, edited menu, student focused design. Consistent thematic folder use, appropriate range of materials, some interactive activities, potential for electronic submission. Most materials are created specifically for the module. Alternative formats or styles with a broad range of digital interactive media. Specially designed and integrated learning activities. No or little online communication. Announcements/ notices only. Regular appropriate announcements with module links. Opportunities for basic peer-to-peer online communication. Increased use of online communication. Use of blogs for regular notices, peer-to-peer online communication. Opportunity to offer online feedback. Online communication is likely to play an important role in the module. Use of a what s new strategy. Integrated peer-topeer online communication, integrated online feedback throughout the module. No or little opportunity for students to construct their own resources. Material is written by teaching staff. Learning materials are not constructed or added to by students. Construction does occur through online student discussion of subject. More construction of ideas by students through activities online such as those related to group work or any online activity that enables students to test or apply the subject. It is an integral part of this level that students use online features to create and contribute to items as they are then using their learning experience to construct new ideas. This model is based on a combination of elements from all of the preceding models and is intended to be both pedagogically sound and to take into account the organisation and presentation of the module or subject as the stages of blended learning progress. It aims to be flexible in its application whilst taking into account both pedagogical and practical considerations. The four strands are Presentation, Organisation, Communication and Construction. Presentation 21

Presentation is important in creating an interesting online module presence. A higher quality of online module site would be expected to have a clear and attractive layout which has been designed specifically with both the module and the respective students in mind. Organisation One of the aspects of online modules which students comment on most as a problem is sites which are badly organised. A well constructed site should be very easy for a student to navigate and should have clearly labelled files so that a student can find what they are looking for as quickly as possible. Communication Increased communication is one of the major advantages of a well-run online module presence and can be used to facilitate learning. In planning how one will use communication in your module, it is important to consider both communication in terms of how to communicate with the students, and how it might be helpful to enable students to communicate with each other. Communication about the module that comes from staff to the students will obviously be important to the students and will therefore have to be easy to find for the student. There should be clear rules of conduct provided for any online student discussions and these should be moderated by staff. Construction Construction is one element of this model in which it may be appropriate to consider the level of module that is being taught as it refers to learning activities where the students construct new materials or ideas online. In a higher level of module students would obviously be expected to demonstrate a higher level of knowledge and understanding of the subject matter meaning that such activities may well be most appropriate for higher level modules. Conclusion. Any model that is suggested is going to have to be able to allow for the fact that modules vary widely in style and content, and therefore vary in what online materials are appropriate. No one pedagogy or method can be said to provide a completely balanced and correct method for monitoring and encouraging adoption of blended learning. Not only should one consider pedagogical needs and the integration of any online content to the traditional module structure, there are also 22

technical issues and student requirements to include. A model that focuses purely on pedagogy could neglect the fact that staff need to feel confident using basic online tools before moving on to more complex or unusual ones, likewise a model that focuses only on technical levels is likely to provide staff with less support in using features in a pedagogically sound manner. The model aims to emphasise that for an online resource to be pedagogically sound, its use must be necessary or beneficial to the module. It is not the intention that by introducing a model for blended learning, modules would become standardised. Instead it is hoped that the model will provide a useful framework for building blended modules which are appropriate to the subject being taught and the students needs whilst also being well presented and easy for students to navigate. One fact which is clear is that there is no one answer to the question of how such a model should be designed. It is hoped that by providing a model that has a pedagogical basis whilst also taking into account technical skill, the University of Teesside will be able to continue to be progressive in blended learning in a pedagogically sound manner. References. Atherton, J.S. (2005) Learning and Teaching: Bloom's taxonomy Visited: 27 th August 2007 http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/bloomtax.htm Ball, S. et al. (2006) Models of learning and teaching with technology, JISC. Visited 21 st August 2007 http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits/effective-use-of-vles/intro-to-vles/introtovleapproaches/introtovle-models Beetham, H (2004) Review of e-learning Models, JISC e-learning and Pedagogy Programme. Visited 21 st August 2007 Carver, C.A., Howard, R.A., Lane, W.D. (1996) Felder's learning styles, Bloom's taxonomy, and the Kolb learning cycle: tying it all together in the CS2 course. Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Proceedings of the twenty-seventh SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Pp. 227-231 23

Dempster, J. (2004) Pedagogical models to support the selection and evaluation of e-learning tools, E-Pedagogy working group, University of Warwick. Visited 17 th August 2007. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/cap/landt/elearning/epedagogy/epwg/epmodels121004.doc Goodman, N. (1996) The Way the World is in Ed. P.J. McCormick pp.3-10 Goodman, N. (1978) Ways of Worldmaking, Harvester Press, Sussex. Heap, J. (2005) Salmon. Leeds Metropolitan University. Visited 21 st August 2007 http://www.lmu.ac.uk/lis/imgtserv/elstrat/explorations/salmon1.htm Jara, M. & Mohamad, F. (2007) Pedagogical templates for e-learning. WLE Centre, Occasional Papers in Work-Based Learning 2, Institute of Education, University of London. Visited 11 th December 2007 http://www.wlecentre.ac.uk/cms/files/occasionalpapers/wle_op2.pdf Laurillard, D. (2002) Rethinking university teaching, 2 nd Ed. Routledge/Falmer, London. Madaus, G.F., Nuttall, R.L., Woods, E.M. (1973) A Causal Model Analysis of Bloom s Taxonomy. American Educational research Journal, Vol. 10, No. 4 Pp. 253-262 Mason, R. (1998) Models of Online Courses, ALN magazine, Vol. 2, Issue 2. Visited 1 st August 2007. http://www.aln.org/publications/magazine/v2n2/mason.asp Mason, R. (2004) JISC e-learning models desk study Stage 1: Pratt s five perspectives on effective practice. JISC. Visited 21 st August 2007 Mayes, T. & de Freitas, S. (2004) JISC e-learning models desk study Stage 2: Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models. JISC. Visited 21 st August 2007 http://www.essex.ac.uk/chimera/projects/jisc/stage%202%20learning%20models% 20(Version%201).pdf McConnell, D. (2000) Implementing computer supported cooperative learning. London: Kogan Page Limited. 24

McCormick, P.J. (1996) Starmaking: Realism, Anti-Realism, and Irrealism, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts. Mobbs, R. (2003) How to be an e-tutor. Learning technology, University of Leicester. Visited 17 th August 2007 http://www.le.ac.uk/cc/rjm1/etutor/resources/learningtheories/bloom.html Oliver, Kevin. (2006) Designing Instructional Strategies for the web. Educational Technologies, Virginia Tech. Visited 20 September 2007 URL: http://www.edtech.vt.edu/edtech/id/wbi/webstrat_template.doc Wersinger, R. (2001) Bloom's Taxonomy. Heald College, Oregon. Visited 17 th August 2007 http://homepage.mac.com/niganit/ulrncptr0401/common/bloomtaxonomy2.html 25