An investigation into student preferences of different blended learning modes on a part-time MSc

1. An investigation into student preferences of different blended learning modes on a part-time MSc Dr Doris Jepson Bristol Business School

2. The context • Part-time postgraduate context • Need for a blend of online & face-to-face for students from Health & Social Care Sector • Limited research on blended learning within this context • Research is part of a larger project - Work-in-progress • Blended modes on this MSc: • Online component as supplement to class-room based teaching • Online sites: Interactive vs. Communication vs. Information-sharing

3. Literature • Use of online technologies for • File sharing & transfer; communication; quizzes; assessment etc. (Morris & Rippin, 2003) • Autonomous learning vs. tutor-led (Sharpe et al., 2006) • Students ask for and use supplementary online resources (e.g. Boyle et al, 2003; Dickinson, 2005; Codone, 2004; Hibberd, 2006 etc.) • Some studies find positive results for peer learning through VLEs (e.g. Kickul & Kickul, 2004; Franklin and Peat, 2001; Garrison, 2006) • Online support empowers students to interact with materials and construct a deeper understanding of the subject where and when it suits them (Weyers et al., 2004; Catley, 2005)

4. Methods • So far analysis of student engagement with the three different online components • Analysis of blackboard statistics • Analysis of frequency and quality of discussion activity • Analysis of use of Wiki and Quizzes participation • Still to come: semi-structured interviews with students on experiences with and preferences of different blended learning modes

5. Findings Discussion • Active student engagement with all sites but relatively greater use of the interactive blackboard site • Discussion activity only successful when structured and tutor-led – communication remains still one-way • Kear (2004) and Clouder and Deepwell (2004) found similar evidence for need for structure and timing • Poor use of quizzes and Wiki • Overall clear preference for file transfer rather than interactive tools • Smart and Holyfield (2004) have similar findings on student preferences

6. Questions • Is there a difference in usage of and needs for blended learning modes on UG vs. PG modules and PT vs. FT? • Are we barking up the wrong tree if students prefer to download information rather than interact online? • Is there a space for supplementary interactive tools or are they only successful when part of formal distance learning?

7. References • Boyle, T, Bradley, C., Chalk, P., Jones, R. and Pickard, P. (2003), ‘Using blended learning to improve student success rates in learning to program’, Journal of educational Media, Vol. 28(2-3), pp. 165-178 • Catley, P. (2005), ‘One lecturer’s experience of blended learning with traditional teaching or How to improve retention and progression by engaging students, Brookes eJournal for Learning and teaching, Vol. 1 (2), pp. 1-8 • Clouder, L. and Deepwell, F. (2004), ‘Reflections on unexpected outcomes: Learning from student’s collaboration in an online discussion forum. Networked Learning Conference, Available from http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2004/proceedings/individual_papers/clouderanddeepwell.htm (17 April 2009) • Codone, S. (2004), ‘Reducing the distance: a study of course websites as a means to create a total learning space in traditional courses’, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, Vol. 47 (3), pp. 190-199 • Dickinson, J. (2005), Enabling e-learning in higher education, Newcastle Business School • Franklin, S. and Peat, M. (2001), ‘Managing change: The use of mixed delivery modes to increase learning opportunities’, Australian Journal of Educational Technology • Garrison, D.R. (2006), ‘Online Collaboration Principles’, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Vol. 10(1) • Hibberd, S., Litton, C. and Chambers, C. (2006), ‘MELEES – reflective overview on use of a VLE in supporting student learning’, HELM Conference, Loughborough, HE Academy Engineering Subject Centre • Kear, K. (2004), ‘Peer learning using asynchronous discussion systems in distance education, Open Learning, Vol. 19 (2), pp. 151-164 • Kickul, J. and Kickul, G. (2004), ‘E-learning challenges and processes: Understanding the role of student self-efficacy and learning goal orientation’, International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 4(1) • Morris, H. and Rippin, A. (2003), ‘Virtual Learning Environments in Business and Management: A Review of some recent developments’, International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 3(2), pp. 23-30 • Sharpe, R., Benfield, G. Roberts, G. and Francis, R. (2006), The undergraduate experience of blended e-learning: a review of UK literature and practice, The Higher Education Academy Report, Available from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/ourwork/research/literature_reviews/blended_elearning_full_review.pdf (17 April 2009) • Smart, C. and Holyfield, S. (2004), ‘An evaluation of the use of blackboard in teaching and learning in UWB. University Wales Bangor • Weyers, J., Adamson, M and Murie, D. (2004), ‘Student e-learning survey report, Dundee: University of Dundee, Available from http://www.dundee.ac.uk/learning/dol/ELS_final_report.pdf (17 April 2009)