16. ICT in Education and Training
Paper
Design and Evaluation of a Sustainable Blended Study Programme in Higher Education
Marieke Versteijlen1, Arjen Wals1, Bert van Wee2
1Wageningen University & Research, Netherlands, The; 2Delft University of Technology, Netherlands, The
Presenting Author: Versteijlen, Marieke
Higher Education (HE) has a key responsibility in addressing the grand sustainability challenges of our time and higher educational institutions (HEIs) are looking for ways to reduce their carbon footprints (Helmers et al, 2021) as well as taking measures for adaptation to mitigate the impact of natural disasters (Mackey et al., 2012). During the COVID-19 pandemic, most HEIs made a rapid transition to, so-called, emergency remote teaching (Marinoni et al., 2020). This transition revealed deficiencies in existing infrastructure and the availability of devices for online learning, and teacher training (Marinoni et al., 2020; UNESCO, 2021). The rapid transition to online learning showed the direction higher education (HE) can take to adapt and increase their resilience when confronted with disastrous situations (Mackey et al., 2012). A blended learning design, allowing for both on and offline forms of instruction and learning, not only provides opportunities to be resilient but has an additional positive spin-off in that it may also contribute to sustainability by lowering the carbon emissions of students commuting to campus (Versteijlen et al., 2017). According to Caird et al. (2015), distance-based HE teaching models (distance, online) achieve carbon reductions of 83 per cent in comparison with on-campus models (in-class, ICT-enhanced), largely due to student commuting.
When designing a blended learning configuration the considerations underlying a student’s decision to commute to campus should be considered. It seems that students make reasoned choices that depend on their attitude toward the learning activities they are supposed to attend in line with the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen & Madden, 1986; Versteijlen et al., 2021). During the COVID-19 pandemic, students experienced the transition implications to emergency remote teaching, probably affecting their attitude towards online learning and commuting to the HEI. Van Wee et al. (2019) assume that such a trigger may cause an attitude change in what students know (i.e. cognitive process), feel (i.e. affective process) or do (i.e. behavioural process).
While there seem to be benefits of blended learning in realizing both resilience and a lower carbon footprint, which many HEIs aspire to, a key assumption is that a blended learning study programme should maintain, or ideally improve, educational quality. Blended learning needs a pedagogical approach that acknowledges that blended learning is more than a fusion of online and in-class learning and teaching (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Laurillard, 2013). Nortvig et al.(2018) stated, that factors such as, “educator presence in online settings, interactions between students, teachers and content, and deliberate connections between online and offline activities and between campus-related and practice-related activities” (Nortvig et al., 2018, p. 53) are indicators for good education.
The objective of this research is to develop and evaluate pedagogical design principles for, what we will call, a sustainable blended learning study programme and to evaluate students' travel behaviour as a result. The term ‘sustainable’ points to an efficient educational organisation that reduces student commute to and from campus to two days per week while not compromising educational quality. Since government restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic changed the blend to mainly online education, we included in the objective the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on the student’s attitude regarding online learning and educational travel.
This objective is achieved by answering the following research questions:
RQ1. How did the design team experience developing a sustainable blended learning study programme?
RQ2. How do students and lecturers evaluate learning and teaching during the implementation of the blended learning design?
RQ3. What cognitive, affective and behavioural processes may cause an attitude change in students toward educational travel in the circumstance of a reduction of in-class activities?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe Educational Design Research (EDR) approach is chosen to study the development and implementation of sustainable blended learning and teaching. According to McKenney and Reeves (2018), EDR can be defined “as a genre of research in which the iterative development of solutions to practical and complex educational problems also provides the context for empirical investigation, which yields theoretical understanding that can inform the work of others” (McKenney & Reeves, 2018, p. 21). We chose this methodology because of its strong connection to educational practice, contributing to more practical relevance (Van den Akker et al., 2006).
We designed and evaluated one prototype of a sustainable blended learning unit. Our model contains three main stages (iterative and flexible) in which the knowledge stream leads to theoretical understanding and the practice stream to a maturing intervention. RQ1 is answered in the stage ‘Curriculum Design and Construction’, and RQ2 and RQ3 in the stage ‘Implementation and Reflection’.
In the first stage, Analysis and Exploration, it was decided to design an economic business minor at Avans University of Applied Sciences. The previous minor was outdated and the lecturers opted for a full redesign to a blended curriculum. Initial design principles were developed based on two studies about student travel behaviour (Versteijlen et al., 2017; Versteijlen et al., 2021) and a literature review of blended learning.
In the second stage, Design and Construction, a team of eight educational practitioners with different backgrounds designed the minor from November 2019 to June 2020 in monthly sessions of approximately 6 hours. During this stage, the initial design principles were further developed in dialogue with the design team. In support of this team, each principle was supplemented with context, interventions (learning activities), mechanisms that may be triggered by the interventions mentioned, and potential outcomes (extracted from the scientific literature). The interventions were divided between on-campus and online activities. The design and construction stage was evaluated in June 2020 by interviewing three members of the design team.
In the third stage, Evaluation and Reflection, the blended minor, which started with 26 fourth-year students, has been evaluated among the minor students by a baseline and final measurement survey, and two focus groups. Afterwards, interviews were held with the three associated lecturers.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe initial design principles evolved throughout the design process and resulted in principles with concrete implementation possibilities. These were used to check the design and inspired ideas for learning activities.
The lecturer’s workload model based on traditional face-to-face teaching complicated the estimation of load hours to be allocated to unscheduled online activities.
The minor was evaluated based on how teachers and students perceived the implementation according to the design principles. Some observations:
1. Aiming at self-regulation in a student’s learning process.
The students stated that they had no trouble managing their own time and appreciated studying anywhere and anytime. Still, the lecturers showed reservations about their students’ self-managing skills.
2. Fostering a sense of community.
Online team meetings created a sense of community for the students.
3. Facilitating interaction and discussion among fellow students and with the lecturer.
The lecturers did not stimulate asynchronous online discussions as a follow-up of in-class discussions due to a failing workload model.
4. Activating knowledge transfer.
The students appreciated the guest lectures from professionals and their research activities but were less satisfied with the workshops from fellow students.
5. Offering authentic, scaffolded and theory-based practice.
The students became intrinsically motivated by working on real-world issues and creating value for the stakeholders.
6. Collaborating for self-responsible and self-directed learning.
Working in a team stimulated students’ learning and the online meetings are experienced as productive.
The COVID-19 restrictions may have been a trigger for an attitude change of students toward educational travel. Experiencing advantages of online learning (e.g. time savings due to less travel and productive online meetings) may influence their motivation to attend classes if an online alternative is available. Also, an additional reason to choose a car appeared, namely, it is easier and less expensive to borrow a car (from parents) commuting occasionally.
ReferencesAjzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(5), 453-474. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(86)90045-4
Bliuc, A., Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P., & Piggott, L. (2011). A blended learning approach to teaching foreign policy: Student experiences of learning through face-to-face and online discussion and their relationship to academic performance. Computers & Education, 56(3), 856-864.
Caird, S., Lane, A., Swithenby, E., Roy, R., Potter, S., 2015. Design of higher education teaching models and carbon impacts. . International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 16, 96–111.
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines John Wiley & Sons.
Helmers, E., Chang, C.C. & Dauwels, J. Carbon footprinting of universities worldwide: Part I—objective comparison by standardized metrics. Environmental Sciences Europe 33, 30 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-021-00454-6.
Laurillard, D. (2013). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology Routledge.
Mackey, J., Gilmore, F., Dabner, N., Breeze, D., & Buckley, P. (2012). Blended learning for academic resilience in times of disaster or crisis.
Marinoni, G., Van ’t Land, H., & Jensen, T. (2020). The impact of covid-19 on higher education around the world. IAU Global Survey Report,
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2018). Conducting educational design research Routledge.
Nortvig, A., Petersen, A. K., & Balle, S. H. (2018). A literature review of the factors influencing E-learning and blended learning in relation to learning outcome, student satisfaction and engagement. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 16(1), 46-55.
UNESCO. (2021). COVID-19: Reopening and reimagining universities. ().UNESCO. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000378174
Van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (2006). Educational design research Routledge.
Van Wee, B., Witlox, F., 2021. COVID-19 and its long-term effects on activity participation and travel behaviour: A multiperspective view. Journal of Transport Geography 95, 103144.
Versteijlen, M., Salgado, F. P., Groesbeek, M. J., & Counotte, A. (2017). Pros and cons of online education as a measure to reduce carbon emissions in higher education in the Netherlands. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 28, 80-89.
Versteijlen, M., van Wee, B., & Wals, A. (2021). Exploring sustainable student travel behaviour in The Netherlands: balancing online and on-campus learning. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 22(8), 146-166.
16. ICT in Education and Training
Paper
Blended and Hybrid Learning in post-COVID Schooling - a Field-based Proposal for an Enhanced Taxonomy of Blended and Hybrid Learning
Björn Kröske, Anne-Madeleine Kraft, Thomas Koinzer, Heike Schaumburg, Anna Garcia Pincay, Lena Kühn
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany
Presenting Author: Kröske, Björn;
Kraft, Anne-Madeleine
During the COVID-19 pandemic, blended and hybrid learning have become significantly more relevant in everyday school settings (Lampert et al., 2021). It is still unclear whether this shift towards blended and hybrid learning forms is just an episode or if it is the starting point of an even more accelerated development towards digitalisation in education. It appears inevitable that educational research accompanies this shift towards blended and hybrid learning forms. However, the literature shows a lack of consensus as to what blended and hybrid learning mean (Hrastinski, 2019), resulting in difficulties concerning its examination.
In a few cases blended and hybrid learning can be clearly distinguished from each other. While Gil et al. (2022) describe hybrid learning as "face-to-face learning with access to online learning tools" (p. 13), according to Graham (2006) blended learning is defined as the combination of face-to-face instruction with computer-mediated instruction. But in most cases, these terms are used synonymously (Graham 2009; Watson 2008). The use of digital media not only plays a crucial role in the definition of these terms, but also in the organisation of different blended learning approaches as seen in the commonly used classification by Staker and Horn (2012). They distinguish between four models of blended learning depending on when and where phases of online learning are embedded in the instruction (rotation model, flex model, self-blend model and enriched-virtual model). These descriptions of what is referred to as "new traditional" (e.g. Ross & Gage, 2006, p. 167) draw a clear line between learning with and without digital tools. At the same time, researchers argue that such a separation along the above-mentioned lines is based on the simple use of (digital) technologies and should be overcome. Especially taking the evaluation of effects on learning outcomes into regard, they argue that it is not the use of digital technologies per se that should be considered decisive rather than the thoughtful prepared and practical carried out as well as theoretically founded instructional design should be focussed – despite whether and which technologies are used (Fawns, 2019).
While we agree that the differentiation between digital and non-digital forms of learning seems to be obsolete, considering that digital media is used frequently in everyday school, we think it is important to take a closer look at the structural changes they made possible. It is now clear that digital media and tools can significantly broaden the scope of spatial and temporal structures in learning as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Students no longer have to learn at the same time in the same place. Synchronous and asynchronous learning phases can be more easily combined using digital tools to meet the individual needs of the students. Therefore, in this paper, we present and discuss an enhanced model of blended and hybrid learning, that considers the digitally driven expansion of the learning time and space.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedBased on the data of a Berlin school project, that assesses and evaluates the extension of legal possibilities concerning spatial and temporal restrictions in 18 compulsory schools, core elements for a category system should be identified. Drawing on their work and experience with learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, each school is developing and testing an individual, hands-on learning concept that considers the new legal possibilities as well as spatial, organisational, and technical requirements of their own school.
Structured interviews (n = 75) were conducted at each school between May and July 2022 with school principal, project management, teachers, and students. These interviews are analysed according to the learning concepts using content analysis, based on a combination of a deductive and inductive approach (Mayring, 2015).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThree essential independent dimensions can be identified: learning time, learning space and learning subject matter. In combination with the characteristics "synchronous", "asynchronous" and "hybrid" (according to Wiepcke, 2006), these proved to be sufficient during the working process to allow a mapping and differentiation of the described learning settings. A dimension of lesson structure is classified as “synchronous”, if there is a uniformity for all students in a particular learning situation (e.g. the whole class is in the classroom). “Asynchronous” describes a dimension of a learning situation that is characterised by a diversity in the design of the individual dimensions while remaining independent of the others (e.g. every student attends classes via video conferencing from home). "Hybrid" comprises the combination of both characteristics, i.e. a learning situation in which one subgroup is offered synchronous learning in relation to one dimension and another subgroup is offered asynchronous learning in relation to the same dimension.
The learning settings that emerged from our data can be sufficiently mapped and differentiated in the above described taxonomy that allowes us to categorise the settings in a more differentiated way than previous taxonomies of blended and hybrid learning. For each combination of dimension and characteristic, at least one example for realisation can be found in our data.
Furthermore, these results show that it can be useful to draw attention away from the medium and its assessment when it comes to course design and learning outcomes (Fawns, 2019). At this point this is a proposition for a framework and further discussions and research is needed, e.g. examination of possible instructional design options for different combinations of setting characteristics. Further evaluation should examine which requirements the different learning settings bring along and which learning methods are suitable for which learning setting to consider content-related, motivational and didactical aspects adequately.
ReferencesFawns, T. (2019). Postdigital education in design and practice. Postdigital Science and Education, 1(1), 132–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-018-0021-8.
Gil, E., Mor, Y., Dimitriadis, Y., & Köppe, C. (2022). Hybrid learning spaces. Cham: Springer International.
Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems. The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs, 1, 3-21.
Graham, C. R. (2009). Blended learning models. In Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Second Edition (pp. 375-382). IGI Global.
Hrastinski, S. (2019). What do we mean by blended learning?. TechTrends, 63(5), 564-569.
Lampert, C., Thiel, K., & Güngör, B. (2021). Mediennutzung und Schule zur Zeit des ersten Lockdowns während der Covid-19-Pandemie 2020: Ergebnisse einer Online-Befragung von 10-bis 18-Jährigen in Deutschland (Vol. 53, p. 36). Verlag Hans-Bredow-Institut.
Mayring, Philipp (2015): Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. 12th, revised edition. Beltz Verlag, Weinheim and Basel.
Ross, B., & Gage, K. (2006). Global perspectives on blended learning: Insight from WebCT and our customers in higher education. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 155-168). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K-12 Blended Learning. Innosight Institute. https://www.proquest.com/reports/classifying-k-12-blended-learning/docview/1140138006/se-2.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2012). International standard classification of education: ISCED 2011. Comparative Social Research, 30.
Watson, J. (2008). Blended learning: The convergence of online and face-to-face education. Promising Practices in Online Learning. North American Council for Online Learning.
Wiepcke, C. (2006). Computergestützte Lernkonzepte und deren evaluation in der Weiterbildung: Blended learning zur Förderung von Gender Mainstreaming. Hamburg: Kovac.
16. ICT in Education and Training
Paper
ICT and Learning Spaces. A Qualitative Study of the Classroom of the Future
Alberto Sánchez-Rojo1, Judith Martín-Lucas2
1Complutense University of Madrid, Spain; 2University of Salamanca, Spain
Presenting Author: Sánchez-Rojo, Alberto;
Martín-Lucas, Judith
In the mid 80s, Apple launched the project called “Apple Classrooms for Tomorrow” (ACOT). The aim of this project was to study classrooms in which students and teachers had immediate access to computer technology. The main conclusion reached by this research was that these classrooms allowed students greater control and responsibility of their own learning (Fisher, 1989). This research tried to respond, through technology, to an educational need, hence the focus was on learning subjects and not on technology itself or the spaces in which it was introduced.
Forty years later, the outlook remains the same. In 2012, the consortium or European Education Ministries, European Schoolnet (2017), launched the Future Classroom Lab project, which, like the Apple project tries to adapt classrooms spaces to a more efficient way of learning. In other words, we have adapted the classrooms by focusing on the instrumental or didactic perspective of this technology. We have not considered that space and technology are neutral means whose effect on us depends exclusively on the use we make of them (Dowd & Green, 2019). But neither space nor technology are neutral, they demand certain behaviors from us regardless of how we use them (Sánchez-Rojo & Martín-Lucas, 2021).
For Heidegger human beings “do not dwell because we have built, but we build and we have built because we dwell, that is, because we are dwellers” (Heidegger, 1993, p.350). This means that our human condition impels us to dwell in spaces, make them our own, as it is in and through them that we develop our individual identity. When we make a space our own, we feel at home, protected, safe and let our guard down, which allows us to be guided by their demands.
The possibility of intimacy is what turns an educational space into a place and, at the same time, what allows its influence on the person in formation to be deep and real. That is why in recent years some authors demanded a recovery of what is genuinely pedagogical (Hodgson, et. al, 2017). In this sense they draw attention to the need to stop considering pedagogy as a means to achieve objectives imposed by external environments and educational spaces as extensions of the family home or anterooms of the labor market (Masschelein & Simons, 2013). Examples such as the so called place-based learning situate the school as an essential enclave within the local community (Vander Ark, et al., 2020). Also Colwell et al, (2016) highlights the importance of having special corners in the school so that children can create their own place in the classroom (Colwell, et al., 2016). However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to build spaces in an hyperconnected world where the space-time barrier has been broken by digital artifacts. Spaces are now tending to equalize more and more and, consequently, they are losing their singularity.
In line with the above, in the field of education there are those who have called digital classrooms commonly known as «classrooms of the future». These classrooms are configured by an open, flexible and reconfigurable hyperspace and a hypermedia context that makes it difficult to differentiate between online and offline (Fernández Enguita 2018; 2019). In this respect, this paper's main objective is to analyze, from a pedagogical point of view, the digitized and flexible classrooms that are gradually being used by more and more educational centers around the world and at all levels, in themselves; that is, leaving aside the didactic use that may or may not be made of them.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis paper presents the results of qualitative research (Mittenfelner & Ravich, 2016) focused on the image as the main source of documentation and analysis (Banks, 2010). The study was based on the following research question: What is the classroom of the future like and what characteristics does it have? Are there differences between different classrooms of the future in different regions of the world? A convenience sampling was carried out according to type of classroom (Hyper-classrooms or Active Learning Classroom) and region criteria. A total of 41 different images of hyper-classrooms were selected, of whom 53.6% were University classrooms and 46.3% were primary schools’ classrooms in 5 regions and 19 countries. Initially, all data was analysed through the Nvivo 12, under an inductive category coding approach (Mittenfelner Carl & Ravitch, 2016; Packer, 2017). The system of categories was structured in two main categories: Shape and Expression of the classroom and material elements, and twenty sub-cathegories. Then, a study of the relationship between categories was carried out with Gephi 0.10.0 software.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe results show that the “classroom of the future”, although it receives different names depending on the region where it is located, is the same no matter the region of the world we are in. These types of classrooms are always spacious, mobile, diverse and adjustable, precisely like the internet; this explains how this space has managed to combine the virtual, analogue and digital. Everything that takes place within the classroom’s physical setting can still be found in the virtual environment. Besides that, it seems that there is no room for teacher in the hyper-classroom, the computer and the projector take centre stage in the classroom, occupying the place the teacher once held. In short, a hyper-classroom not only refers to a new setting, but above all to a new educational model (Fernandez-Enguita, 2018) that meets the requirements of a society that is highly dependent on technological and digital devices.
The last decades we have been opening the classroom in architectural, material and technical terms, and this is nothing more than a symptom that, for a long time, education instead of responding to educational ends, has been left in the hands of economic, political or social ends, among others. That is why we agree with García del Dujo et al., (2021) that if there is one thing that is missing in the learning spaces, it is pedagogy.
ReferencesColwell, M. J., Gaines, K., Pearson, M., Corson, K., Wright, H. D. & Logan, B. J. (2016). Space, Place, and Privacy: Preschool Children’s Secret Hiding Places. Family and Consumer Sciences Research journal, 44(4), 412-421. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12169
European Schoolnet (2017). Future Classroom Lab. Courses and More. Retrieved from: http://www.eun.org/es/professional-development/future-classroom-lab
Dowd, H. & Green, P. (2019). Classroom Management in the Digital Age: Effective Practices for Technology-Rich Learning Spaces. Gypsy Heart Press.
Fisher, C. W. (1989). The Influence of High Computer Access on Student Empowerment [ACOT Report]. Apple Computer, Inc., Cupertino, CA. http://www.appleclassrooms.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/rpt-1-ACOT-1989-Software-Development-Through-ACOT-Teachers-Eyes.pdf
Fernández Enguita, M. (2018). La hiperaula como hiperespacio. Retrieved from: Cuaderno de campo website: https://blog.enguita.info/2018/12/la-hiperaula-comohiperespacio.html
Fernández Enguita, M. (2019). Del aula-huevera a la hiperaula. In: Fernandez Enguita, M. & Igelmo Zaldívar, J. El edificio de La Almudena de Ciudad Universitaria: la huella del pasado en tiempos de la hiperaula (pp. 5-15). FarenHouse.
García del Dujo, A., Vlieghe, J., Muñoz-Rodríguez, J. M. & Martín-Lucas, J. (2021). Thinking of the (theory of) education from the technology of our time. Teoría de la Educación, 33(2), 5-26. https://doi.org/10.14201/teri.25432
Heidegger, M. (1993). Building, Dwelling, Thinking. In: Farrell, D. (ed.) Basic Writings (pp. 343-364). Harper Perennial.
Hodgson, N., Vlieghe, J., & Zamojski, P. (2017). Manifesto for a post-critical pedagogy. Punctum Books.
Masschelein, J. & Simons, M. (2013). In Defense of School: A Public Issue. E-ducation, Culture & Society.
Mittenfelner Carl, N., y Ravitch, S. M. (2016). Qualitative research: bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. SAGE.
Packer, M. J. (2017). The science of qualitative research. Cambridge University Press.
Sánchez-Rojo, A. & Martín-Lucas, J. (2021). Education and TIC: between means and ends. A post-critical reflection. Educ. Soc, 42. https://doi.org/10.1590/ES.239802
Vander Ark, T., Liebtag, E. & McClennen, N. (2020). The Power of Place: Authentic Learning Through Place-Based Education. ASCD.
|
