Cases on Online and

Blended Learning
Technologies in Higher
Education:
Concepts and Practices

Yukiko Inoue
University of Guam, Guam

InformatIon scIence reference

Hershey • New York
Director of Editorial Content: Kristin Klinger
Senior Managing Editor: Jamie Snavely
Assistant Managing Editor: Michael Brehm
Publishing Assistant: Sean Woznicki
Typesetter: Michael Brehm, Kurt Smith, Jamie Snavely
Cover Design: Lisa Tosheff
Printed at: Yurchak Printing Inc.

Published in the United States of America by

Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey PA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: cust@igi-global.com
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com/reference

Copyright © 2010 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or
companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Cases on online and blended learning technologies in higher education :

concepts and practices / Yukiko Inoue, editor.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-60566-880-2 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-60566-881-9 (ebook) 1.
Education, Higher--Computer-assisted instruction--Case studies. 2.
Educational technology--Case studies. 3. Blended learning--Case studies. I.
Inoue, Yukiko.
LB2395.7.C417 2010
378.1'734--dc22
2009034981

British Cataloguing in Publication Data

A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.

All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the
authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.
Editorial Advisory Board
Kyle Smith, University of Guam, Guam
Mark Goniwiecha, University of Guam, Guam

List of Reviewers
Martin Reardon, Virginia Commonwealth University, USA
Roisin Donnelly, Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland
Roberto Di Scala, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy
Katarzyna Grzybowska, Poznan University of Technology, Poland
Linda De George-Walker, University of Southern Queensland, Australia
Patrick Danaher, University of Southern Queensland, Australia
Richard Engstrom, Georgia State University, USA
Chris Morgan,Southern Cross University, Australia
John J. Doherty, Northern Arizona University, USA
Kam Hou Vat, University of Macau, China
Paul Shield, Queensland University of Technology, Queensland
Table of Contents

Foreword .............................................................................................................................................. xi

Preface ................................................................................................................................................ xiv

Acknowledgment ............................................................................................................................... xxii

Section 1
Implementing Blended Learning Technologies

A: Programs/Environments

Chapter 1
The Nature of Complex Blends: Transformative Problem-Based Learning and Technology
in Irish Higher Education ........................................................................................................................ 1
Roisin Donnelly, Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland

Chapter 2
Experiences and Perceptions of Learner Engagement in Blended Learning Environments:
The Case of an Australian University ................................................................................................... 23
Linda De George-Walker, University of Southern Queensland, Australia
Abdul Hafeez-Baig, University of Southern Queensland, Australia
Raj Gururajan, University of Southern Queensland, Australia
Patrick, A. Danaher, University of Southern Queensland, Australia

Chapter 3
Instructional Leadership and Blended Learning: Confronting the Knowledge Gap in Practice .......... 44
Martin R. Reardon, Virginia Commonwealth University, USA

Chapter 4
Blended Learning in a Creative Writing Program: Lessons Learned from a Two-Year
Pilot Study............................................................................................................................................. 63
Chris Morgan, Southern Cross University, Australia
Janie Conway-Herron, Southern Cross University, Australia
Chapter 5
Blended Learning for Adaptation to Needs .......................................................................................... 76
Joan E. Aitken, Park University, USA

B: Courses

Chapter 6
Virtual Reality or Virtually Real: Blended Teaching and Learning in a Master’s Level
Research Methods Class ....................................................................................................................... 91
John Lidstone, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Paul Shield, Queensland University of Technology, Australia

Chapter 7
Teaching Online: What Does Blended Learning Require? ................................................................. 112
P. Toyoko Kang, University of Guam, Guam

Chapter 8
The Perfect Blend?: Online Blended Learning from a Linguistic Perspective ................................... 132
Roberto Di Scala, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy

Chapter 9
Reflections: Two Years after Implementing a Blended Educational Research Course ....................... 145
Yukiko Inoue, University of Guam, Guam

Section 2
Integrating Online Learning Technologies

A: Programs/Environments

Chapter 10
A Case of Using Wikis to Foster Collaborative Learning: Pedagogical Potential
and Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 167
Hong Lin, Oklahoma State University, USA
Kathleen D. Kelsey, Oklahoma State University, USA

Chapter 11
Virtual Organizing Professional Learning Communities through a Servant-Leader Model
of Appreciative Coaching ................................................................................................................... 183
Kam Hou Vat, University of Macau, Macau
 B: Courses

Chapter 12
Bothering with Technology: Building Community in an Honors Seminar ........................................ 208
John J. Doherty, Northern Arizona University, USA

Chapter 13
Online Materials for Teaching Japanese ............................................................................................ 227
Kai Masumi, University of Guam, Guam

Chapter 14
Composition Goes Online: How a Small Pacific Island is Blogging into the Future ......................... 249
Michelle Bednarzyk, University of Guam, Guam
Merissa Brown, University of Guam, Guam

Chapter 15
Integrating Classroom and Online Instruction in an Introductory American
Government Course ............................................................................................................................ 283
Richard Engstrom, Georgia State University, USA

Compilation of References .............................................................................................................. 296

About the Contributors ................................................................................................................... 313

Index ................................................................................................................................................... 318

Detailed Table of Contents

Foreword .............................................................................................................................................. xi

Preface ................................................................................................................................................ xiv

Acknowledgment ............................................................................................................................... xxii

Section 1
Implementing Blended Learning Technologies

A: Programs/Environments

Chapter 1
The Nature of Complex Blends: Transformative Problem-Based Learning and Technology
in Irish Higher Education ........................................................................................................................ 1
Roisin Donnelly, Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland

Qualitative data from focus groups, reflection papers, and participant observations emphasize the need
for effective interaction between pedagogy and technology to ensure that both are used to best effect in
implementing problem-based learning in a blended learning environment.

Chapter 2
Experiences and Perceptions of Learner Engagement in Blended Learning Environments:
The Case of an Australian University ................................................................................................... 23
Linda De George-Walker, University of Southern Queensland, Australia
Abdul Hafeez-Baig, University of Southern Queensland, Australia
Raj Gururajan, University of Southern Queensland, Australia
Patrick, A. Danaher, University of Southern Queensland, Australia

The authors make an attempt to extend current understandings of blended learning, and realize that ongo-
ing challenges cannot necessarily be resolved easily or permanently because several factors influencing
the challenges lie outside the control of individual course team members.
Chapter 3
Instructional Leadership and Blended Learning: Confronting the Knowledge Gap in Practice .......... 44
Martin R. Reardon, Virginia Commonwealth University, USA

The course was particularly designed to engage participants, who were seeking endorsement (i.e., certifi-
cation) at the school district superintendent level, in examining the instructional leadership ramifications
of the effective integration of digital technology and learning.

Chapter 4
Blended Learning in a Creative Writing Program: Lessons Learned from a Two-Year
Pilot Study............................................................................................................................................. 63
Chris Morgan, Southern Cross University, Australia
Janie Conway-Herron, Southern Cross University, Australia

The authors express the strong need for a flexible learning approach offering a variety of formats to meet
the needs of a diverse student body spread across the university’s three campuses, and including older
students. Many challenges were exposed through the initiative discussed.

Chapter 5
Blended Learning for Adaptation to Needs .......................................................................................... 76
Joan E. Aitken, Park University, USA

Describing the experiences of institutions using various levels of distance learning integration, the infor-
mation of this case includes the type of technology used, the way blended learning has been configured
in several contexts, and questions for the future applications of blended learning.

B: Courses

Chapter 6
Virtual Reality or Virtually Real: Blended Teaching and Learning in a Master’s Level
Research Methods Class ....................................................................................................................... 91
John Lidstone, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Paul Shield, Queensland University of Technology, Australia

As the authors maintain, it may be that technology has become virtually transparent, so that people have
moved from the ‘e’ to the ‘learning,’ or, in other words, from thinking of pedagogy in terms of virtual
reality to a student experience that is virtually real.

Chapter 7
Teaching Online: What Does Blended Learning Require? ................................................................. 112
P. Toyoko Kang, University of Guam, Guam

This case shows simple ways to make currently incomprehensible input comprehended, and to increase
input, with the benefit of a memory efficient approach developed from human parser learning theory
(HPLT), justifying why input comprehension matters according to HPLT.
Chapter 8
The Perfect Blend?: Online Blended Learning from a Linguistic Perspective ................................... 132
Roberto Di Scala, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy

This case identifies the many challenges facing the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia as it at-
tempts to find the optimum blend of components. The University has offered blended e-learning courses
for its distance learning programs to ensure that the ‘human touch’ is included.

Chapter 9
Reflections: Two Years after Implementing a Blended Educational Research Course ....................... 145
Yukiko Inoue, University of Guam, Guam

Based on the instructor’s observations, as well as the student self-ratings and self-narratives, this case
confirms the prediction drawn from the literature that, after all, pedagogical and technological difficul-
ties present major challenges for blended course instruction.

Section 2
Integrating Online Learning Technologies

A: Programs/Environments

Chapter 10
A Case of Using Wikis to Foster Collaborative Learning: Pedagogical Potential
and Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 167
Hong Lin, Oklahoma State University, USA
Kathleen D. Kelsey, Oklahoma State University, USA

The author argues that although wikis have increasingly been used for collaborative classroom writing
and have been hailed as a learning/writing tool that is more powerful than blogs and e-mails, the peda-
gogical impacts of using wikis is thus far underrepresented in the literature.

Chapter 11
Virtual Organizing Professional Learning Communities through a Servant-Leader Model
of Appreciative Coaching ................................................................................................................... 183
Kam Hou Vat, University of Macau, Macau

The author is very much interested in enhancing the student’s experience by designing a collaborative
and problem-based learning environment, which relies on the virtual organizing of the various profes-
sional learning communities distributed throughout the institution.
 B: Courses

Chapter 12
Bothering with Technology: Building Community in an Honors Seminar ........................................ 208
John J. Doherty, Northern Arizona University, USA

The author contends that instructors of honors courses, who might be predisposed to more traditional
teaching methods, need to ‘bother’ with technology in order to provide their students with the combina-
tion of learning strategies that are most efficient and effective.

Chapter 13
Online Materials for Teaching Japanese ............................................................................................ 227
Kai Masumi, University of Guam, Guam

The author asserts that although new software has yet to show dramatic change in student learning, it
clearly gives different stimuli to the student and is useful for the student’s self study, based upon the
theory that technology affect the process of foreign language learning.

Chapter 14
Composition Goes Online: How a Small Pacific Island is Blogging into the Future ......................... 249
Michelle Bednarzyk, University of Guam, Guam
Merissa Brown, University of Guam, Guam

This case provides a detailed historical background of the course development; insights from two instruc-
tors about the process of teaching this way for the University of Guam’s diverse student population; and
suggestions for future successes based on current challenges and issues.

Chapter 15
Integrating Classroom and Online Instruction in an Introductory American
Government Course ............................................................................................................................ 283
Richard Engstrom, Georgia State University, USA

The author discusses online components to provide course material that the students would otherwise
have missed due to decreased lecture time, and recognizes the opportunity to add the components as a
chance to address the usual limitations of large, introductory sections.

Compilation of References .............................................................................................................. 296

About the Contributors ................................................................................................................... 313

Index ................................................................................................................................................... 318

 xi

Foreword

In the Middle Ages, the educated class consisted largely of priests and monks, who copied the Bible and
missals by hand on leaves of parchment. Each hand-written book was unique, including transcription
errors (some inadvertent, some maybe deliberately introduced) and even whimsical doodles. Little other
than prayer books was available when the Church was in charge of information dissemination. Later on,
the need for copies of business documents was filled by public scribes who worked in the town square
near the office of the clerk or registrar of documents.
Johann Gutenberg’s invention of printing from movable type in the 1450s changed everything about
our world. Not only did he introduce the revolutionary technology to make multiple copies of a book,
but also, the new medium of printing altered the content of the book product.
In addition to religious works, new secular subjects, such as histories, biographies, novels, poems,
and newspapers began to appear. More people learned to read as more printed literature was produced.
Merchants and tradesmen wanted an education, too, creating a middle class. The number of persons
attending high school increased. More universities were established.
In The Gutenberg Galaxy, Marshall McLuhan (1962) explored the symbiotic relationship between
the mass media, in general, especially printing, in particular, and the larger socioculture, human self-
awareness, circumspection and cognizance. McLuhan’s Understanding Media (1964) and The Medium
Is the Massage (1967) continued his analysis of how the medium affects the message itself. The tech-
nology is more than just the method of transmission employed. The means (the medium) alters the end
(the content).
At St. Clement Schools, which I attended in Center Line, Michigan, for 11 years, teachers used the
latest technology available—slide projectors, filmstrips with sound, and later, movies, then referred to
as “moving pictures.” In the state-of-the-art language laboratory, the teacher, Sister Francis Marie, a
Catholic nun, could monitor interactively each student’s progress and oral performance—listen and re-
peat, conjugate a verb, demonstrate subject-predicate agreement. She could speak to one student through
his headphones to attempt to improve pronunciation, or she could broadcast directions to everyone in
Spanish class.
Typing with carbon paper and wet mimeograph duplicators reeking of fumes gave way to dry photo-
copiers. Mainframe computers, then personal computers, spelled the end of the typewriter. High school
yearbook classes and clubs, then newspaper and magazine production rooms, made the transition from
cut-and-paste page layouts to computerized composition. The invention of electronic mail, then the
Internet, changed forever the way people communicate, search for, retrieve and deliver information.
Each new technological invention introduced new means, and along with that, new ways of perceiving
the message itself.
xii

Educators have been in the forefront in the introduction and employment of new technologies in the
classroom. Students utilize and master the technologies, then go on in their own careers to design new
ones.
Every era and every step forward have had its doomsday naysayers. Education of the masses in free
public schools would make the world a more vulgar place, some claimed. Free public libraries would
denigrate learning, they said.
But the historical record and empirical evidence have not born out those fears. Instead, the United
States Congress went ahead anyway and established the land grant university system to locate and sup-
port with federal funding a “state university” in every state and territory. Cities undertook the founding
of free public libraries for everyone, city colleges and city universities, using local tax regimes approved
by voters. Sons and daughters of farmers, teamsters, coopers, butchers and bakers went to college, earned
degrees, became intellectually productive knowledge workers, and moved up the rungs of the economic
and social ladder to join the ranks of the middle class. From personal experience, I know that the son
of a factory assembly line worker can become a university professor capable of understanding complex
concepts, conducting lectures, making academic presentations, producing research results, and writing
them up for publication.
When Barack Obama, the son of a visiting Kenyan student father and a Kansan-Hawaiian mother,
can become a lawyer, professor, senator, and be elected president of the United States, almost anything
is possible. American students know that, through their earnest endeavors, they can achieve higher
aspirations.
Other nations are studying, emulating and replicating free public schools for all children, free public
libraries for everyone, and political systems that provide fair and equal treatment and suffrage for all.
Dictators are afraid of open societies and the free flow of information.
The introduction of the Internet promises new possibilities for educating students. Moodle and other
interactive programs allow students in distant, even remote and isolated, locations to pursue courses and
programs not previously offered in their areas. On small islands, such as in Micronesia, and in other
developing countries, students can use the Internet and email to enroll in and complete university courses
and finish entire distance education degrees successfully.
Professors have identified ways to use email and the Internet in their traditional courses, by keeping
in touch with their students via listservs, with course Web sites, posted syllabi, reserve readings online,
and important links to explore. Students on campus can also take advantage of the new technologies,
using the Internet and e-mail, to enhance the classroom experience in blended learning opportunities.
Students can send in their assignments via email to the professor, or upload them to the Web page, where
they can be viewed and critiqued by other readers, fostering a collaborative environment. Students can
communicate with each other, and with the instructor, outside of class, using the Web page. Professors
can send out questions or new assignments electronically, or return corrected assignments.
In the chapters of this book of cases, researchers present their findings concerning professors’ class-
room use of listservs, course Web sites, Wikis, blogs, and Moodle for teacher-student interaction and
learning. The process is interactive and the learning occurs on both sides. Professors learn from the
students. Students learn from the teachers and from each other.
The possibilities and progress are limited only by our imagination and creativity. Research, such as
that in the present work, serves to analyze, evaluate, assess, and improve some of the new functions,
roles, and perceptions. Collaborations, critiques, analyses, and syntheses will develop still further uses,
 xiii

and newer methods and media, on future journeys in education. Indeed, this book of cases celebrates
such new journeys. It’s a brave new world, and we are creating it.

Mark C. Goniwiecha
University of Guam, Guam
September 2009

Mark Goniwiecha is a professor of library science at the University of Guam. He is the author of numerous publications,
including articles in Taiheiyo Gakkai Shi—Journal of the Pacific Society—(Tokyo, Japan), Government Publications Review
(New York), Contemporary Pacific (Honolulu, Hawaii), Reference Services Review (Ann Arbor, Mich.), Libri (Copenhagen,
Denmark), The Nation (Bangkok, Thailand), Pacific Daily News (Hagåtña, Guam), and others. He served two terms as the
Guam Library Association chapter representative to the American Library Association Council. Email: markg@uguam.uog.
edu

REFERENCES

McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg galaxy: The making of typographic man. Toronto, Canada:
University of Toronto Press.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McLuhan, M. (1967). The medium is the massage: An inventory of effects. New York: Bantam Books /
Random House.
xiv

Preface

In the Internet Age, the notion that a traditional classroom with face-to-face instruction, by itself, is no
longer adequate for higher education teaching and learning as one that has considerable intrinsic merit.
Institutions of higher education, therefore, realize that lecture-based teaching methods alone will not
prepare students for the challenges they will face. The State University of New York and the University
of Illinois, for instance, have entirely abolished the separation of online programs from campus-based
programs, awarding the same degree for both programs and allowing students themselves to combine
campus and online coursework as best suits their individual needs and choices (Theil, 2008). Further-
more, in Theil’s words:

The move to such hybrids will be driven by students questioning why they should sit in lectures taking
notes three times a week when they can go once and do the rest at their own pace online…. By combining
face-to-face interaction with new online options in more powerful ways, these programs should offer
the best of both worlds—rendering moot today’s debate over whether virtual or in-person degrees are
best. (p. 65)

In spite of both substantive and specious concerns about the pervasive ongoing role of computers in
modern life, the Internet is already well established in higher education and promises to continue to fill
all the crevices of the educational fabric (Rudestam & Schoenholtz-Read, 2002, p. 9). Higher education
is now available at the students’ fingertips, as technology enables them to do their tasks more efficiently,
effectively, comfortably, and quickly (Sethy, 2008, p. 29). Moreover, the rapid growth in the use of new
technologies, particularly in the use of the Internet and Web-based communication, has provided higher
education instructors and institutions with new options that enable them to experiment with the most
suitable mix of instructional approaches and learning environments.
An especially important aspect of today’s higher education environment is that students are more
diverse than ever before. In the United States, for example, in addition to a more diversified student
population in terms of ethnicity, social status, and expectation, the proportion of non-traditional university
students has been steadily increasing. Higher education institutions are thus being challenged, not only
by the rapidly developing information and communication technologies, but also by the non-traditional
character of today’s university students as well (Orhan, 2008). These changing student demographics
and expectations, as well as technological innovation and the imperatives of a lifelong learning agenda,
are transforming higher education for the 21st century.

THE COMING OF THE AGE OF BLENDED LEARNING

Internet-based online distance education is certainly becoming an important long-term strategy for many
institutions of higher education throughout the world. However, blended learning promises to be an even
 xv

more significant modality than an entirely online learning approach. Blended learning is not entirely
new. “Back in the last century, the term ‘blended learning’ was invented, accompanied with typical
e-learning hype…. It was thought that developing a blended learning solution was all about choosing
from an ever-widening selection of methods and media” (LINE Communications, 2006, p. 1). In the past
five years, particularly, the concept of blended learning has become widely accepted in both academic
and corporate worlds: the term is now generally used to mean a structured process that involves a mix
of teaching and learning activities, including e-learning, face-to-face instruction, and telephone contact
(CILIP, 2008). Blended learning is viewed as having myriad possibilities for enhancing higher educa-
tion instruction, primarily “because new ways of thinking about course design are required to reconcile
traditional values and practices with evolving expectations and technological possibilities” (Garrison
& Vaughan, 2008, p. 3).
In a study by Orhan (2008) focused on blended learning and teaching, college students felt that: “the
integration of face-to-face and online learning environments was more enjoyable than purely online
distance learning or purely face-to-face environments” (p. 61). In Orhan’s words:

Blended learning can improve students’responsibility for their own learning through online activities and
improve their motivation through face-to-face interactivity. In blended learning environments, instruc-
tors may be able to spend less time delivering content and more time guiding students…when trying to
implement a student-centered learning environment. (p. 64)

Orhan (2008), therefore, recommends that instructors should be (1) encouraged to forego strictly
traditional lecturing in favor of courses designed to incorporate blended learning approaches, and (2)
trained for the dual roles of both content developer and facilitator in courses redesigned for blended
learning environments.
Based upon the view that the value of blended learning lies in identifying situations in which technol-
ogy-enhanced learning experiences might prove more effective and efficient in supporting meaningful
learning, the following success factors for blended e-learning described by CILIP (2008) are useful for
instructors in designing effective blended learning courses:

• work with and within the context (blended e-learning is most effective when it is designed and
developed within and for a specific context);
• use blended learning as a driver for transformative course redesign (the best results are obtained
when blended learning is used as a driver for course redesign that includes analyzing the current
course and obtaining feedback from stakeholders, especially students);
• help students develop their own conceptions of the learning process (students are more likely
to engage in learning and teaching activities if they understand the rationale for it); and
• disseminate and communicate results of findings (the report authors highlight the importance
of disseminating the findings from research about blended e-learning). (p. 3)

The mixture of blended learning can incorporate a variety of teaching and learning styles, course
materials, and learning technologies, such as traditional classroom settings (including lecture theaters,
and laboratory environments), CD-ROMs and DVDs, e-mails, course management systems, e-books,
virtual learning environments (including message boards and chart rooms), asynchronous online delivery
and tools such as Wikis and blogs, and synchronous online delivery and tools such as instant messaging
(Gulc, 2006). The choice of a blend is best determined by the nature of the course and its learning objec-
xvi

tives, instructor experiences and teaching styles, and student needs. Blended learning is also concerned
with effectively leveraging the strengths of differing kinds of learning activities and venues in achiev-
ing some overarching learning objectives (Howard, Remenyi, & Pap, 2006, p. 1). Insofar as the aim of
blended learning is to meet the challenges of widely differing situations, the following characterization
is intriguing:

Blended learning isn’t really about assembling media or methods. It isn’t design by numbers. What
blended learning must do is to provide an integrated environment in which to learn. It must provide an
experience that is more effective than the sum of its parts. In fact, blended learning is like so much that
happens in our increasingly networked world: it’s not the individual components that matter, but the
way they relate. It’s not the nodes in the network, but the way they link together. (LINE Communica-
tions, n. d., p. 1)

Blended learning is considered to be an effective first step toward implementing fully online learning.
Even when it is the first step, “maximizing success in a blended learning initiative requires a planned
and well-supported approach that includes a theory-based instructional model, high-quality faculty
development, course development assistance, learner support, and ongoing formative and summative
assessment” (Dziuban, Hartman, & Moskal, 2004, p. 3). This point deserves emphasis. The potential
for new technologies to increase the quantity and timeliness of information from learning activities
performed in different venues will be realized only if higher education instructors are motivated to use
this information to improve the quality of teaching (Howard et al., 2006). That is why preparing faculty
for blended and online learning is so important.

PURPOSE OF THIS BOOK

Blended learning, as previously discussed, has many faces (including combining instructional modalities
or delivery media, and integrating instructional methods). In this publication, Cases on Blended and
Online Learning Technologies in Higher Education: Concepts and Practices, blended learning is gener-
ally understood as a balanced combination of traditional classroom-based activities with appropriately
designed online learning experiences, or the convergence between traditional campus-based learning
and online/distance learning.
Despite the growing interest in blended learning approaches, there are few published cases that
provide specific insights into how blended learning courses should be designed, implemented, and
evaluated in order to maximize teaching effectiveness and learning quality. The interest “in blended
learning—thoughtful fusion of classroom and online learning experiences—has surged in the past two
to three years throughout higher education. The need to provide more engaged learning experiences—
and greater flexibility for students and faculty—are at the core of this interest” (Rochester Institute of
Technology, 2008, p. 1).
Three guiding principles of the book are as follows:

• Blended learning might be the solution. It is a time to think about redesigning courses for
blended learning, reconciling “traditional values and practices with evolving expectations and
technological possibilities” (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008, p. 3). In this regard, the cases in the book
focus on the challenges and directions of redesigning courses, especially for student-directed learn-
 xvii

ing, based upon a wide range of designs, methodologies, and applications of blended and online
learning—thus from course design to assessment of learning outcomes.
• Experience is the best teacher, as the adage goes. This is especially true for the contributors of
cases who are eager to discuss and share their real-life examples and experiences in order to make
a positive impact on blended and online learning. Their examples and experiences can be applied
to any other settings or institutions of higher education throughout the world.
• Lifelong learning is an educational agenda. Lifelong learning is one of the most important en-
gines driving education in the 21st century (Magoulas, 2008). Providing cases of blended and online
learning technologies and environments for different needs and settings, the book discusses the role
today’s higher education instructors and institutions can play as they become genuinely lifelong
instructors and institutions, better helping students to survive in a technologically sophisticated
society.

The aim of this book of cases is to contribute to an educational transformation based upon new models
of teaching and learning, and made possible by “the confluence of new pedagogies (e.g., the change in
emphasis from teaching-centered to student-centered learning paradigms), new technologies (e.g., the
rapid spread of the Internet, World Wide Web, and personal computers), and new theories of learning
(e.g., brain-based learning and social constructivism)” (Dziuban et al., 2004, p. 2). It is hoped that the
book will be a valuable resource for both the conceptual understanding and practical application of
blended and online learning technologies in higher education.

ORGANIZATION OF THIS BOOK

This book of cases consists of 15 chapters. A brief description of each of the cases follows:
Chapter One, “The Nature of Complex Blends: Transformative Problem-Based Learning and Technol-
ogy in Irish Higher Education,” discusses the case of blending technology and problem-based learning
(PBL) group interaction in the context of academic staff development with two objectives in mind: (1)
to establish, in a PBL tutorial setting, the factors that govern the success of blended PBL; and (2) to
identify technical, academic, and interactional indicators of learning in the online and face-to-face PBL
tutorial. Qualitative data from focus group interviews, reflection papers, and participant observations
emphasize the need for effective interaction between pedagogy and technology to ensure that both are
used to best effect in implementing PBL in a blended learning environment. Thus pedagogy and technol-
ogy must work effectively together.
Chapter Two, “Experiences and Perceptions of Learner Engagement in Blended Learning Environ-
ments: The Case of an Australian University,” discusses the case of a collaboration by the faculty of
business and education, presenting a detailed examination of three postgraduate courses in relation to
design, development, and management of blended learning as it intersects with learner engagement.
The authors make an attempt to extend current understandings of blended learning: what it is, in what
contexts it occurs, how its effectiveness can be maximized, and what its connections with learner en-
gagement are and should be. The authors realize that these ongoing challenges, including issues such
as student retention and attrition, cannot necessarily be resolved easily or permanently because several
factors influencing the challenges lie outside the control of individual course team members.
Chapter Three, “Instructional Leadership and Blended Learning: Confronting the Knowledge Gap in
Practice,” discusses an initiative taken by a professor in the educational leadership department to explore
the concept of blended instruction in his own delivery of a doctoral course. This course was designed
to engage participants, who were typically seeking endorsement (i.e., certification) at the school district
xviii

superintendent level, in examining the instructional leadership ramifications of the effective integration
of digital technology and learning. Many challenges were exposed through the initiative discussed. It
may be that the advantage of this approach from the disruptive innovation perspective was a disadvan-
tage for those developing the program in that the very remoteness of the participants exacerbated the ill
effects of the unexpected missteps encountered in developing the new program.
Chapter Four, “Blended Learning in a Creative Writing Program: Lessons Learned from a Two-
Year Pilot Study,” discusses the case of a two-year pilot study of blended learning in an undergraduate
creative writing program. The authors express the strong need for a flexible learning approach offering
a variety of formats in order to meet the needs of a diverse student body spread across the university’s
three campuses, and including older students with competing family and work commitments. Drawing
from the evaluation data, the case details both the successes and problems encountered in the transi-
tion to a blended learning format, along with lessons learned along the way. The author concludes that
although the entrenched inequities between distance and on-campus students are no longer necessary
or conscionable, achieving parity will require reform at the institutional level as well.
Chapter Five, “Blended Learning for Adaptation to Needs,” discusses the author’s observation and
experience with multiple blended approaches in communication arts, and emphasizes that blended learn-
ing is more than the old learning modes of correspondence and televised courses. The study describes
the experiences of both state and private institutions using various levels of distance learning integration.
The case information includes the type of technology used, the way blended learning has been configured
in several contexts, and questions for the future applications of blended learning in undergraduate and
graduate programs. The author believes that blended communication is a process of individuals’ adapt-
ing to the Internet to increase their overall communication effectiveness.
Chapter Six, “Virtual Reality or Virtually Real: Blended Teaching and Learning in a Master’s Level
Research Methods Class,” discusses implementing blended learning approaches in the case of a master’s
level research methodology course, which was intended to help students become critical professional
consumers of research reports. The authors recognize that higher education instructors are now placed in
a pivotal position and are required to take up the work of designing high-quality teaching and learning
for students in order to meet standards set by governments, which include demands for increased use
of technology. As the authors maintain, it may be that technology has become virtually transparent, so
that people have moved from the “e” to the “learning,” or, in other words, from thinking of pedagogy
in terms of virtual reality to a student experience that is virtually real.
Chapter Seven, “Teaching Online: What Does Blended Learning Require,” asks the following question
in a study of blended learning for foreign/second language acquisition: How can the instructor increase
input, and improve the comprehension of input, in a second-language classroom? Describing blended
learning and teaching for foreign/second language classes, this case attempts to answer the above-stated
question by showing simple ways to make currently incomprehensible input comprehended, and to
increase input, with the benefit of a memory efficient approach developed from human parser learning
theory (HPLT). The author justifies why input comprehension matters according to HPLT, and shows
how simply the instructor can make audio files, for example.
Chapter Eight, “The Perfect Blend?: Online Blended Learning from a Linguistic Perspective,” discusses
the case of online degree courses offered by the communication sciences and economics faculty at the
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, where the author is currently a contracted professor in charge
of two courses in English language. Since 2002, the University has offered blended e-learning courses
for its distance learning programs that provide actual, physical links between teachers and students so
as to ensure that the “human touch” is included. The study identifies the many challenges facing the
University as it attempts to find the optimum blend of components, and also notes the problems posed
by extraneous factors such as obsolete phone-line connections.
 xix

Chapter Nine, “Reflections  Two Years after the Implementation of a Blended Educational Re-
search Course,” discusses a pilot study incorporating blended learning in an introductory educational
research course at an American Pacific island university, and presents a detailed overview of how the
instructor applied blending learning design to this particular course. The author compares her goals for
the course with the concept of blended learning, and discusses reasons why the two complemented one
another. Based on the instructor’s observations, as well as the student self-ratings (quantitative data)
and self-narratives (qualitative data), this case confirms the prediction drawn from the literature that
pedagogical and technological difficulties present major challenges for blended course instruction.
The need for future research to obtain additional empirical evidence about student achievements and
outcomes is also noted.
Chapter Ten, “A Case of Using Wikis to Foster Collaborative Learning: Pedagogical Potential and
Recommendations,” discusses a Wikibook project involving graduate students teaching adult education
in the American mid-South. Findings from this case challenge idealistic hypotheses that Wiki work,
without careful design and implementation, is naturally beneficial. Although Wikis have increasingly
been used for collaborative classroom writing and have been hailed as a learning/writing tool that is more
powerful than blogs and e-mails, the pedagogical impacts of using Wikis is thus far underrepresented
in the literature. It is the belief of the authors that the Wiki work presented in this case is consistent
with is consistent with Fishman and Pea’s statement about enhancing learner’s networked learning and
encourages learners to become self-directed lifelong learners through collaborative writing and public
presentation of their work.
Chapter Eleven, “Virtual Organizing Professional Learning Communities through a Servant-Leader
Model of Appreciative Coaching,” presents the case of a set of empowerment concerns in the context
of transforming classes of student and teacher learners, considered as department-wide learning units in
higher education, into professional learning communities (PLCs). In particular, the author is interested
in enhancing the student’s experience by designing a collaborative and problem-based learning environ-
ment, which relies on the virtual organizing of the various PLCs distributed throughout the institution.
Of specific interest to the author is the generative potential of the PLCs when nurtured by the practice of
appreciative coaching, adapted from the established positive change paradigm of appreciative inquiry,
through a servant-leader model of student-centered education.
Chapter Twelve, “Bothering with Technology: Building Community in an Honors Seminar,” discusses
the use of technology to enrich the learning experiences of students in a first year honors course in critical
reading and writing, and examines the framework of Web-based learning. Noting that honors courses
involve an especially concentrated curriculum, the author contends that instructors of honors courses,
who might be predisposed to more traditional teaching methods, need to “bother” with technology in
order to provide their students with the combination of learning strategies that are most efficient and ef-
fective. The highlight of this case is an extensive discussion of four strategies to build community through
interaction and engagement. The case also provides the course syllabus and teaching materials.
Chapter Thirteen, “Online Materials for Teaching Japanese,” examines the merits and demerits of
learning the Japanese language through blended and online instruction, based upon the theory that
technology-based learning methods affect the process of foreign language learning in terms of motiva-
tion, performance, and effectiveness. Hiragana practice software developed by the author was used in
teaching Japanese. The author asserts that although new software has yet to show dramatic change in
student learning, it clearly gives different stimuli to the student and is useful for the student’s self study.
Moreover, a blended learning course comprised of both face-to-face instruction and online learning is
promising because learning a language requires both memorization and repeated exercise outside the
classroom.
xx

Chapter Fourteen, “Composition Goes Online: How a Small Pacific Island is Blogging into the Future,”
provides a historical background of the course development; insights from two instructors about the
process of teaching this way for the University of Guam’s diverse student population; and suggestions for
future successes based on current challenges and issues. This was the first offering of an online version
of the English course at the University. As emphasized in the chapter, the authors argue that students at
the University are ready for more technology in their classroom environments, and the University should
accommodate their requests in order to successfully prepare them for their careers.
Chapter Fifteen, “Integrating Classroom and Online Instruction in an Introductory American Govern-
ment Course,” compares two sections of an introduction to American government course. One section
involved both lecture and online components, while the other was taught as a typical lecture course. The
author designed the online components to provide course material that the students would otherwise
have missed due to decreased lecture time, and also with the intention of improving the course. The
author recognizes the opportunity to add a significant online course component as a chance to address
the usual limitations of large, introductory sections. The author also believes hybrid online classes will
most likely be adopted on a case by case basis, depending on the interest of the instructor.
The prospective audience thus includes professors, researchers, trainers, library media specialists,
teachers, administrators, and educational technologists (who design instruction, produce instructional
materials, and manage instructional computing services or learning resources collections) in academic
communities particularly. This book will be helpful to all professionals who are enthusiastic about ex-
ploiting the potential of blended and online learning to maximize the teaching-learning process of higher
education. The book can also serve as a library reference, faculty manual, course supplement, reading
text, and resource for instructors.
Finally, it should be emphasized that the goal of this book is to appeal to all higher education
stakeholders—especially students, faculty, and administrators—with a professional interest in blended
and online learning technologies and environments. Anyone working with blended or online learners,
or anyone engaged in such learning, will also find this book beneficial.

Yukiko Inoue
Mangilao, Guam
April 2009

REFERENCES

CILIP. (2008). Developing the best blend? From blended e-learning to blended learning. Retrieved
January 20, 2009, from http://www/cilip.org.uk/publications/updatemagazine/archieve/archiv...
Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., & Moskal, P. D. (2004, March 30). Blended learning. EDUCAUSE ECAR
Research Bulletin, 7. Retrieved April 2, 2008, from http://www.educause.edu/ecar
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles,
and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass (A Wiley Imprint).
Gulc, E. (2006). Using blended learning to accommodate different learning styles. Retrieved January
13, 2009, from http://escalate.ac.uk/2916
 xxi

Howard, L., Remenyi, Z., & Pap, G. (2006). Adaptive blended learning environments. Paper presented
at the 9th International Conference on Engineering Education. Retrieved January 13, 2009, from http://
www.vanth.org/docs/ICEE%20Howard%20Remenyi%20Pap.pdf/
LINE Communications. (n. d.). Blended learning. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from www.line.co.uk
Magoulas, G. (2008). E-infrastructures and technologies for lifelong learning. Retrieved January
14, 2009, from http://vwresearchersgroup.pbwiki.com/E-Infrastructures+and+ Technologies+
for+Lifelong+Learning
Orhan, F. (2008). Redesigning a course for blended learning environment. Turkish Online Journal of
Distance Education, 9(1), 54-66. (ERIC Database #ED499473)
Rochester Institute of Technology. (2008). Update on blended learning. Retrieved December 20, 2008,
from http://online.rit.edu/about/newsletter/one_article.cfm?which=131
Rudestam, K. E., & Schoenholtz-Read, J. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of online learning: Innovations in
higher education and corporate training. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sethy, S. S. (2008). Distance education in the age of globalization: An overwhelming desire towards
blended learning. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 9(3), 29-44.
Theil, S. (2008). Tune in tomorrow. Newsweek (Aug 18- 25), p. 65.
xxii

Acknowledgment

Producing a book of cases is an exciting but complex endeavor. I would like to thank the staff at IGI
Global, especially Mehdi Khosrow-Pour, Kristin Klinger, Jan Travers, Jennifer Neidig, Kristin Roth,
Andrew Bundy, and particularly Tyler Heath who worked with me from start to finish. Their assistance
and expertise was invaluable to me throughout the production process—from the initial prospectus to the
edited book. As always, working with the reliable and high-energy team at IGI Global was a thoroughly
enjoyable experience.
Producing a book of cases involves the efforts of many other individuals as well. I would especially
like to thank editorial advisory board members and all those who reviewed the cases. Without such
reviewers’ comprehensive, critical, and constructive comments and suggestions, this book would not
have been possible. Special thanks to Mark Goniwiecha, professor of library science at the University
of Guam, who wrote the Foreword to the book. His extensive knowledge and experience, not only in
library/information literacy but also in the use of technology for diverse learners, made his contribution
especially valuable.
More than anything else, a book of cases represents the synthesis of its many contributions. I would
like to express my sincere appreciation to all the case contributors who wrote, revised, clarified, and
responded to my many inquiries, especially during the editing phase. Many of the case contributors were
also the case reviewers. This book and its value are truly built upon these contributions, which come
from countries as diverse as Australia, Guam, Island, Italy, Macao, and the United States. Most of the
contributors would not identify themselves as technologists; rather, they are using new technologies,
in both blended and online learning, to deliver or to reinforce the content in their areas of expertise.
The case contributors have shared their real-life experiences—thus their own practices, applications,
challenges, and discoveries— as they seek to improve university teaching and learning in the Internet
Age of today.
In closing, I would like to thank my colleagues and my students at the University of Guam for their
encouragement and their countless helpful suggestions during the development of this book. Finally,
I want to acknowledge and thank Kazuko Onodera, a retired educator and my academic and lifelong
mentor, who has never lost faith in my scholarly endeavors and personal aspirations.

Yukiko Inoue
Mangilao, Guam
April 2009
 Section 1
Implementing Blended Learning
Technologies
A: Programs/Environments
 1

Chapter 1
The Nature of Complex Blends:
Transformative Problem-Based Learning
and Technology in Irish Higher Education
Roisin Donnelly
Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland

ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses the complexities of blending technologies and problem-based learning (PBL)
group interaction within the context of academic development in higher education. For both designers
and tutors, it is important to seek best practices for combining instructional strategies in face-to-face
and computer-mediated environments that take advantage of the strengths of each and avoid inherent
weaknesses. A qualitative case study of the lived experiences of 17 academic staff participants in a
blended PBL module over a two year period was considered likely to provide a much-needed analysis
of current thinking and practice on the potential of interaction in this form of higher education profes-
sional academic development. Specific aspects of interaction (technical, peer, content, and the learning
experience) within blended PBL tutorials are analysed to provide research-based evidence on the reali-
ties of delivering a PBL programme using technology. The study reported in the chapter argues that the
intersection of PBL and learning technologies can offer an innovative way of teaching and learning and
is a reflection of pedagogy and technology as an integrated model that can work effectively together.
The findings show that the synergy from the collaborative blended PBL approach in this module can
result in the coherent and comprehensive provision of training, support, and research throughout higher
education institutions.

INTRODUCTION become an increasingly important challenge in

In higher education institutions (HEIs) in Ireland,
as elsewhere, the use of online technologies has
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-880-2.ch001
academic staff development. As a field, blended
learning has impacted on higher education in local,
national and global contexts and is fast-changing,
highly fragmented, but still rapidly growing. The
Internet has made it impossible for HEIs to ignore

Copyright © 2010, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

technology in fulfilling their strategic mission
and responding to the expectations of a diverse
student body.
The promises of blended learning in the litera-
ture are extensive: increased learning, a reduction
in the need for ‘brick and mortar,’ increased en-
gagement, collaboration, and higher quality learn-
ing. However, there has been little examination or
questioning of the interplay of new technologies
and pedagogies in the context of higher education
academic development. Transformative learning
theory is being proposed in this study as a means
to understand the complexities of education in
an age where information and communication
technologies (ICTs) are constantly reshaping
and redefining our accepted notions of what it
means to teach and learn in a HE environment.
It is recognised that transformative learning is a
complex process of interaction among people,
the tools they use and the context in which they
are embedded.
By analysing the blended problem-based
learning (PBL) tutorial within a framework of
transformative learning in professional academic
development in higher education, the purpose of
this chapter is to illuminate a complex situation
so as to understand it better and therefore be en-
abled to facilitate beneficial change. Based upon
extensive empirical research in higher education
in recent years, Savin-Baden (2006) has concluded
that the objective of combining PBL and e-learning
is in itself complex.
There are two objectives of this case study:
• To establish, in a PBL tutorial setting, the
factors that govern the success of blended
PBL
• To identify technical, academic and inter-
actional indicators of learning in the online
and face-to-face PBL tutorial
This chapter argues for a much-needed analysis
of current thinking and practice on the transfor-
mative potential of interaction in professional
2
The Nature of Complex Blends
academic development in higher education; the
chapter begins with an illumination on the back-
ground and context of the case study on the blended
PBL module for academic development, with the
associated literature review focusing on the fields
of PBL, e-learning, and the convergence of the
two. Special attention is given to the importance
of interaction in the blended learning environment.
Thereafter the case study is discussed and details
provided on the research findings. Current chal-
lenges are outlined and conclusions drawn.
BACKGROUND
The role of blended learning within a pedagogi-
cal approach such as PBL has been gaining in-
ternational recognition among practitioners and
academic educators alike. Research into the con-
cepts, tools, and methodologies of both e-learning
and PBL has increased in momentum in recent
years. However, contemporary commentators
have voiced concerns with the speed at which
technology has been proceeding at the expense of
pedagogical advances. Within the specific field of
blended learning, Jones (2006) has concluded that
the practice of blended learning has outpaced the
research owing, in part, to the rapid increase in
both the quantity in use of and the sophistication
of the technology.
Issues related to the design and implementation
of blended learning environments have increas-
ingly surfaced in recent years, as technological
advances continue to blur the lines between dis-
tributed learning and traditional campus-based
learning. This has raised questions about advances
in technology during that last decade that have
brought challenges and opportunities to the ways
in which individuals are educated and trained, in
particular through online instruction.
There is a qualitative difference between
‘teaching online’ and merely ‘putting a course
online’; a central feature of academic staff develop-
ment involves conveying the difference between
The Nature of Complex Blends
using technology as a delivery mechanism and
using it as a communications medium. The impetus
for blended learning depends partly on a growing
acceptance that higher educational and training
programmes should be student-centred and partly
on the need to develop enhanced efficiency in the
provision of teaching.
This case study is taking cognisance of the
need for strong and effective interaction between
pedagogy and technology to ensure that both
are used to best effect in implementing PBL in
a blended learning environment. Gredler (2005)
in his consideration of learning and instruction
suggests that the role of technology in learning
remains an issue for theory development and re-
search. Specifically, there is a need for research
on learning principles that address teacher-student
interactions, student-to-student communication
and student-to-subject-matter interactions for
various uses of computer technology in blended
environments. There seems to be much evidence
in the literature that as blends of Internet-based
teaching and learning have proliferated, research-
ers, theoreticians, and pedagogues have recog-
nized that an educationally viable environment
requires students to interact with content and with
one another. The chapter explores all these core
issues in depth.
THE RESEARCH CONTEXT
The focus of the research reported here is a
Postgraduate Diploma module on designing e-
learning for academic staff in an institution of
higher education, which will be referred to as the
Institute. Within the context of the Irish higher
educational system, a module is a unit of study on
a programme. The diploma programme is typical
of many in HEIs today. In this context, the demand
for institutions to put e-learning initiatives and
the accompanying academic staff training and
development firmly on their agendas has resulted
in a number of emergent issues. For example,
many academic staffs lack the online experience
of the Internet generation, and so do not feel as
confident in an online environment as they do in
a traditional classroom setting. In this context,
the problem is a social rather than a pedagogical
one and lecturers may need to experience being
online students themselves in order to gain the
necessary confidence to move to facilitating an
online environment. Putting staff training online
can be one response to this problem, but making
more efficient use of lecturer time is more often
the reason why the online environment is used.
Such moves can lead to a negative rather than a
positive experience of the online environment,
in some cases leading academic staff to believe
that buying in to this growing phenomenon means
subscribing to their own eventual redundancy.
As increasingly it is also becoming important
not just to make such training more accessible,
but explicitly designed to produce qualitatively
improved pedagogy (Ham & Davey, 2005, p. 263),
it is important to ensure that the lecturer’s first
experience of an online environment is positive,
one that will allow her or him to see the pedagogi-
cal possibilities at her or his disposal.
The institution in which the study took place
is a large multi-campus, multi-discipline orga-
nization, with subjects offered within Applied
Arts, Built Environment, Business, Engineer-
ing, Science, Tourism, and Food. The current
and emerging higher education environment in
the Institute, as elsewhere, is seeking solutions
to problems of changing paradigms of learning
and the influx of learning technologies. Skilbeck
(2001) believes: “the essential test for such higher
education institutions is their readiness to intro-
duce policies and programmes to bring in and
provide opportunity for ‘new blood’ as well as for
the continuing development of the capabilities of
existing staff for amongst others, mastery of the
new technologies in both teaching and research”
(p. 10). “Well-handled,” he has concluded, “the
opportunities of online education could improve
3

the relationships between staff and students and
foster a better quality of learning” (p. 72).
This study presents the opportunity to work
with eager members of the teaching community
in offering a novel approach to their academic
development. As all participants on the module
are self-selecting and choose to pursue this pro-
fessional development opportunity themselves,
arguably it is a situated reality that participants are
motivated and keen to explore the blended PBL
approach offered through the module.
As it is important to incorporate capacity de-
velopment in formal courses on higher education
(Segrave, Holt, & Farmer, 2005), a postgraduate
programme in higher education learning and
teaching was developed in 2001, and has over
100 graduates today. The programme offered
to academic staff still needs to be integrated
with various levels and types of expert and peer
practitioner support at faculty and institutional
levels, provided through online and face-to-face
encounters. In this way, translating their profes-
sional development experiences from the module
into their own environments could become easier,
allowing them to work effectively within a blended
environment in the future.
The nature of these academic staff’s varied
work responsibilities today is complex, with
demands on their time (ranging from lesson
preparation, student support and research to staff
meetings and curriculum development) pulling
them in many directions. As a result of all the
pressures academic staff face in today’s higher
education environment, Donnelly and O’Farrell
(2006) have argued that for their own professional
development they need to be provided with stream-
lined learning experiences which deliver essential
topics and learning materials in readily accessible
formats. It is believed a central challenge here is to
create and sustain quality learning environments
of enduring value for teachers.
The module used the WebCT course manage-
ment system, which provided both asynchronous
and synchronous interaction tools. For the former,
4
The Nature of Complex Blends
the module had discussion forums where the par-
ticipants posted their messages and its own email
system that enabled the participants to exchange
private emails. For synchronous communications,
the module had ‘chat rooms’ where individuals
exchanged instant messages at the same time.
Literature Review
There has been a consistent thread of research into
the fields of e-learning and PBL in recent years
and less in blended learning and online academic
development. There has not been a focused study
of the potential of blended PBL to transform the
quality of the learning experience for academic
staff in their own learning and their subsequent
classroom practice. This current research repre-
sents the convergence of three major activities in
higher education today: academic development;
the blending of the technologies within e-learning;
and the pedagogy of PBL. There have been many
practice-based studies in each of these fields, but
arguably each remains under-researched in its
own right and engaging in critical debate in this
converging research area is much needed. Gen-
erally, there have been unexamined actions and
initiatives that have entrenched the issues of PBL
and e-learning and made each more intractable and
less open to reasoned debate. Some of the main
issues for the former centre on content coverage
and use of appropriate assessment. It can impose
steep learning curves on both tutors and students,
and initial tutor awkwardness and student hostility
to the process are common. For the latter, the use
of technology in education strongly depends on a
variety of different factors such as staff training,
consistent support, and funding.
Informally enthusiasm among academic staff
for blended learning continues to grow and where
explicit institutional policies are lacking pressure
on lecturers to engage with new technologies is
coming from students and from their own peers.
Alongside this, new pedagogical approaches
emerge on the educational scene to support
The Nature of Complex Blends
complex, flexible and integrated learning and
the development of professional competencies.
Although not new, PBL is one which appears
to have captured the imagination and support of
teachers; there has been a growing interest in the
last few decades, particularly in the collabora-
tive construction of knowledge through active
learning and the importance of higher order skills
such as problem solving. Given our increasingly
networked society, interest has grown in such new
educational methods and in where and when to
teach them. PBL is an educational strategy that
involves the presentation of significant, complex
and real-world problems to students that are struc-
tured in such a way that there is not one specific
correct answer or predetermined outcome.
The blended PBL module at the heart of this
study itself strives to be both proactive and re-
sponsive to the changing needs of all academic
staff from across the Institute, and other institu-
tions of higher education in Ireland. By giving the
participants the opportunity to be an online and a
face-to-face PBL tutor using principles of good
practice in PBL, this study provides evidence of
the online PBL tutor role and whether it can be
as effective as the tutor in the face-to-face PBL
tutorial. Central to the delivery of the module has
been critical academic discourse in tandem with
the exploration of innovations in practice.
This study recognises that there is still confu-
sion about the models, media and environments
used to support PBL that use technology in some
way, and is particularly concerned with illuminat-
ing current knowledge of PBL group-oriented
interaction. Central to this aim is the need for a
better system for delivering education and training
for academic staff which Hameed et al. (2006)
have recommended is paramount in the context of
the move to a knowledge economy. Myers (2006)
has made a case for such Internet-based courses
being well suited for transformative pedagogy.
He argues that online class discussions tend to
be more collegial and informal than those that
occur face-to-face, and thereby challenge con-
ventional notions of power and authority in the
higher education classroom. McAuliffe and Lovell
(2000) also propose that such online discussions
result in a relatively egalitarian environment and
this is appropriate for teaching approaches that
critically examine societal patterns of power and
dominance.
Issues related to the design and implementation
of blended learning environments have increas-
ingly surfaced in recent years, as technological
advances continue to blur the lines between dis-
tributed learning and traditional campus-based
learning. This has raised questions about advances
in technology during that last decade that have
brought challenges and opportunities to the ways
in which individuals are educated and trained, in
particular through online instruction. McConnell
(2006) suggests that a major motivating factor in
the uptake of e-learning in organisations is “the
professional development of trainers, course de-
velopers and teachers in the new form of learning
provision” (p. 25). This echoes the sentiments
of other researchers in the field (Segrave et al.,
2005), and forms the core of many institutions’
e-learning strategies.
In addition to technological challenges for
teachers and academic developers, there are is-
sues that arise during the change process from a
traditional delivery mechanism, such as the lecture,
to a problem-based educational model. Kolmos
(2002) has reported that, in spite of an extensive
staff development programme to introduce teach-
ers to the new PBL model, the change in the nature
of teaching caused problems with retention and
curriculum. She urged academic developers to
be aware of the need to facilitate the change at
individual, culture and organisational levels, which
is a comprehensive challenge in itself.
McDonald and McAteer (2003) believe blend-
ed learning, a blend of on-campus and external
education facilitated by technology, has emerged
in response to the global and educational changes
experienced by HEIs mentioned earlier. Arguably
it has also emerged as an alternative to fully online
5

programmes. As a result, research continually calls
for an emphasis on pedagogy to drive the design of
blended courses today. Most recently, Reinmann et
al. (2007) in providing evidence from qualitative
studies of blended learning in practical situations,
including PBL in higher education, draws on tu-
tors’ and students’ perspectives to argue that the
introduction of blended learning requires clear
decisions to be made on a number of key areas;
these include the distribution of learning content,
didactical approaches, ways of communicating and
characteristics of learning environments.
Certainly, if one text-byte can capture a trend
such as blended learning, then perhaps it is the
well known one by Rosenberg (2001): “the ques-
tion is not if we should blend…rather the ques-
tion is what are the ingredients” (p. 86). Bonk
and Graham (2006) agree that the term blended
learning is being used with increasing frequency in
academic conferences and publications in higher
education and, based on their global research
perspective, the use of blended learning now
seems to be omnipresent across Asia, Australia,
Europe, the Middle East, and the United States.
The comprehensive case studies included in their
research would certainly signify this. In the midst
of the current wave of enthusiasm for blended
learning in higher education, consciousness should
be raised about the criticism in recent years about
blended learning environments that fail to create
effective settings for learning. Informed by such
studies as Noble (2001) and Oliver and Herrington
(2003), I am aware of the ubiquitous debate about
the ongoing relationship between pedagogy and
technology. This study is taking cognisance of the
need for strong and effective interaction between
pedagogy and technology to ensure that both are
used to best effect in implementing PBL in a
virtual environment.
In parallel with these developments, one of
the pivotal debates in higher education in the
last few decades has centred on what has become
known as a paradigm shift towards student-centred
learning. The impetus for blended learning de-
6
The Nature of Complex Blends
pends partly on a growing acceptance that higher
educational and training programmes should be
student-centred and partly on the need to develop
enhanced efficiency in the provision of teaching.
Although these two forces can work in opposite
directions, it is important to acknowledge what
these shifts can imply in practice. McDonald
and Mayes (2005) believe that in the concept of
blended learning we see a measured approach to
the delivery of education and acknowledge that
learning technology has a role in achieving a
student-centred approach. However, there remains
a paucity of research on blended learning from
HEIs in the United Kingdom and it is argued here
that a similar situation exists in the Republic of
Ireland, although in an Irish higher education con-
text O’Donnell and Garavan (2003) have reported
there is “positive recognition for the benefits of
blended learning” (p. 11).
Sloman (2001) has highlighted that it has
widely been accepted for some time that technol-
ogy has the potential to enhance and transform
the traditional learning experience, for students
and teachers alike. Gurrie (2003) has argued that
although very little research has been conducted
to determine the effectiveness of PBL in the on-
line environment, she believes it embraces many
of the concepts that have been identified as best
practices in online teaching and learning. There
appears to be a lack of comprehensive analysis
of the activity and practices of blended PBL in
academic development to have taken place.
Within this, a number of outstanding issues
remain to be addressed, including the nature of
questioning, the character of informative feedback,
the scheduling of reinforcements and the structur-
ing of information for students. There is a pressing
need to address these gaps within the use of blended
PBL if academic development is going to include
it as a widely accepted practice. It has been found
that previous studies in the area of blended PBL
have not prompted sufficiently diligent inquiry
and serious debate. McShane (2006) has called
for further research into academics’ perceptions
The Nature of Complex Blends
of what it is to teach in a student-centred manner
in a blended environment. Similarly, Lycke et
al. (2002) advocate in their ongoing project on
PBL and ICTs in Norwegian higher education
that up-close studies are needed to answer vital
questions such as how academic teachers can
promote effective e-learning strategies among
their students. Panda and Juwah (2006) note that
the increased use of the Web for learning and
teaching has “necessitated a re-examination of
some of the issues with e-learning and the profes-
sional development of academic staff engaged in
an online facilitation role” (p. 207).
Masie (2006) contends that blended learning
has always been a major part of the landscape of
training, learning and instruction; however, in
reality it has only become a noticeable feature
of the higher education sector in the Republic of
Ireland since the beginning of this new millen-
nium. There has been a community of practitio-
ners studying and working in blended courses for
many years; nevertheless research in the main has
been inadequate. This places this current study on
the continuum for revision and rejuvenation of
the field of research into blended learning and a
starting point for the exploration of blended PBL
as a model of academic development. The study
aspires to be a source of information, stimulation,
and encouragement for those academics who have
not fully understood or accepted the concept of
blended PBL and is an attempt to capture the
participant experience of learning using a blended
PBL approach to their academic development in
higher education and their subsequent exploration
of transformation in classroom practice.
Interaction in Blended PBL
The research surrounding this module is based on
the notion that interaction among participants in
the PBL group is the key element of a successful
blended learning experience for all involved. This
is based on a sociological understanding of one
of the dimensions of interaction for describing
groups, coined by Wagner (2006) as interactions
as transactions.
Interaction has been and continues to be one
of the most hotly debated constructs in the realms
of distance and e-learning, instructional design
and academic transformation, to name but three.
The ability to interact—with tutors, students,
content interfaces, features, code, channels and
environments—can be argued to be analogous to
being connected. Whilst this may appear simplis-
tic, for technology-mediated learning interaction is
undoubtedly a key value proposition. It continues
to be perceived as the defining attribute of qual-
ity and value in a blended learning experience.
Interactivity is the core of learning, and is evident
at all levels of engagement. However, the term
interactivity is used so loosely that in the fields
of e-learning and blended learning it has become
almost synonymous with the notion of learning
itself. This chapter proposes that, by bringing the
concept into sharper focus, real insight is gained
into the nature of blended PBL. Interaction in the
context of this study is explored at three levels:
interaction with concepts, tasks, and people (peer
learners and tutors).
CASE DESCRIPTION
Interpretivism was the paradigm for this study.
Interpretivism seeks to understand the complex
world of lived experience from the perspectives of
the participants. It draws on a broad combination
from the history of ideas, which includes herme-
neutics, critiques of scientism and positivism,
practical philosophy and discourse analysis, and
asserts that we can understand the world only by
interpreting it, as reality is subjective rather than
objective. Within the spectrum of interpretivism,
this study was situated in a position that interprets
the participants’ discussions in the blended PBL
tutorials as both constitutive of the world and
constituted by the world. Mertens (2005) gives an
elaboration of its philosophical core and points out
7

that the interpretive and constructivist paradigm
emphasises that research is a product of the values
of the researcher and cannot be independent of
them. However, Cohen et al. (2000) highlight that
there is a risk in interpretive approaches: that “they
become hermetically sealed from the world out-
side the participants’ theatre of activity—they put
artificial boundaries around subjects’ behaviour”
(p. 27). Recognising that there is an interpretative,
subjective aspect to the qualitative data gathered
in this study; therefore, I took appropriate steps
to preserve data quality, namely triangulation—
cross checking data collected using different
sources of information; peer consultation; and
maintaining accurate up-to-date data records to
assist in the establishment of a chain of evidence
(Merriam, 1998).
The interpretivist emphasis on meaning and
the relationship between language and meaning
are addressed in the concept of discourse, which
in this study is a Web of statements, categories,
beliefs and practices. The aim of this approach
was to explore the research objectives in ways
that made connections among the words from the
videos and online discussion forum transcripts,
the social functions these words perform and
wider social practices. Interpretivism was chosen
to identify the essence of human experiences
concerning the phenomenon of blended PBL as
a model of academic development, as described
by the 17 participants in this study. It involved
this small number of participants in extensive and
prolonged engagement designed to provide a basis
on which to understand their lived experiences
and develop what Creswell (1998) calls patterns
and relationships of meaning. Consequently, the
motivation of this research was to gain a rich insight
into the PBL nature of the blended environment
rather than focus on the statistical analysis of
quantitative responses by participants.
In research that is very pertinent to this study,
in an exploration of the theoretical debate about
Mezirow’s transformative learning, Taylor
(1997) has called for designs of research which
8
The Nature of Complex Blends
included other methods beyond interview, such as
observations and content analysis in an ongoing
educational context. For this study, the analysis
of written transcripts, which have been created by
the participants during computer conferencing,
invariably takes the form of a systematic content
analysis. Donnelly et al. (2007) believe whether
the analysis is used quantitatively or qualitatively,
there is much to commend this type of approach
by higher education tutors wishing to assess the
progress of their students and further their under-
standing of how students learn through computer
conferencing technology.
The general research design was to observe the
process of learning on the module in some depth.
In order to ensure that sufficient observational data
had been collected for a thorough analysis of what
was occurring in the module; three complementary
methods were chosen to provide the data relating
to the experiences of the participants, in addition
to my more obvious tutor role in the module de-
livery. Collating computer mediated conferencing
(CMC) transcripts of online discussions were
used to capture what was happening in the online
component of the blended PBL tutorial, and textual
analysis of participants’ reflective papers was used
to explore transformations in learning and focus
group interviews to augment the observational
data. The research methods employed to collect
face-to-face and online observational data from
the module itself were participant observation,
online discussion logs, open-ended focus group
interview and self-reflective papers to capture
the participant’s own thoughts and experiences
of the blended PBL approach. Each method was
chosen for the opportunity it could offer to explore
interactions and dimensions of transformation,
both of which were central to this study.
Figure 1 illustrates how the research methods
fitted together and have allowed me to gain deep
insights into how interaction happens in a blended
environment within each of the groups. The ap-
proach taken to the collection of data about the
blended PBL groups was multi-faceted. A major
The Nature of Complex Blends
Figure 1. Integration of data collection methods
concern has been to provide meaningful and ac-
cessible insights into the practice of blended PBL
based on the analysis of real life situations. There
were two levels taken to the analysis of the data.
Level One was descriptive in nature and through
video observations explored the interactions
among the peers, the tutors and the content of the
blended PBL tutorial. Level Two was a thematic
analysis of transformative learning in blended PBL
and, through a combination of online logs, focus
group interviews, and participant self-reflective
papers, categories and themes emerged to inform
the findings of the study and implications for
practice. Being engaged with the events as they
happened in the field and attempting to bring
holistic attention to the practices as constitutive
of a distinct culture were important to this study.
As suggested by Hine (2000, p. 20), this study has
examined those enduring practices through which
the blended PBL groups have become meaningful
and perceptible to participants.
Data collection took place over two years in
this study, as the intention was to study more than
one PBL group, and this was achieved with three
groups in total. The activities of three blended
PBL groups, two of which were working at the
same time but separately in the 2004-05 operation
of the module, and one in the 2005-06 academic
year were the observed focus of the study. The
intention was to carry out a detailed study of the
work of each group for an extended period of time
(typically ten weeks) and produce an interpreta-
tion of their academic discourse through close
examination of their activities. The PBL tutorial
observations for each group were transcribed. The
face-to-face classroom and online observation was
complemented by two focus group interviews
for all three groups. It was important to observe
9

the groups over the complete ten week period of
the module in order to examine how the groups
negotiated the problem face-to-face and online,
how the group dynamics worked in the blended
environment, how the life of the group unfolded
thereafter and what influenced the participants in
reaching a transformation in their learning.
The four methods of collecting data for this
study (participant observation, collation of asyn-
chronous online discussions of the PBL groups,
focus group interviews, and textual analysis of
participants’ reflective papers) were continuously
complemented by prolonged immersion in the lit-
eratures of the field. The sample for this study was
the total population (17 participants) of blended
PBL groups undertaking the PBL module in the
two years that the data were collected in order to
explore the lived experience of a heterogeneous
population of academic staff in higher education;
there were three PBL groups in this study.
I now discuss the ethical and power issues
involved in the process of reasonably informed
consent. There are numerous sources of advice
about preparations prior to embarking on field-
work (Davies, 1999), involving the more general
injunctions about intellectual preparation through
familiarizing oneself with literature about the
area. A number of steps were undertaken in the
preparation for observation in the study. Firstly, it
was necessary to arrange access and this involved
the module participants, guest tutors, the Head of
School and colleagues in the centre in which the
module is located. A formal ethics statement and
statement of informed consent were prepared and
distributed to module participants and guest tutors.
It concerned areas such as selecting participants,
types of questions asked, agreement of participants
to be involved, storage of data from the research,
anonymity (pseudonyms were used throughout the
study to protect the identity of the participants)
and disclosure of results to participants. Inherent
in this was the need for persons to review drafts to
validate observations and descriptions. The video
cameras were prepared and the online discussion
10
The Nature of Complex Blends
software recording capabilities were checked. I
then drew up a schedule of the observations, and
developed a standardised procedure for how the
observation would run. Finally, as part of the initial
preparation, I evolved a record-keeping system
involving the videotapes, and a coding system.
A further challenge concerned the notion of
addressivity of ‘compliant talk’ by the participants
in the study. Due to the dual role in the relationship
between the researcher as tutor and the academic
staff who were learners on the module and par-
ticipants in the study, it is acknowledged that the
possibility that the participants may have said
what they thought you wanted to them to could
be considered a limitation. However by building
triangulation into the research process this pos-
sibility was lessened.
Discussion of Findings
This section of the chapter concentrates on the
findings from the content analysis of the CMC
discussions. With the participants’ permission,
the discussion space software was also employed
to capture their contributions as text files and as
prints of the discussion site pages. In addition to
the text entered by the participants and tutors, the
files include automatic time and date stamping and
an indication of the source of each message.
The content of messages and the extent to which
they formed patterns of interaction between peers,
tutors and content of the blended PBL module were
analysed. In the literature, typically analysis of
CMC is at a number of different levels including
the frequency and patterns of interaction, categori-
zation of messages and thematic analysis to allow
a much more detailed interactional analysis and
message content. Individually, none of these al-
low analysis of how online collaborative learning
takes place in PBL but a combination of detailed
interaction plus content was very helpful in this
study. Bosley and Young (2006) have suggested
that ethical concerns may be among the reasons
that group discussions are more commonly analy-
The Nature of Complex Blends
sed than one-to-one exchanges. There was the
opportunity to access the data in these postings
as messages sent through WebCT on the module
were stored and retrievable.
In order to analyse the dimensions of the learn-
ing process in the asynchronous data transcripts,
a number of CMC analytical frameworks were
considered for this study (Donnelly et al., 2007).
The conferencing contributions were analysed
quantitatively (the number of messages per
participant and tutor to investigate the patterns
of interaction) and qualitatively (content of the
messages were scrutinized to investigate the
extent that participants were forming, critiquing
and communicating ideas online) in this study.
The paper transcripts were examined and each
post was free coded to generate categories. These
were then refined and divided into components
that signified their use was to do with building of
community (that is, social) or cognitive (that is
exploring content issues relevant to the module
and the PBL problem).
An early issue was to decide on the most ap-
propriate and fruitful unit of analysis. Units of
meaning were categorized into common themes
and a list of codes devised to represent the emerging
categories. Categories were modified, developed
and regrouped as analysis proceeded. New catego-
Table 1. Categories used for thematic content
analysis of cmc discussions
Code Category
SE Posting is to share prior experience
SR Posting is to share references and resources
PF Includes positive peer feedback in response
C Provides/seeks clarification
FI Forms a new idea
CR Critiques peer response (expresses reservations/
disagrees with another contribution)
GT Interaction with the international guest tutors
M Miscellaneous
U Unrequited messages from peers
ries emerged and some early ones dropped. The
final categories derived are given in Table 1:
These categories were not exclusive and
together they provided some evidence about the
extent to which the contributions answered one
of the research objectives of this study. Clearly
the small numbers in this study do not support
comparisons between the different corpuses of
data in the field and it is not my intention to make
such comparisons.
The WebCT course management system au-
tomatically numbers, in a threaded manner, the
postings of the module according to the time a text
was posted and placed on the discussion forum.
All the postings on the discussion forums were
not modifiable by the participants and thus, all the
postings remained in their originally posted forms.
While the WebCT system technically organized
the online environment of the PBL groups, actual
interactions took place through the actions and
reactions of the participants to the PBL learning
setting, module materials and activities, to tutor
and guest tutor directions and to peers’ ideas and
actions.
There were eight enumerations collated from
this data and all were taken at week 10 of the mod-
ule to explore the individual participant’s activity
in the discussion boards and the PBL group work
patterns in the online environment, so that some
comparisons could be made to face-to-face (f2f)
activity. Table 2 shows these findings for each
participant in the study:
• Revealing levels of online activity for each
individual participant required collation of
the frequency of contributions of each par-
ticipant to the online PBL group discussion
forum;
• Exploring the development of substantive
discussion amongst all the participants in
each of the three PBL groups needed the
average messages per thread;
11
 The Nature of Complex Blends

Table 2. Breakdown of statistics for online participation of each participant

Participant Frequency of Average Amount Average Postings Number of Number Number of

Contributions Messages of Time Time Repeated Messages of threads Attachments
per Thread Online Online Read per PBL per
[per week] [whole Group Participant
module]
Ronan 73 postings /38 = 1.92 3.5 hours 35 hours - 245 (All) 38 31
Padraig 30 postings /38 = 0.78 3.5 hours 35 hours - 211 38 16
Aidan 45 postings /38 = 1.18 3 hours 30 hours 1 202 38 26
Loirin 48 postings /38 = 1.26 6 hours 60 hours - 194 38 21
Aine 49 postings /38 = 1.28 5 hours 50 hours 1 223 38 30
Niamh 47 postings /46 = 1.02 5 hours 50 hours 1 206 46 22
Eimear 46 postings /46 = 1 2 hours 20 hours 2 190 46 24
Sorcha 59 postings /46 = 1.28 5 hours 50 hours 1 231 (All) 46 26
Caitlin 38 postings /46 = 0.82 1.5 hours 15 hours 1 210 46 26
Dervla 41 postings /46 = 0.89 2 hours 20 hours 2 198 46 23
Declan 98 postings /55 = 1.78 4 hours 40 hours - 365 (All) 55 14
Michael 37 postings /55 = 0.67 2.5 hours 25 hours - 327 55 22
Darragh 33 postings /55 = 0.6 3 hours 30 hours - 312 55 17
Myra 89 postings /55 = 1.61 3.5 hours 35 hours - 365 (All) 55 37
Caolan 32 postings /55 = 0.58 2.5 hours 25 hours - 304 55 13
Maeve 40 postings /55 = 0.72 3 hours 30 hours - 297 55 15
Ryan 36 postings /55 = 0.65 1.5 hours 15 hours - 284 55 11

• Comparing the f2f and online contact in the
blended PBL tutorials required the amount
of time each participant spent online;
• Enabling comparison with f2f activity in
the PBL tutorial, the average time spent
online per week for each participant was
needed;
• Repeated postings (queries and requests
for help) was collated; a low number
would indicate how comprehensively the
peers were responding to each other in
their groups and possibly ability in search-
ing through messages and reading them for
key words and phrases;
• Revealing individual levels of online pas-
sive participation required the collation of
the number of messages read only by indi-
vidual students;
• Showing the number of different conversa-
tions happening online required the colla-
tion of the number of threads created per
PBL group; and
• Demonstrating evidence of reflection by re-
turning to the discussion forum with work
on the PBL Problem necessitated the colla-
tion of the number of attachments of learn-
ing material to postings per participant.
There was an average of 49 postings made by
each participant over the ten weeks of the module.
Column 3 showing the average messages per
thread for all the participants in each of the three
PBL groups and it indicates little development of
substantive discussion with an average of 1 mes-
sage posted per thread. However, Column 9 shows
an average of 22 attachments of documentation

12
The Nature of Complex Blends

on the PBL Problem made to a posting by each very helpful to myself and Niamh who have been
participant. allocated this task.

Blended Community and

Cognitive Development Message no. 1711[Branch from no. 1704]

Results from a recent study by Dawson (2006) Posted by Ryan on Sunday, March 19, 2006
on online forum discussions reported that mere 10:06am
quantity of discussion postings is not an indica-
tor of community development; a significant
relationship is observed when contributions are Subject: Re: Many happy returns
codified into various discussion interaction types
(learner-learner; learner-content). Earlier research
by Harasim (1987) also endorsed the categorisa- Hi Myra and everyone,
tion of forum interactions and suggested that these
types of interactions were the most important for
enhancing the learning process. Similarly, in this Excellent summary - you are a hard act for me to
study, the online discussion forums provided the follow as Chair next week.
participants with an opportunity to enhance com-
munity building in their PBL group and extend
the collaborative dialogue from the face-to-face Asking for technical help
PBL tutorials. Postings from the discussion boards
from all three PBL groups are included below Posted by Eimear on Thursday, December 16,
whereby the participants were working towards 2004 10:19am
the building of community within their group both
online and face-to-face.
Subject: Ground Rules
Positive Peer Acknowledgment of Work

Message no. 779[Branch from no. 778] Help anyone? How can I create a new thread???
I know we covered it before in class but it eludes
Posted by Sorcha on Monday, December 20, me this morning.
2004 1:39pm

Peers Expressing Concerns:

Subject: Re: Philosophy statement Overwhelmed, Chaos,
Information Overload

Hi Dervla, you are doing absolutely Trojan work
and putting the rest of us to shame. I couldn’t face
any of it until yesterday and all your messages were
making me feel very guilty! Thanks for starting
the work on the learning outcomes as it will be
Message no. 694[Branch from no. 675]
Posted by Niamh on Friday, December 10, 2004
6:34pm

13

Subject: Re: re group task
Hi Sorcha, Thanks for this. I agree re the alloca-
tion of tasks. Like Eimear, I do feel adrift but I am
confident that after a lengthier discussion on
Tuesday in class we will have a greater idea about
where we are going. We haven’t really had an
opportunity to do that yet.
Message no. 684[Branch from no. 673]
Posted by Padraig on Thursday, December 9,
2004 9:52pm
Subject: Re: Group name
I am coming late into this discussion and feel like
a real “Dumbledore”. I can vouch for one thing
since I came late to the f2f tutorial on Tuesday
- now I feel I have missed a lot of info and direc-
tion. However, moving from my student to my
teacher hat - it’s a useful lesson for me but also
to be aware of it in designing online learning in
the future.
Similarly, the evolving of a cognitive dimension
to their work in PBL can be illustrated from the
data and examples are set out below.
Sharing Work Completed on Individual
Task (Updating on Progress, Including
Asking for a Critique of Work,
and Debating Subject Issues)
Message no. 1778
Posted by Ryan on Monday, March 27, 2006
11:24pm
14
The Nature of Complex Blends
Subject: Final Group Report
Hi Everybody,
Please find attached Myra’s version posted on the
27th at 9.00pm after Declan’s and Michael’s excel-
lent tidy up job but with all the colours removed
and every thing in black type. Declan, I hope you
don’t mind but I thought the Evaluation piece was
a bit weak and I was not sure if you would get any
time to add more, so I wrote a little just in case.
Essentially I feel we need to show cognizance of
several models of evaluation and also include a
theoretical basis for why we are doing so. Then
we should link this to the philosophical rationale
for our course and the instructional design model
we have adapted. Please feel free to come in on
this – a critical friend would be great just about
now on this part of the report!
Myra, just an idea - rather than you being left
to write up the conclusion by yourself, should
all members of the group contribute a reflec-
tive piece of writing? We could use some of the
material from our reflective journals or from the
reflective thoughts we wrote during our or just
after our live online chats? Maybe everyone in
the group might use this thread and respond yes
or no. Maybe we can discuss this further when
we meet at 9 on Thursday.
Peers Sharing Resources
Message no. 765
Posted by Caitlin on Friday, December 17, 2004
3:14pm
Subject: Useful Journal Articles
The Nature of Complex Blends
I have attached an article I found on the Brit-
ish Education Index which I thought was quite
interesting and which you might like to read. It
is entitled ‘When learners learn on-line, what
does the facilitator do?’, so it is directly relevant
to what we are doing. If I come across anything
else I will post it up under this thread.
Peers Sharing Experiences
Message no. 785[Branch from no. 748]
Posted by Ronan on Monday, December 20,
2004 8:27pm
Subject: Re: Student survey
I get phone calls almost every week from students
or their parents asking for tuition for those who
have failed previous exams with math being their
major difficulty. My line manager has asked me on
numerous occasions to assist students also.
I have spoken to several colleagues in recent weeks
who all believe there is a need for extra tuition for
weak students and am supportive of the concept
of an online module.
At the moment the evidence is anecdotal and based
on opinion but it is the opinion of experienced
educators so should we go with this at the moment
and elaborate on the needs for our final report.
Peers Taking the Lead on the
Problem, Providing Clarification
and Encouragement to Each Other,
Forming New Ideas, Updating
a Peer on Missed Work
Message no. 710[Branch from no. 708]
Posted by Loirin on Saturday, December 11,
2004 9:36pm
Subject: Re: re group task
Hi Aine,
Nice to see someone else online with me on a Sat-
urday night! Am missing Strictly Come Dancing
at the mo! Getting my priorities straight! I know
you missed the synchronous chat yesterday so you
may feel a little out of the loop at the moment.
We need a decision emanating from our group on
this issue; but don’t worry - there will be plenty
of time on Tuesday morning when we all meet in
the class to reorient ourselves as to the best way
forward. I feel this is the important time now when
as a group, we are all happy with the decision
taken so we can work together on aspects that
particularly interest us. It will all come together
in the next couple of weeks, I’m sure.
PBL Content Interaction
with Guest Tutors
Message no. 1413[Branch from no. 1347]
Posted by Myra on Wednesday, February 15,
2006 7:17am
15

Subject: Personal greetings
Hi all,
We now seem to understand the importance of hav-
ing this kind of non-formal discussion or messages.
Some of us told you about visits in Finland, and
Scandinavia and I have been thinking a lot of my
visit too. I think it’s really interesting to explore
why we do this? I understand it is a reflective (or
not conscious) process of trying to understand
the other’s background and culture. And if we are
trying to reach a real dialogue, we need common
ground and shared understanding.
I think we need to keep this up as language is a
tool which we use to reproduce the reality.
Linking to F2F Tutorial Directly
(Blended Approach)
Message no. 1357[Branch from no. 1356]
Posted by Ryan on Saturday, February 11, 2006
12:33am
Subject: Re: Tuesday’s forthcoming f2f class
Hi all,
Well done Michael on your summary. I will reply
to your experience another thread.
Things to do for class next week:
16
The Nature of Complex Blends
• Answers to library questions
• Declan will be the Chair.
• Tuesday 21st: dry run for the guest tutor video
conference - 9am.
• Questions for the guest tutor this week: thread
set up in Cyber club 7
Other notes:
• Divide up Webliography between us, and report
on what we find.
• Task 3 Home work: to be carried out over two
weeks.
• Note the Sunday night dead line!
Table 3 shows the breakdown of the community
and cognitive aspects of the online discussions
for each of the three PBL groups. The essential
elements of PBL learning conversations were
provided though the sharing of multiple perspec-
tives on experience and research, complemented
by a range of individual disseminated research
amongst the groups. PBL Group 1, self-titled CPD
challengers are in blue; PBL Group 2, self-titled
The Apprentices are in orange; PBL Group 3,
self-titled Cyber Club Seven are in pink.
The use of direct quotations is now used to
provide evidence of both the shared enthusiasm for
the blended PBL process and some real concerns
voiced by the participants. Whenever possible by
using the words of the participants themselves,
key issues have been highlighted.
The Nature of Complex Blends

Table 3. Community and cognitive online posts for three PBL groups

Community Categories Postings Cognitive Categories Postings

Positive peer acknowledgment of work 10 Sharing work completed on individual task (updating 16
20 on progress, including asking for a critique of work, and 69
37 debating subject issues) 31
Asking for technical help 9 (mainly in Peers sharing resources 13
early weeks) 12
5 (mainly in 12
early weeks)
5 postings and 9
peer responses
helping out
Peers expressing concerns: overwhelmed, 5 (present in first Peers sharing experiences 5
chaos, information overload 3-4 weeks only) 2
1 4
2
Peers simply announcing online presence 4 Peers taking the lead on the problem, responding to 7
2 peers on technical problems, summarizing and weaving 32
7 themselves, providing clarification and encouragement 49
to each other, forming new ideas, updating a peer on
missed work
Peer unrequited messages 2 PBL Content Interaction with Guest Tutors 19
0 44
4 61
Miscellaneous 5 Linking to f2f tutorial directly (blended approach) 3
(Humorous) 5 3
5 6

For inclusion of all participant quotes, the
following applies:FG = Focus Group Interview
(either indicated by 1 or 2 for the first or second
interview)RP = Reflective Paper (numbered 1-17
for each participant)
Commonalities existed between all three
blended PBL groups in the online discussion
forums:
• The most prolonged interactions over all
three groups were with the guest tutor dis-
cussions (Column 4, Row 5);
• Resource sharing and diffusion of expe-
riences dominated the first 4-5 weeks of
online interactions over all three groups
(Column 4, Rows 2 and 3);
• Posting individual tasks and updating
peers on progress dominated the use of the
threaded discussions (all had attachments
of work) conducted outside of face-to-face
tutorials in the last 5 weeks of the module
(Column 4, Row 1);
• In 2 groups, there was evidence of peers
taking over the tutor’s online role (Column
4, Row 4);
• All groups had members who felt the need
to acknowledge their online presence with-
out contributing to the discussion (Column
2, Row 4); and
• There were low levels of unrequited post-
ings in all groups (Column 2, Row 5);
throughout the life of these groups, it was
evident that members did reply to requests
and questions from other members. In the
few instances where there was no response
to these, the second focus group interview
with ‘Cyber Club Seven’ offers a reason.

17

I think there is a certain amount of maturity needed
online and you have to be in touch with your own
feelings so you can relate to others. If you put up
something and hope for a response from others
because you think it is very important and none
comes, you can’t take it personally as people may
have been too busy. (Ryan, FG2)
If there were no postings by participants in a
PBL group, it was perceived as their absence by
their peers. There was a strong sense across all
three groups that by making postings, participants
were embodying their presence in the group and
after an absence of more than a few days, some felt
it necessary to post just to proclaim their online
presence; reading others’ postings without this
proclamation was not considered good enough
by some. Reasons provided by participants about
some in the group not valuing online participation
as much as face-to-face and not understanding the
mechanics of online communication moves into
the realm of lurking, but beyond the two-pronged
argument explaining such passive participation,
we must be aware of the lack of knowledge that
we really have about their behaviour.
I mean I was in WebCT all the time and I didn’t
always feel the need to contribute a posting. For
me it was like people were making comments just
for the sake of it and there wasn’t really anything
to say sometimes. What I was doing in that time
was reading a lot and then I was better equipped
to contribute to the discussions afterwards. (Sor-
cha, FG2)
I don’t like posting messages up until I have
something to say. When I did log on and unless I
said - hello, it’s me, there was resentment there.
I actually felt quite vetted because my name was
not up there as much as everyone else’s. And
why am I feeling guilty about this, and I think it
is simply because your name is not up there, and
18
The Nature of Complex Blends
the others are, having more of an online pres-
ence - whatever that means. So I thought; am I
contributing in class? Yes I am, and I am doing
my work? – so what am I doing wrong? And there
was this whole onus of guilt surrounding posting
that I didn’t like. (Caitlin, FG2)
The postings became the only clues that the per-
son was present and were made with a certain goal,
i.e. to inform the other participants of Caitlin’s and
Sorcha’s potential inactivity or invisibility. The
other two groups did not experience this:
I think it was so important that we all felt comfort-
able if you didn’t have something to say, you didn’t
have to. (Loirin, FG2, ‘The Apprentices’)
The main thing is that our group members came
in online at all times, and could say, I just don’t
know what I am doing this week; and you felt able
to say that. (Maeve, FG2, ‘Cyber Club Seven’)
The cognitive dimension of learning involved
the contribution of knowledge and experience and
the community dimension involved a balance of
support and guidance with the creation of a pleas-
ant learning environment. Both cognitive and
community or social congruence is necessary for
effective group functioning. For all three groups,
at the close of the ten week period, the cognitive
postings were significantly higher than the com-
munity postings. This is akin to the cognitive
apprenticeship models of learning, where learning
is scaffolded by both peers and experts. When one
looks at the relationship between the participant
contributions and the sense of community in the
group, findings from all three groups indicated
that a significant relationship exists between the
quantity of peer-to-peer contributions and the
participant reported sense of community in the
group. The group composition appeared to con-
tribute towards the cohesion within.
The Nature of Complex Blends
We had a very supportive group, almost all of us
from the Apprentice trades background. I thought
it really interesting from reading through these
categories and examples from the data that the
group who was having a less than positive experi-
ence were the ones who had the least amount of
postings. In other words if you participate at a
certain level you are more likely to get something
out of it. Perhaps if you participate at a minimal
level you are not as likely to. (Ronan, Participant
Verification Session, 08/02/07)
CURRENT CHALLENGES
This study was an attempt to provide insights
into blended PBL in a higher education academic
development context in order to encourage in-
depth discussion and open debate on the field.
While there is much growing interest in blended
PBL in practice, if this interest is not married to
current research and knowledge in the field it can
be argued that it will be of little, if any, transforma-
tive value for higher education. At this point, it is
important to acknowledge the obstacles to, and
the limitations on, the enactment of transformative
learning in this case of learning environment. It is
acknowledged that there are hazards in entering
the choppy waters of intellectual debate on trans-
formational learning. Transformative learning in
blended PBL takes place when students elaborate
old or learn new frames of reference as well as
transform old or learn new habits of mind. How-
ever transformative learning is a complex process
of interaction between people, the tools they use
and the context in which they are embedded.
It is contended that there is a need to focus on
interactivity within blended PBL and its critical
application. The blended format coalesces Web-
based and face-to-face instruction into an entirely
new model that holds potential to transform both
learning and teaching in higher education. How-
ever, the improvement of educational practice is
notoriously difficult, especially when the goal is
to foster transformation in thinking and practice.
Tyack and Cuban (1995) have argued that pockets
of effective teaching exist but they seldom last
long or spread beyond a few dedicated pioneers.
Clarifying the principles of effective problem-
based and e-learning pedagogies and sustaining
the means to support its enactment in a wide
range of departments and institutions constitute
an abiding challenge of professional development
for teachers.
To meet the demands facing academic staff
today, teachers need professional development op-
portunities that support them in a transformational
process and in a sustained way. Such transforma-
tion of curriculum and pedagogy is a complex
process for teachers; it is the findings of this
dissertation that blending PBL and new technolo-
gies appears to hold promise in overcoming the
traditional limitations of professional development
which in this Institute and elsewhere in Ireland
have tended to be short-term workshops, focused
on general topics rather than deep knowledge of
subject matter and pedagogy, disconnected from
specific classroom practices and isolated from
ongoing support from colleagues and tutors.
Systematic, comprehensive staff development
is a crucial requirement of the contemporary learn-
ing organization and there are many different ways
of providing for it other than conventional short
courses. Learning that involves the analysis of
complex problems and issues, and more complex
higher order learning generally, are not amenable
to this form of packaged e-learning. Something
more dynamic that addresses the complexity and
messiness of real life is needed.
The issue of transferability of innovative ap-
proaches and developing the capacity to respond
to innovation and change remains a key area for
further research. Whilst this may appear to be an
unpalatable position to take at times, realisation is
required that for real and not just cosmetic change
to take place a whole range of well-established
cultural tools needs to be re-created to transform
19

the way that academic staff experience their pro-
fessional development.
CONCLUSION
A qualitative study of the lived experiences of 17
participants in a blended PBL module provided
findings on specific aspects of interaction (techni-
cal, peers, content and the learning experience)
within blended PBL tutorials which have not
previously been analysed within a framework of
transformative learning. It is acknowledged that
there are hazards in entering the choppy waters of
intellectual debate on transformational learning.
Mezirow (1990) has pointed out that all learning
is change but not all change is transformation.
The main findings of the analysis of the data
indicated that for all three groups, at the close of
the ten week module, the cognitive postings were
significantly higher than the community postings.
However, the technology also acted as an activat-
ing event for transformation in that the online
discussion forums provided the participants with
an opportunity to enhance community building
in their PBL group and extend the collaborative
dialogue from the face-to-face PBL tutorials.
The nature of the blend involved distinguishing
what worked best in the face-to-face and online
environments. It was important to utilize time spent
online for organising work for the face-to-face
tutorial and as a source of positive peer feedback.
Conversely, the face-to-face tutorial was useful
for clarifying any misunderstandings which took
place online. Ultimately, there is no single mode of
transformative learning that exists; differences in
learning contexts, learners, and teachers all affect
the experiences of transformative learning.
20
The Nature of Complex Blends
REFERENCES
Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2006). Introduc-
tion. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The
handbook of blended learning. Global perspec-
tives, local designs (pp. 5-15). San Francisco,
CA: Pfeiffer.
Bosley, S., & Young, D. (2006). Online learn-
ing dialogues in learning through work. Jour-
nal of Workplace Learning, 18, 355–366.
doi:10.1108/13665620610682080
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, R. (2000).
Research methods in education. London: Rout-
ledgeFalmer.
Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and re-
search design: Choosing among five traditions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dawson, S. (2006). Online forum discussion in-
teractions as an indicator of student community.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
22(4), 495–510.
Donnelly, R., Holmes, B., & Gardiner, J. (2007,
March). Content analysis of computer conferenc-
ing transcripts – Which one should I use? Paper
presented at CAL’07, Trinity College Dublin.
Donnelly, R., & O’Farrell, C. (2006). Blended
e-learning for continuous professional develop-
ment of academic staff. In J. O’Donoghue (Ed.),
Technology supported learning and teaching: A
staff perspective (pp. 45-61). Hershey, PA: Infor-
mation Science Publishing.
Gredler, M. E. (2005). Learning and instruction:
Theory into practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Gurrie, J. (2003). What’s your problem? Increasing
student motivation and quality of participation in
discussions through problem-based learning (pp.
1-3). Retrieved February 9, 2007, from http://
www.elearnspace.org/Articles/contributor/pbl.
htm
The Nature of Complex Blends
Ham, V., & Davey, R. (2005). Our first time:
Two higher education tutors reflect on becoming
a ‘virtual teacher.’ . Innovations in Education
and Teaching International, 42(3), 257–264.
doi:10.1080/01587910500168017
Hameed, C., Hameed, K., & Clements, M. (2006,
August 29-31). E-learning: Through the looking
glass. Paper presented at the 7th Annual Conference
of the Higher Education Academy Information
and Computer Sciences, Trinity College Dublin,
Ireland.
Harasim, L. (1987). Teaching and learning online:
Issues in computer-mediated graduate courses.
Canadian Journal of Educational Communica-
tion, 16(2), 117–135.
Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London:
Sage.
Jones, N. (2006). E-college Wales: A case study
of blended learning. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Gra-
ham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning:
Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 182-193).
San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Kolmos, A. (2002). Facilitating change to a
problem-based model. The International Jour-
nal for Academic Development, 7(1), 63–74.
doi:10.1080/13601440210156484
Lycke, K., Strømsø, H., & Grøttum, P. (2002). PBL
goes ICT: Problem-based learning in face-to-face
and distributed groups in medical education at
the University of Oslo (Report No.4). University
of Oslo: Institute for Educational Research.
Masie, E. (2006). The blended learning impera-
tive. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The
handbook of blended learning: Global perspec-
tives, local designs (pp. 22-26). San Francisco,
CA: Pfeiffer.
McAuliffe, G., & Lovell, C. (2000). Encourag-
ing transformation: Guidelines for constructivist
and developmental instruction. In G. McAuliffe
& K. Eriksen (Eds.), Preparing counselors and
therapists: Creating constructivist and develop-
mental programs (pp. 14-41). Virginia Beach, VA:
Donning Company.
McConnell, D. (2006). E-learning groups and
communities. Maidenhead, UK: The Society for
Research into Higher Education & Open Uni-
versity Press.
McDonald, J., & Mayes, T. (2005, June). Pedagogi-
cally challenged: A framework for the support of
course designers in an Australian distance learn-
ing university. In CRLL Conference Proceedings
(Vol. 2) (pp. 397-404). The University of Stirling,
Scotland.
McDonald, J., & McAteer, E. (2003). New ap-
proaches to supporting students: Strategies for
blended learning in distance and campus-based en-
vironments. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3),
129–146. doi:10.1080/1358165032000165662
McShane, K. (2006, October). Technologies
transforming academics: Academic identity and
online teaching. Paper presented at Institute for
Teaching and Learning, University of Sydney.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and
case study applications in education. San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research methods in edu-
cation and psychology: Integrating diversity with
quantitative & qualitative approaches. London:
Routledge.
Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflec-
tion in adulthood: A guide to transformative
and emancipator learning. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
21

Myers, S. A. (2006). Can I use transformative
pedagogy when teaching online? College Teach-
ing, 2(1), 82–94.
Noble, D. F. (2001). Digital diploma mills: The
automation of higher education. New York:
Monthly Review Press.
O’Donnell, D., & Garavan, T. (2003). eLearning
in Irish Organisations? Dublin: Chartered Institute
of Personnel and Development in Ireland.
Oliver, R., & Herrington, J. (2003). Exploring
technology-mediated learning from a pedagogi-
cal perspective. Journal of Interactive Learning
Environments, 11(2), 111–126. doi:10.1076/
ilee.11.2.111.14136
Panda, S., & Juwah, C. (2006). Professional
development of online facilitators in enhancing
interactions and engagement: A framework. In
C. Juwah (Ed.), Interactions in online education.
Implications for theory and practice (pp. 83-104).
London: Routledge.
Reinmann, G., Macdonald, J., Donnelly, R.,
Fransen, J., & Poldner, E. (2007, August). Blended
learning in higher education: Theory and Praxis.
Paper presented at the annual symposium of the
European Association for Research on Learning
and Instruction (EARLI),University of Szeged,
Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest.
Rosenberg, M. J. (2001). E-learning: Strategies
for delivering knowledge in the digital age. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
22
The Nature of Complex Blends
Savin-Baden, M. (2006). The challenge of using
problem-based learning online. In M. Savin-Baden
& K. Wilkie (Eds.), Problem-based learning online
(pp. 3-13). Maidenhead, UK: Open University
Press.
Segrave, S., Holt, D., & Farmer, J. (2005). The
power of the 6 three model for enhancing academic
teachers’ capacities for effective online teach-
ing and learning: Benefits, initiatives and future
directions. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 21(1), 118–135.
Skilbeck, M. (2001). The university challenged.
A review of international trends and issues with
particular reference to Ireland. Dublin: Higher
Education Authority.
Sloman, M. (2001). The e-learning revolution:
From proposition to action. London: Chartered
Institute of Personnel and Development.
Taylor, E. (1997). Building upon the theoretical
debate: A critical review of the empirical stud-
ies of Mezirow’s transformative learning the-
ory. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(1), 34–59.
doi:10.1177/074171369704800104
Tyack, D. B., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering to-
wards utopia: A century of public school reform.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wagner, E. D. (2006). On designing interaction
experiences for the next generation of blended
learning. In C. J. Bonk & C.R. Graham (Eds.), The
handbook of blended learning. Global perspec-
tives, local designs (pp. 41-55). San Francisco,
CA: Pfeiffer.
 23

Chapter 2
Experiences and Perceptions of
Learner Engagement in Blended
Learning Environments:
The Case of an Australian University
Linda De George-Walker
University of Southern Queensland, Australia

Abdul Hafeez-Baig
University of Southern Queensland, Australia

Raj Gururajan
University of Southern Queensland, Australia

P. A. Danaher
University of Southern Queensland, Australia

ABSTRACT
One of the most significant challenges in learning and teaching is to maximize successful and sustain-
able learner engagement. The growing literature about blended learning environments and technologies
provides plenty of scope for an interrogation of the intersection between learner engagement and blended
learning. This chapter takes up that interrogation by presenting the case of the University of Southern
Queensland, Australia. The chapter focuses on three postgraduate courses offered by the institution:
two in the Faculty of Business and the other in the Faculty of Education; and each course representing
a different position along the continuum from blended to fully online. The chapter presents a detailed
examination of all three courses in relation to design, development, and management, informed by a
conceptualization of blended learning as it intersects with learner engagement. Several types of evi-
dence are deployed in evaluating the courses against the assembled information about experiences and
perceptions of learner engagement and blended learning communicated by students, academic staff
members, and program administrators. This evidence suggests some significant implications for the
ongoing theorization of blended learning, how its effectiveness can be maximized, and what its connec-
tions with learner engagement are and should be.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-880-2.ch002

Copyright © 2010, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 Experiences and Perceptions of Learner Engagement in Blended Learning Environments
INTRODUCTION
One of the greatest challenges in learning and
teaching, regardless of delivery mode, is to maxi-
mize successful and sustainable learner engage-
ment, whether with fellow students, teaching staff
members, content, context, or the educational
technologies being used to provide the instruction
(Guthrie, 2001; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003;
McFadden & Munns, 2002; Zyngier, 2005). The
complexity of this challenge derives partly from
a lack of consensus in conceptualizing learner
engagement (Butler-Kisber & Portelli, 2003;
Vibert & Shields, 2003; Zyngier, 2008), and partly
from the difficulty of establishing a direct, one-
to-one correspondence between different types of
inputs and the desired output of learner participa-
tion and achievement. This is certainly the case
in exploring learner engagement with various
educational technologies, including educational
software (Bangert-Drowns & Pyke, 2001, 2002)
and simulations (Davies, 2002).
The burgeoning scholarship about blended
learning environments and technologies pro-
vides plenty of scope for an interrogation of the
intersection between learner engagement and
blended learning. Elements of that literature in-
clude efforts to define blended learning (Driscoll,
2002; Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003), to explore
examples in corporate, multinational, workplace,
and higher education contexts (Bonk & Graham,
2006), to elicit strategies for making it effective
(Rossett, Douglis, & Frazee, 2003; Singh, 2003),
to maximize its facilitation of a sense of com-
munity (Roval & Jordan, 2004), and to elaborate
its transformative potential (Garrison & Kanuka,
2004). Provisionally, for the purpose of orienting
the discussion in this chapter, we take Graham’s
(2006) account of the historical emergence of
blended learning as the convergence between
face-to-face and computer mediated learning
environments as the starting point – although, as
we shall see, by no means the finishing line – in
defining blended learning.
24
It is therefore timely to bring together these
two streams of literature, as the chapter seeks to
do. For example, it is important to integrate claims
about the educational benefits of blended learning
with evidence gleaned from contemporary case
studies about how learners and other stakeholders
view the enactment of blended learning in specific
educational programs. Likewise it is necessary to
highlight strategies garnered from that evidence
as being demonstrably effective in moving from
theory to practice in maximizing learner engage-
ment in blended learning environments.
The chapter takes up that challenge by pre-
senting the case of the University of Southern
Queensland (USQ), Australia. The chapter both
links with and builds on current publications about
the case site (Danaher, Gururajan, & Hafeez-Baig,
2009; Hafeez-Baig & Danaher, 2007a, 2007b) by
focusing on three courses offered by the institution
and not previously canvassed in those publications.
As Table 1 indicates, the courses exhibit consider-
able diversity: while all three are postgraduate,
two are located in the Faculty of Business and the
other in the Faculty of Education. Furthermore,
the courses occupy different positions along the
continuum from face-to-face to blended to online:
one course blends face-to-face, distance and online
delivery; one blends distance and online delivery;
and one is mainly online, with some face-to-face
provision (the latter as potentially contrasting and/
or overlapping with the other two courses).
What these three courses have in common is
a commitment to enhancing learner engagement
in varied combinations of learning environments.
Indeed, the variety of the selected courses – in
relation to paradigm, subject matter, and assess-
ment – is helpful in illustrating the multiple ways
in which blended learning can be implemented to
facilitate learner participation and achievement.
The chapter’s four objectives are as follows:
(1) to outline a skeptical but hopeful conceptu-
alization of blended learning gleaned from
Experiences and Perceptions of Learner Engagement in Blended Learning Environments
Table 1. The three courses at USQ
Course number Course code and title
One CIS5001 Information Systems
for Managers
Two EDU8317 Educational Measure-
ment and Assessment in Inclusive
Education
Three CIS8011 Emerging Information
Technologies
the contemporary literature, particularly in
relation to learner engagement;
(2) to discuss the three courses in terms of their
design, development, and management;
(3) to evaluate the courses against the assembled
evidence of experiences and perceptions
of learner engagement and blended learn-
ing communicated by selected students,
academic staff members, and program
administrators; and
(4) to contribute to the ongoing theorization of
blended learning on the basis of the outcomes
of the evaluation of the courses.
The chapter’s intended outcome is to extend
current understandings of blended learning: what
it is, in which contexts it occurs, how its effective-
ness can be maximized, and what its connections
with learner engagement are and should be.
BACKGROUND
USQ is a university in Queensland, Australia, with
about 24,000 enrolled students. It is characteristic
of many of the ‘new generation’ universities in
Australia, having been established in 1967 and
for most of its existence to date operating as an
institute of advanced education, serving simulta-
neously its local community (a regional area west
of Brisbane, the capital city of Queensland) and
thousands of students throughout Australia and
internationally as one of eight nationally desig-
Faculty Level Learning environment type
Business Postgraduate Blended between face-to-face, distance
and online
Education Postgraduate Blended between distance and online
Business Postgraduate Mainly online, with some face-to-face
provision
nated distance education providers of university
education.
The organization was proclaimed the USQ in
1992, since when it has expanded its Australian
campuses as well as its international outreach
and its research activities (University of Southern
Queensland, n. d.). Its success in these endeavors
led to its being named Australian University of
the Year in 2000-2001 by the Good Universi-
ties Guide (Smith, 2005). With the provision
of distance and online education by most if not
all contemporary universities, USQ has worked
meticulously to maintain and even to extend its
reputation in this dimension, for example win-
ning the Commonwealth of Learning Award of
Excellence for Institutional Achievement in 2004
for “its provision of flexible learning opportuni-
ties for people with diverse social and cultural
backgrounds” (Smith, 2005, p. 12).
Since 1977, USQ has been “a dual mode in-
stitution” (Smith, 2005, p. 1), with both on- and
off-campus students, and with the developments
associated with the Internet it has enhanced its
“triple option teaching styles” (Smith, 2005, p.
1), offering courses on-campus, externally and
online. The organization’s international standing
is reflected in its study centers in many overseas
countries and in its enrollment of students from
over 30 countries. Blended learning is strongly
represented in the increasing number of courses
that combine classroom teaching, electronic
discussions and sometimes intensive residential
schools.
25
 Experiences and Perceptions of Learner Engagement in Blended Learning Environments
USQ has worked hard to develop strong sup-
port mechanisms for its off-campus students. Its
Distance and e-Learning Centre, which manages
students enrolled to study via external and Web
modes, collects and dispatches over 200,000 as-
signments each semester from distance students,
provides learning resources through the post to
students who opt to study in the external mode
using printed materials and CD-Roms, helps
students to identify resources on the learning
management system, and directs enquiries from
students to staff desktops using a special software
application that can convert telephone messages
into a form that is compatible with computers.
This support infrastructure and the associated
policies and processes are crucial to maintaining
USQ’s market reputation as a strong provider
of flexible learning – and thereby to enhancing
learner engagement with USQ’s blended learn-
ing courses.
SETTING THE STAGE
In common with all other Australian universities,
USQ undergoes continual review of its expendi-
tures and revenues, especially as these relate to
learning and teaching activities. It is committed
to expanding its student base, both Australian and
international, and in doing so to providing the best
possible combination of learning experiences and
opportunities. At the same time, the real costs
(including the often hidden labor costs associated
with implementing new policies and technologies)
indicate that retaining traditional approaches to
pedagogical provision is not viable, particularly
in courses with low enrollments (Smith, 2005).
Consequently USQ has invested considerable
resources, including time, in the development of a
set of university-wide enterprise systems, which
have provided the basis for coordination across
the organization’s complex administrative, learn-
ing and teaching, and student support functions
(Smith, 2005). The PeopleSoft enterprise software
26
underpins the finance, student administration,
and human resources systems, while in 2007
USQ changed its learning management system
from WebCT to Moodle. A necessarily simplified
representation of the intersection of these diverse
enterprise systems is provided in Figure 1:
A key implication of this approach to learn-
ing and teaching management is that most USQ
academic staff members teach across a number
of delivery modes. While it is fairly common for
some academics to teach in both external and
Web modes, and sometimes not to teach in the
on-campus mode (with the possible exception of
residential schools), it is less usual for academ-
ics to teach fully on-campus with no exposure to
off-campus teaching. This trend has necessitated
substantial change to academics’ roles and re-
sponsibilities and to the ways in which they enact
their professional identities. This change has been
accompanied and supported by university-wide
training in specific aspects of the learning man-
agement system and by faculty-specific discus-
sions of learning and teaching that take account
of the technological developments. Nevertheless,
the pressures to create engaging and meaningful
learning environments across all three delivery
modes are considerable, and are not necessarily
easily accommodated within the short timelines
and increased individual accountability charac-
teristic of contemporary universities.
Similar pressures have been exerted on stu-
dents, who have had to adjust their learning aspira-
tions and experiences to fit with the requirements
of learning management systems. Sometimes this
has included having to change delivery mode from
on- to off-campus if there are insufficient num-
bers to operate on-campus classes. Furthermore,
Australian university students are increasingly
studying part- or even full-time while carrying out
part- or even full-time paid employment to cover
tuition and related costs (Willans, Harreveld, &
Danaher, 2003). This trend places an additional
burden on blended learning’s capacity to generate
and expand learner engagement, because for many
Experiences and Perceptions of Learner Engagement in Blended Learning Environments
Figure 1. Enterprise systems at USQ (Smith, 2005, p. 4)
students such engagement is only a part – and
sometimes a small part – of a complex set of diverse
activities. This is potentially complicated further in
the situation of international students, whose full
range of responsibilities and expectations are not
necessarily known to USQ staff members.
Partly in response to these kinds of pressures,
the higher education environment has moved – at
least rhetorically – from ‘chalk and talk’ to student-
centered, independent, and flexible learning. This
development has constituted an attempt to engage
with an increasingly diverse student population
and has reflected the need to exploit advances
in information and communication technologies
(ICTs) (Palalong, 2003). Under these circum-
stances, the use of learning management systems
has become an integral part of distance and online
education in recent years (Finkelstein & Pittinsky,
2003). Morgan (2003) reported that in most cases
academics use learning management systems
to communicate with students, provide access
to teaching and tutorial resources, and transmit
other information to students. Similar sentiments
have been conveyed by Schibik, Harrington, and
Gordon (2005).
It is clear from these developments that com-
bining learning management systems and ICTs
in blended learning environments is no easy
mission: there are lots of complexities, some
of which cancel one another out in relation to
maximizing learner engagement. Despite these
complexities, and the diversity of the courses
discussed below notwithstanding, the academic
staff members involved in all three courses have
been committed to using all the pedagogical and
technological resources and strategies at their
disposal to encourage students to use these tools
for learning, to participate actively with other
learners, to conduct self-evaluation, to deploy
time management skills, and to enact effective
teamwork in diverse learning contexts. These are
the principles needed to optimize the links between
27
 Experiences and Perceptions of Learner Engagement in Blended Learning Environments
learner engagement and blended learning environ-
ments in contemporary universities.
CASE DESCRIPTION
We turn now to present the three courses that con-
stitute the case of learner engagement in blended
learning environments being analyzed in this
chapter. While the courses represent considerable
diversity, they have been analyzed according to a
common framework incorporating:
• Course overview
• Course design, development, and
management
• Course evaluation
CIS5001 Information
Systems for Managers
Course Overview
CIS5001 Information Systems for Managers is a
postgraduate core course in the Faculty of Business
at USQ. This course is offered in the on-campus,
external and Web delivery modes in Semesters
1 and 2 each year, and on average attracts about
500 students for each semester. Most students
enroll in the course in the external mode. External
and online students are supported by means of
the online resources associated with the learn-
ing management system Moodle, including the
EASE online assignment submission system and
the Turnitin plagiarism checking system. These
three systems are used extensively to facilitate the
easy delivery of course materials and the students’
active engagement and participation. The course
has three formal summative assessment items: an
online quiz (weighting 5%) due in Week 4 of the
semester; a major written report (weighting 35%)
due in Week 9; and an open book examination
(weighting 60%) at the end of the semester.
28
Course Design, Development,
and Management
CIS5001 is offered with the help of printed ma-
terial, such as an introductory book and a study
guide, especially designed for students to facilitate
their study and their weekly course commitments.
A copy of this printed material is also provided
online via the learning management system. Ex-
ternal students rely heavily on the three systems
identified above (Moodle, EASE, and Turnitin),
whereas on-campus students are able to attend
the face-to-face lectures and tutorials. Usually the
course is developed and managed by a team of three
academics and a group of external markers.
Various discussion forums have been devel-
oped to enable students to learn and to engage
with the various concepts and theories encountered
in the course. Since its inception the course has
received positive feedback and course enrollments
have increased. The course design and develop-
ment have been organized to provide maximum
possible support and flexibility to students with
work commitments, as most of the students in
the course are working in middle to top level
management positions.
The basic educational philosophy underpin-
ning the course is to help students to achieve the
course objectives through active participation, by
critiquing one another’s perspectives, through for-
mal assessment items, and by sharing information.
For example, weekly discussion questions provide
an opportunity to share students’ experiences and
knowledge, as all the questions are open ended
and encourage students to build the arguments
needed to justify their points of view. The major
assignment report requires students to analyze real
business scenarios, to evaluate problems, and to
present consultant reports with in-depth analysis
and focused recommendations. The Turnitin
plagiarism application enables students to assess
their own work and teaches them how to analyze
and critique their peers’ work.
Experiences and Perceptions of Learner Engagement in Blended Learning Environments
The pedagogy employed in the course com-
municates to students the course expectations and
requirements on a weekly basis through online
discussion forums, weekly discussion questions,
weekly extra activities, and case studies. The
course resources in conjunction with the learning
management system provide an opportunity for
all participants to interact in teams and individu-
ally irrespective of their location or background.
These interactions are monitored and moderated
regularly by the course coordinator to maximize
the richness of the discussion and the peer group
teaching. Most of the interactions among the stu-
dents and between the students and the teaching
team members are in the online mode.
Course Evaluation
CI85001 is reviewed regularly to ensure that it
provides students with understandings of the busi-
ness world and of the implications for that world of
current and developing ICTs. Student interactions
were consistent throughout the semester, but un-
derstandably the intensity of those interactions was
extremely high immediately before the due date
of each summative assessment item. The overall
analysis, gleaned from student course evaluations
and the teaching team’s focused reflections on the
course outcomes, was that at the beginning of the
course many students lacked confidence, but that
by the end of the course most students had enjoyed
the learning process, with the course offering be-
ing considered flexible and enjoyable.
In particular, the course evaluation elicited the
following motivators associated with enhancing
the links between learner engagement and the
blended learning environment of the course:
• The blended learning environment and the
ICT tools provided students with substan-
tial opportunities for effective and sus-
taining interactions among all modes of
delivery.
• The blended learning environment and the
ICT tools helped to reduce the overall logi-
cal costs and to make the course more ef-
fective and efficient.
• The blended learning environment gave stu-
dents the opportunity for engagement and
potentially for empowerment through dif-
ferent kinds of interaction and through the
flexibility offered in the course by means
of various ICT tools and applications.
• The blended learning environment enabled
the course participants to focus on prob-
lem-based learning (PBL), which in turn
fostered greater learner engagement.
• The blended learning environment provid-
ed students with a rich learning context in
which they were equipped to achieve their
individual goals and to experience a con-
siderable diversity of theoretical and ex-
periential knowledge, again enhancing the
depth and breadth of learner engagement
in the course.
By contrast, the course evaluation explicated
the following factors that potentially reduced the
level of learner engagement or otherwise indicated
areas where our knowledge is not yet sufficiently
developed to make definitive claims about such
engagement:
• Although students were able to interact
with the course coordinator in the blended
learning environment and using the ICT
tools, a number of students stated their
preference for the positive effects of face-
to-face teaching during the course teaching
visits.
• The ICT tools and the other techniques
used in the course’s blended learning envi-
ronment did not provide specific evidence
of individual interaction and progression,
so the evaluation of the level and types of
learner engagement in the course is neces-
sarily generalized.
29
 Experiences and Perceptions of Learner Engagement in Blended Learning Environments
• The potential of the blended learning en-
vironment was limited both by some limi-
tations of policies and procedures at USQ
and by the restrictions of the existing
infrastructure.
• The cultural and political norms specific
to the discipline in which the course is
situated tended to make the students’ en-
gagement passive rather than active, in the
sense that that engagement was directed at
mastering existing understandings rather
than necessarily creating new knowledge
(somewhat akin to the ‘master and appren-
tice’ analogy); this is undoubtedly true of
other disciplines and paradigms as well.
• It is difficult to analyze and evaluate the
balance among, and the most appropriate
combination of, various blended learning
techniques needed to optimize the students’
learning and teaching experiences.
• It is important to think further about en-
gagement and interaction among all the
stakeholders in the course in the process
of establishing a constructive framework
for the most effective and efficient blend-
ed learning environment. For example, as
well as student to student and student to
academic staff member interactions, it is
necessary to maximize such interactions
among academics and between academics
and industry and community representa-
tives, because those interactions inevitably
impinge on the quality of learner interac-
tion and hence engagement in the course.
EDU8317 Educational
Measurement and Assessment
in Inclusive Education
Course Overview
EDU8317 Educational Measurement and Assess-
ment in Inclusive Education is a postgraduate
course for Australian and international students
30
enrolled in the Master of Education program
majoring in either Guidance and Counseling or
Special Education in the Faculty of Education at
USQ. The seven course modules introduce stu-
dents to the fundamentals of psycho-educational
assessment and include topics about assessment
processes and procedures, basic measurement
concepts such as reliability, validity, and norms,
standardized and informal tests and testing, assess-
ment accommodations, ethical and legal issues,
and reporting.
Prior to 2005, EDU8317 had been offered
in the distance education mode, supplemented
with a mandatory mid-semester face-to-face resi-
dential school. With many students, particularly
those enrolled overseas, finding it increasingly
difficult to attend the residential school owing
to time, financial, and other constraints, and an
organizational imperative toward increased ac-
cess and flexibility for students, the decision was
made from 2005 to trial the replacement of the
face-to-face residential school component with
online learning and teaching strategies.
Enabling this new course design was an exist-
ing online course presence via the university’s
learning management system. Before 2005, the
EDU8317 online course page tended to be used
mostly as a resource repository and a point of
administrative contact between students and staff
members. If crucial learning goals were not to be
lost in the shift from a face-to-face/distance blend
to a distance/online blend, the use of the learning
management system needed to become a teaching,
learning and engagement tool.
Course Design, Development,
and Management
From 2005, students continued to be provided with
printed study materials typical of most distance
offers at the university, including an introductory
book, a study guide, and a book of selected read-
ings. Students were also expected to purchase two
set textbooks. Each study guide module followed
Experiences and Perceptions of Learner Engagement in Blended Learning Environments
a consistent pattern: focus questions (learning
objectives); text and explanatory notes related to
the topic; prompts to complete the required text
reading and selected readings; and independent
activities interspersed throughout the module that
required learners to apply, evaluate, and synthesize
the content.
The face-to-face mid-semester residential
school had employed the instructional strategy
of PBL to simulate and engage students in the
‘real world’ of psychoeducational assessment.
Thus, during the residential school students were
engaged with fellow students and teaching staff in
the exploration of the curriculum content but also
the more generic skills of self-directed learning
and collaborative problem solving – all required
for real world assessment practice. From a learning
perspective, it was considered essential that the
PBL component be retained in the course, but it
would need to be modified for online delivery.
Few changes were made to the PBL content
for the online version of the course. Taking a
case-based approach to PBL (Barrows, 1986),
students worked with a hypothetical 12-year-old
learner who had been ‘referred’ to them for as-
sessment. Students were gradually exposed to
richly presented case information and associated
artifacts (for example, a referral letter, interview
transcripts, school records, and existing assess-
ment data) that were available from the online
course page. Students engaged with the case
to determine the significance of information,
synthesize that information, draw on course and
other resources, formulate and adapt hypotheses
as necessary, and plan for additional processes
that they would undertake to progress toward
making sound educational recommendations for
the case. The role of the teaching staff in the online
version of the PBL component of the course was
also to remain as it had been for the face-to-face
version and consistent with the implementation
of PBL – that is, encouraging and challenging
students to interrogate their thinking deeply rather
than necessarily offering solutions (Savory &
Duffy, 2001).
However, the change from face-to-face to on-
line implementation of the PBL activity prompted
a reconsideration of the scheduling and integration
of the PBL activities with the module activities.
For the previous face-to-face residential school
version, students had completed four modules
over approximately eight weeks before engaging
with the PBL activities. With the new online ap-
proach, the PBL activities were reconfigured into
three sequential phases each of about two weeks’
duration, which commenced from the start of the
semester and were offered parallel with the mod-
ule study. Consequently the online version of the
PBL component of the course moved closer to the
intentions of PBL in that from the outset learning
was synthesized and organized in the context of
the problem (Savory & Duffy, 2001).
With the removal of the mandatory residential
school, there was some concern about student en-
gagement and participation in the online PBL. As
well as considering engagement from the perspec-
tive of creating engaging learning and teaching
resources, explicitly sharing the rationale for the
task, and staff encouragement of participation,
it was felt that assessment could play a role in
fostering and sustaining engagement. With the
mindset that a PBL associated assessment task
should be one that not only encourages engagement
in the PBL task but also enhances the learning
outcomes, the assessment task that was devised
involved students writing a reflective statement
about what they had learned about assessment
and their approach to such assessment, and a self-
critique of themselves as assessment practitioners
and lifelong learners. This was accompanied by
a self-assessment of their assessment knowledge
and skills in terms of how prepared they felt
for the final assessment item where they were
to undertake an assessment of an actual student
and write a psychoeducational report. Thus, the
reflective statement and self-assessment task
were an attempt not only to engage the students
31
 Experiences and Perceptions of Learner Engagement in Blended Learning Environments
in the PBL component of the course but also to
develop their skills as reflective practitioners. The
two other items of course assessment were more
content focused and included a critical review of a
standardized testing instrument and a PowerPoint
presentation of a self-selected assessment topic.
As well as independent engagement with the
online version of the PBL activity, the other aspect
requiring careful consideration was facilitating
the collaborative engagement with other students
and staff considered crucial for student learning
from a constructivist educational philosophy but
also as an authentic part of the PBL activities in
that consultation and collaboration are necessary
processes when undertaking psychoeducational
assessment. Thus, for each of the three PBL phases,
students were allocated to small online teams and
encouraged to use their teams’ asynchronous on-
line discussion forums to share their ideas and to
collaborate with fellow students about the case.
The PBL information sheet included prompts and
scaffolding for the online discussion as well as
independent reflection to support what was for
most students their first experience of both the
content area of psychoeducational assessment and
the instructional strategy of PBL (see Figure 2).
Course Evaluation
Delivery and management of this course during
2005–2007 revealed to the teaching staff some
consistent patterns in terms of engagement with the
online version of the PBL component of the course.
All students engaged with the PBL activities, as
demonstrated by their completion of the associated
assessment task. However, not all students chose
to engage collaboratively in the online discussion
with some preferring to work independently, ac-
companied by passive reading of the discussion
forum postings. The effects of this were twofold:
not only did those students potentially affect the
quality of their own learning experience, but also
their fellow students reported that team members’
lack of engagement in discussions meant less team
32
interaction and dialogue and negatively affected
the quality of the learning experience for the whole
team. After the first offer in 2005, students who
wanted to participate actively in the discussions
were alerted to the opportunity to be additionally
signed up to another, more active group if they
wished to do so. However, very few students
took up this offer. Overall it was observed that
only a few teams were engaged in high levels of
genuinely collaborative discussion from start to
finish. Other teams started well but participation
dwindled throughout the semester.
Student feedback about the course was gained
through the broad university course evaluations
as well as course developed surveys and students’
comments in the reflective statement assessment
item. Generally students were very positive about
the course overall. More detailed analysis of the
student feedback revealed consistent themes in
terms of the course and other aspects that both
facilitated and challenged student engagement
and learning.
1. Aspects that supported engagement and
learning – Most students rated the quality of
the distance module materials and resources
available on the learning management sys-
tem as high. The majority of respondents
also reported that the PBL was important
for their engagement and learning in the
course as a result of the following features:
the practical, realistic, meaningful, and active
‘hands on’ character of the PBL; exposure
to diverse points of view that enabled them
to gauge their progress through the PBL
discussion forums; deeper and more applied
understanding of psychoeducational assess-
ment content and processes; the requirement
for self-directed research and learning; and
motivational effects that included being
able to apply existing knowledge. These
features as noted by the EDU8317 students
are similar to those identified in the literature
as being particularly well addressed by PBL
Experiences and Perceptions of Learner Engagement in Blended Learning Environments
Figure 2. Phase 1 prompts for the online PBL in EDU8317
instructional strategies (Barrows, 1986).
Students also noted that online discussions
and contact among students and between
students and staff members using the learn-
ing management system were highly valued,
with one student noting that s/he felt like s/
he was studying on campus.
2. Aspects that challenged engagement
and learning – Three key themes emerged
relating to aspects that challenged learner
engagement:
(a) Student factors – Several students
noted that full engagement with the
PBL materials took considerable
time. This in turn often led to posting
responses to the PBL focus questions
close to deadline, thus leaving no time
for online discussion with peers. A
few students noted that they hesitated
to participate in the online discussion
forums either initially or at all owing
33
 Experiences and Perceptions of Learner Engagement in Blended Learning Environments
to a personal sense of inadequacy and
self-consciousness.
(b) Technical issues – The technical exper-
tise required by students to participate
was low, with students needing only
to download the PBL materials and
to use the discussion forums. Some
students did, however, report some
personal technical problems (for ex-
ample, Internet service provider issues
and slower dial up Internet access)
that affected their ability to download
the PBL documents and to participate
in the discussion forums before they
closed (for example, Internet service
provider issues and slower dial up
Internet access).
(c) Pedagogical matters – Several stu-
dents noted difficulties with the asyn-
chronous discussion forum and lack
of real-time discussion with peers and
staff members and felt that this affected
engagement and motivation. Several
students overcame this challenge by
initiating face-to-face dialogue and
mentoring in their local contexts.
Student feedback highlighted the course
mechanisms that both facilitated and challenged
student engagement and learning, and provided
some explanations as to the patterns of engage-
ment observed by course staff during the delivery
and management of the course. Based on this
evaluation, the following areas are suggested as
improvements to be implemented in subsequent
offers of the course:
• At the outset provide students with more
information about PBL and in particular
the importance of the collaborative discus-
sion so that they are familiar with how to
derive the maximum benefit from this in-
structional strategy.
34
• Assist students with their time manage-
ment by providing them with a guide for
participation in the online PBL – for ex-
ample, “It is recommended that you begin
posting to the discussion board within the
first week of the PBL phase.”
• Open one online forum discussion for each
PBL phase rather than up to 10 separate dis-
cussion areas for small teams. Additionally,
the learning management system feature
that requires students to make a posting be-
fore they can view other students’ postings
may increase active rather than passive
(reading only) engagement in forums and
support those who are lacking confidence.
• Extend each PBL task from two to three
weeks to allow students extra time to
engage and also troubleshoot technical
problems.
• To lessen downloading problems, ensure
that all file sizes are as small as possible by
converting from Word to PDF formats.
• Streamline and integrate the two separate
independent and discussion forum focus
questions/activities in the PBL activity
prompts (see Figure 2) under a single head-
ing of “For Forum Discussion” to simplify
the process and orient students toward par-
ticipation in forum discussion.
• Trial the use of synchronous discussion fo-
rums in addition to the asynchronous dis-
cussion forums to enable real-time engage-
ment and collaborative dialogue.
The shift from the face-to-face/distance blend
to the distance/online blend has been successful
in terms of increased flexibility for students by
not requiring their attendance at a residential
school and replacing this with the online version
of the PBL course component. Evaluation of the
course has verified that equivalent learning goals
can be achieved irrespective of face-to-face or
online delivery, provided that students engage in
all aspects of the PBL component, including col-
Experiences and Perceptions of Learner Engagement in Blended Learning Environments
laborative engagement with peers and academic
staff members. However, it is encouraging all
students to engage in this way that presents an
ongoing challenge.
CIS8011 Emerging
Information Technologies
Course Overview
CIS8011 Emerging Information Technologies is
principally an online postgraduate course in the
Faculty of Business at USQ. It includes an intro-
ductory book and study guide, reading materials,
Web links, peer assessment, assessment submis-
sion, and assessment marking, all in the online
mode. The study resources used in the course are
threaded as online content using hyperlinks to al-
low easy access. Paper-based material is avoided
in the course content.
The course operates a peer review system
for weekly assessment by students of submitted
journals, and it assesses students in relation to
solutions that they produce for practical problems.
A mandatory plagiarism check for all submitted
work is also in place. Completed assessment
includes a rigorous submission through three dif-
ferent computing environments (anti-plagiarism
software, the learning management system, and
the peer review system), with the emphasis being
on enabling students to learn from interacting
with one another. This approach has improved
the overall quality of the course.
The feedback received from students shows
that they are satisfied with the course outcomes and
are willing to recommend it to other students. The
course design and delivery have offered flexibility
to both the students and USQ. They have reduced
the cost of producing course materials, facilitated
easy delivery of study materials to students, and
maximized easy access of course materials by
students and academic staff members. The course
allows a flexible delivery schedule, and operates
a clear and transparent structure.
Course Design, Development,
and Management
The educational philosophy framing the course de-
sign, development, and management for CIS8011
is founded on three key principles: learning by
application; learning by observation; and learn-
ing by critique.
The learning by application component in-
volves students developing solutions for real life
problems provided to them. The solutions are
presented in the form of a consultant’s report, a
management report, and an analysis component.
The idea underpinning this component is to help
students to think of various alternatives and then
to generate feasible solutions taking into account
all the known constraints.
The learning by observation component en-
ables students to benchmark their work against
that of other students. This is done through peer
assessments where students are given the oppor-
tunity to evaluate one another’s work. In doing
so, they are able to compare the quality of their
work with that of others (see Figure 3).
The learning by critique component assists
students to analyze and to review critically the
work of others. This stimulates in-depth think-
ing because the subject matter is common to
all students and they therefore have a mutually
understood foundation for subsequent dialogue
and engagement. Furthermore, this component
helps students to improve the quality of their work
in two distinct ways: while critiquing the work
of others, students are required to demonstrate
their in-depth subject knowledge; and students
also receive an indication of others’ opinions of
their own work. The combination of these two
aspects of quality enhancement potentially helps
all students to improve their overall standard of
communication in the course (see Figure 4).
USQ offers courses in different modes in order
to accommodate the specific needs of local and
distance students. Generally the main difference
among the delivery modes lies in the way that
35
 Experiences and Perceptions of Learner Engagement in Blended Learning Environments

Figure 3. Learning by observation in CIS8011

Figure 4. Learning by critique in CIS8011

36
Experiences and Perceptions of Learner Engagement in Blended Learning Environments
information is delivered to students. For example,
a student might be resident locally and able to be
on-campus but still enroll in the distance mode.
Distance mode students are provided with printed
learning materials suitable for self-study, and they
are able to attend the two week residential school
if they happen to be in the vicinity of the campus
if such a school is part of the course. Web mode
students do not have access to the residential school
or to printed versions of the learning materials.
CIS8011 uses the Web delivery mode, which
is based on online provision irrespective of study
mode (on- or off-campus). As noted above, the
course material is offered through several hy-
perlinks enabling easy online access, and the
materials are delivered to enrolled students via
the Moodle learning management system as the
standard interface. This approach provides the
following advantages:
• Flexible timelines for the academic
staff members to submit materials to the
Distance and e-Learning Centre
• Reduced costs in terms of printing
• Flexibility in updating course materials
• Easy delivery of course materials to
students
• Shortened delivery schedule
Moreover, when the course was refined for
the third semester in 2006, the modifications
were easily incorporated into the course design
and delivery. Many students liked this approach
because it was easy for them to have ready access
to materials via the Internet instead of having to
carry around printed copies. Students who enrolled
late received instant access and they were pleased
by the rapid delivery of materials to them. Overall
the benefits were significant.
An added feature was the integration of online
study materials into a single book. USQ courses
in information systems traditionally provide two
books, one outlining the course details and the
other containing the readings required for the
course. The provision of one book in CIS8001
also ensured that updates to materials could be
achieved easily with access to only one source.
All study materials are presented in the form of
pdf files. The advantage of this approach is easy
addition to the reading sources without concern for
the size of the book and hence postage charges.
The course materials contain a number of
hyperlinks to thread the content into a continuous
flow (see Figure 5). The front end is a collapsed
version of the course with a ‘telescopic’ view.
Students are able to expand the modules to access
either reading guidelines or reading materials to
see how the task for a particular week can be ac-
complished. This provides flexibility to students
depending on their level of understanding of the
course content, and hopefully provides a strong
foundation for enhancing learner interaction.
The materials are presented with a set of stan-
dard readings. Each week certain sections of the
readings are referred to in the study guide and
students are asked to go through key elements of
these sections in order to comprehend the weekly
materials. These are then linked to assessments,
which are presented in the form of weekly journals,
mainly to demonstrate students’ understanding of
the weekly materials. These journals are assessed
by the students’ peers, as noted above. This forms
the basis for their assignment and report work. This
enables students to remain focused on the same
set of materials, while still having the flexibility
to read other sources.
The design of the course materials is intention-
ally simple. Each week students are presented with
a topic outline and the learning outcomes expected
of students in that topic. They are provided with
a set of readings to help their understanding, a
set of guidelines for additional resources (mainly
derived from the reference section of the readers),
and an assessment task to stimulate their thinking
for which they are required to collect additional
evidence. The students are then required to submit
their work.
37
 Experiences and Perceptions of Learner Engagement in Blended Learning Environments
Figure 5. Example of threaded discussions in CIS8011
This process is the central theme for each week,
and it enables students to understand the delivery
schedule of their work. Moreover, students must
submit all their work through a plagiarism ap-
plication and ensure that the ‘plagiarism count’
(the percentage of material from other published
sources) is under 20%. This enables students to
review their own work in order to avoid any alle-
gations of plagiarism or collusion. The plagiarism
software is configured in such a way that students’
work is checked with available materials on the
Internet as well as with their fellow students’
work. This approach is considered a pre-requisite
to enhancing learner engagement in this blended
learning environment.
Course Evaluation
The course was initially conducted as a pilot in
Semester 1, 2006. The course was evaluated by
a professional evaluator (an ex-Gartner research
consultant) as well as by a group of students. The
evaluation was carried out in relation to the quality
of materials, presentation format, time taken to
complete assessment tasks, and student workload.
The course was refined by including the feedback
received from these two sources.
The course was rerun in the second semester of
2006 with 127 students. The student feedback re-
38
ceived subsequently was encouraging. Three main
themes identified from that feedback were:
• The peer review system provides students
with an opportunity to see what others are
doing and to compare their work with that
of their peers.
• The mandatory plagiarism check ensures
that students avoid plagiarism and collu-
sion charges.
• The weekly journals enable students to
study on a weekly basis and this assists
them to develop a disciplined routine.
Overall students expressed satisfaction with
the course and felt encouraged to recommend
the course to other students. In order to ensure
students’ satisfaction with the course, periodic
telephone conversations were held with students
studying away from the main campus to make the
assessment requirements clear to them.
On the other hand, students felt the burden of
weekly journal submissions to be somewhat ex-
cessive, especially when other assessments were
also due. Also the submissions are automated with
strict date stamps and hence any delay in submis-
sion results in an unsuccessful submission. One
improvement to the course can be the submission
Experiences and Perceptions of Learner Engagement in Blended Learning Environments
of three journals instead of five for the first and
second assessments respectively.
The second improvement can be in terms of
peer assessment. Currently students are given a
set of criteria to assess one another’s work. The
criteria are loosely defined and are in need of
more exact specification.
The third area for improvement is the presen-
tation format. Despite being given guidelines,
students use their own presentation styles and there
is no uniformity. One possible solution could be
the use of formats with strict word limits; this will
provide a uniform layout and will restrict students
to a fixed maximum in terms of word count.
Student evaluations indicated that the delivery
of teaching materials is acceptable. However, on
two occasions, owing to issues with the learning
management system and the USQ server, students
were not able to access and submit assessment.
This needs improvement.
As noted above, the students are given materials
in pdf format. Owing to large file sizes, there have
been occasional complications in downloading
materials. It might be a good idea to recognize
automatically students’ access schemes and to
deliver an alternative version of the materials.
Dial up modems and slow broadband connections
limit the academic staff members’ ability to pro-
vide resources with larger file sizes. For example,
course contact material is restricted to a small file
size in order to accommodate students with dial
up or lower bandwidth Internet connections, and
for that reason files with sounds, images, and
videos are avoided.
Another area of weakness in the course is
the lack of examples of report formats, as the
course has not been running long enough to have
established a significant corpus of such examples
available to students. This will be addressed in
later offerings of the course.
In addition, a number of overseas students
struggled with the management report writing
style. Despite receiving examples and links to Web
sites where guidelines can be found, students had
a difficulty in this regard for the first few weeks of
the semester. One possible remedy is to conduct a
teaching school in the initial weeks of the course
to prepare students to undertake these activities.
This will hopefully lead to an overall improvement
in the quality of students’ submitted work.
Generally the experiences of students and
academic staff members in the course can be
summarized into lessons learned by all stakehold-
ers involved in the process in relation to learner
engagement and blended learning:
• Plagiarism cases were very low as students
have been able to check their work before
final submission. It has been noticed that
students are using these skills and resourc-
es in other courses, thereby improving the
quality of their learning.
• Peer review assessment has proved to be
effective in changing students’ attitudes to-
ward marks allocated to them and to their
fellow students. Students were generally
very critical of one another’s work. This
encourages students to produce assessment
materials of high quality.
• Throughout the semester students are in
considerable control of their assessment
activities. This enables them to plan their
future assessment items and to manage
their future enrollment options before the
end of the semester.
• There is clear evidence of interaction and
engagement by students as active partici-
pants in the course. Students are generally
willing and able to engage and to become
empowered as the course proceeds.
• Students are also exposed to experiences
of time management, teamwork, organi-
zational skills, project management skills,
academic writing, critical analyses of a
given situation, the ability to defend their
judgments, and the ability to plan and guide
others. These skills provide students with a
range of leadership training capacities.
39
 Experiences and Perceptions of Learner Engagement in Blended Learning Environments
Overall there was a positive experience for
students and academics alike. Improvements
to the next delivery of the course will include a
uniform format for assessment reports, tighter
marking criteria for peer assessment, and perhaps
an early teaching visit to the USQ Distance and
e-Learning Centre to increase students’ awareness
of management report writing styles.
CURRENT CHALLENGES
FACING THE ORGANIZATION
This chapter has presented the case of an Australian
university, USQ, in relation to multiple experi-
ences and perceptions of learner engagement in
blended learning environments. It has done this
by focusing on three postgraduate courses at USQ
in terms of their design, development, and man-
agement, and has canvassed such issues as tech-
nology concerns and components, management
and organizational concerns, and the cultural and
philosophical assumptions of the academic staff
members coordinating and teaching the courses.
Despite their diversity, the common focus in the
courses has been on identifying and implement-
ing strategies needed to maximize the level and
types of learner engagement and thereby to op-
timize the potential benefits of blended learning
environments.
It is clear that all three courses have succeeded
in highlighting this intersection between learner
engagement and blended learning environments
in several respects, reflected in positive experi-
ences and perceptions communicated by students,
academic staff members, and program administra-
tors. The various types of evidence adduced here
demonstrate that the strategies deployed to design
and refine the courses have helped considerably
to encourage students to feel ‘at home,’ regardless
of their location and enrollment mode. Indeed, an
important element of those strategies has been
efforts to render the divisions between delivery
modes invisible and seamless, and to enhance
40
learning experiences and outcomes across modes
of enrollment and delivery.
At the same time, it is clear that a set of chal-
lenges remains with regard to integrating learner
engagement and blended learning environments in
all three courses. Perhaps inevitably, not all learn-
ers are fully engaged all the time. Student retention
and attrition also remain a potential concern. These
are ongoing issues and not necessarily resolved
easily or permanently. This is so because several
factors influencing these challenges lie outside
the control of individual course team members,
faculties or USQ as a whole – for example, stu-
dents’ busy lifestyles of which university study
is only a part.
Even in relation to those factors that are more
amenable to action at the program and course
levels, some issues are highly complex and dif-
ferentiated and do not admit of easy answers. A
prime example is assessment, which is attended
by several tensions – for instance, between as-
sessment for and of learning, between assessment
to demonstrate mastery of existing knowledge
and assessment to construct new understandings,
between varying levels of ownership of the assess-
ment process. The latter is signified by concerns
about plagiarism, which reflects wider debates
partly about academic integrity and partly about
program quality.
These recurring issues are likely to remain
precisely that: hardy perennials that each course
team must encounter and engage within each new
offering of the course. This is what we meant by
our point at the beginning of the chapter: that
Graham’s (2006) depiction of blended learning
as the convergence between face-to-face and
computer mediated learning environments is
the starting point, but not the finishing line, in
defining and theorizing blended learning. For one
thing, convergence is neither easy nor automatic
to achieve: if not quite a never ending story, it is
a highly complex assemblage of rapidly moving
parts – of students, academics, administrators,
other stakeholders, technologies, cultural prac-
Experiences and Perceptions of Learner Engagement in Blended Learning Environments
tices, political imperatives, and the like – and
so any settlement implied by the notion of con-
vergence is liable to be tentative and temporary.
For another thing, convergence is a potentially
limited and limiting idea, in the sense that it im-
plies a single meeting point (and hence a lowest
common denominator). There is a possible risk
that focusing excessively on convergence could
lead to an elision of important and valuable dif-
ferences among various educational technologies
and delivery modes.
From this perspective, we see the further
theorization of blended learning environments as
needing to take account of these kinds of differ-
ences, while attending also to equally significant
questions of access, equity, quality, and sustain-
ability. The evidence presented in this case study is
a ‘mixed bag’about those questions: many students
have found the respective courses enabling and
even empowering, while others have struggled
with particular pedagogical and technological
concerns – as have the academic staff members
charged with designing, delivering, and managing
those courses.
CONCLUSION
We have asserted that Graham’s (2006) depiction
of blended learning as the convergence between
face-to-face and computer mediated learning envi-
ronments is the starting point, not the finishing line,
in understanding blended learning. A key reason
for this assertion is centered on the complexities
in activating and sustaining learner engagement
canvassed in this chapter. As the case presented
here demonstrates, bringing blended learning
and learner engagement into alignment entails
the development of synergies across a range of
factors, some of which lie outside the control of
students and staff members. Their experiences
and perceptions among the three courses outlined
here highlight both challenges and opportunities
in mobilizing those complexities. Those experi-
ences and perceptions also help to distill certain
principles and strategies that might prove useful
in future efforts to maximize learner engagement
in blended learning environments.
All of this underscores that this chapter, along
with the others in this book, has sought to extend
our current understandings of blended learning and
its complex and sometimes perplexing relationship
with learner engagement. The courses analyzed
here are three separate contexts in which that
relationship is enacted. The strategies identified
here are efforts to optimize the alignment between
the two phenomena, while allowing full rein for
the particularities of each. Learner engagement
and blended learning environments have much
to offer each other, with hoped for benefits for
learners and educators alike.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Professor Yukiko Inoue has been an encouraging
and facilitative editor, and two anonymous peer
reviewers provided useful feedback about the
submitted text. The authors are grateful to the
students and academic colleagues who participated
in the courses discussed here for enabling the data
analysis presented in this chapter.
REFERENCES
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., & Pyke, C. (2001). A
taxonomy of student engagement with educational
software: An exploration of literate thinking with
electronic text. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 24(3), 213–234. doi:10.2190/0CKM-
FKTR-0CPF-JLGR
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., & Pyke, C. (2002). Teacher
ratings of student engagement with educational
software: An exploratory study. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 50(2),
23–38. doi:10.1007/BF02504992
41
 Experiences and Perceptions of Learner Engagement in Blended Learning Environments
Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-
based learning methods. Medical Education,
20, 481–486. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.1986.
tb01386.x
Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (Eds.). (2006). Hand-
book of blended learning: Global perspectives,
local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Butler-Kisber, L., & Portelli, P. (2003). Editorial:
The challenges of student engagement: Beyond
mainstream conceptions and practices. McGill
Journal of Education, 38(2), 207.
Danaher, P. A., Gururajan, R., & Hafeez-Baig, A.
(2009). Transforming the practice of mobile learn-
ing: Promoting pedagogical innovation through
educational principles and strategies that work.
In H. Ryu & D. P. Parsons (Eds.), Innovative
mobile learning: Techniques and technologies
(pp. 21-46). Hershey, PA: Information Science
Reference/IGI Global.
Davies, C. H. J. (2002). Student engagement
with simulations: A case study. Computers &
Education, 39(3), 271–282. doi:10.1016/S0360-
1315(02)00046-5
Driscoll, M. (2002). Blended learning: Let’s get
beyond the hype. Retrieved September 7, 2008,
from https://www-07.ibm.com/services/pdf/
blended_learning.pdf
Finkelstein, J., & Pittinsky, M. (2003, January-
February). The evolving role of course manage-
ment system providers in the transformation of
education: An interview with Blackboard’s Mat-
thew Pittinsky. Technology Source. Retrieved No-
vember 16, 2008, from http://technologysource.
org/article/evolving_role_of_course_manage-
ment_system_providers_in_the_transforma-
tion_of_education/
42
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). 2nd quarter).
Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative
potential in higher education. The Internet and
Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. doi:10.1016/j.
iheduc.2004.02.001
Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems:
Definition, current trends, and future directions.
In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook
of blended learning: Global perspectives, local
designs (pp. 3-21). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Guthrie, J. T. (2001). Contexts for engagement
and motivation in reading. Reading Online,
4(8). Retrieved September 7, 2008, from http://
www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.
asp?HREF=handbook/guthrie/index.html
Hafeez-Baig, A., & Danaher, P. A. (2007a, Feb-
ruary). Future possibilities for mobile learning
technologies and applications at the University of
Southern Queensland, Australia: Lessons from an
academic focus group. In D. P. Parsons & H. Ryu
(Eds.), Proceedings of the conference on mobile
learning technologies and applications (MoLTA)
Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand
February 19, 2007 (pp. 16-22). Auckland, New
Zealand: Institute of Information and Mathemati-
cal Sciences, Massey University.
Hafeez-Baig, A., & Danaher, P. A. (2007b). Chal-
lenges and opportunities in facilitating student
engagement and empowerment: Perspectives from
information systems and education courses at the
University of Southern Queensland, Australia. In
C. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings
of world conference on education multimedia,
hypermedia and telecommunications 2007 (pp.
459-468). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003).
The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student
engagement and learning in the classroom.
Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 119–137.
doi:10.1080/10573560308223
Experiences and Perceptions of Learner Engagement in Blended Learning Environments
McFadden, M., & Munns, G. (2002). Student
engagement and the social relations of pedagogy.
British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(3),
357–366. doi:10.1080/0142569022000015409
Morgan, G. (2003, May). Course management
system use in the University of Wisconsin system.
Retrieved November 16, 2008, from http://www.
wisconsin.edu/news/2003/bor_03_mar2003/
morgan-bor-presentation.pdf
Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003, Fall).
Blended learning environments: Definitions and
directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Educa-
tion, 4(3), 227–233.
Palalong, S. (2003). Using the virtual learn-
ing environment WebCT to enhance infor-
mation skills teaching at Coventry Uni-
versity. Library Review, 52(3), 103–110.
doi:10.1108/00242530310465906
Rossett, A., Douglis, F., & Frazee, R. V. (2003).
Strategies for building blended learning. Learning
Circuits. Retrieved September 7, 2008, from http://
www.essentiallearning.net/news/Strategies%20
for%20Building%20Blended%20Learning.pdf
Roval, A. P., & Jordan, H. M. (2004, August).
Blended learning and sense of community: A
comparative analysis with traditional and fully
online graduate courses. International Journal
of Research in Open and Distance Learning,
5(2). Retrieved September 7, 2008, from http://
www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewAr-
ticle/192/274
Savory, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (2001). Problem-based
learning: An instructional model and its construc-
tivist framework. CRLT Technical Report No. 16-
01. Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Retrieved
October 31, 2008, from http://64.233.179.104/
scholar?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=cache:-
9rXZtOc3RMJ:learning.north.londonmet.ac.uk/
im214/TR16-01.pdf+a+taxonomy+of+problem-
based+learning+methods
Schibik, T., Harrington, C., & Gordon, S. (2005).
The utilization of course management systems in
business schools: Some recent evidence. In 2005
Proceedings of the Midwest Business Economics
Association (pp. 163-169). Retrieved November
16, 2008, from http://business.usi.edu/mbea/2005/
files/CHarringtonMBEA%202005%20CMS%20
V1NF.doc
Singh, H. (2003, November-December). Building
effective blended learning programs. Educational
Technology, 43(6), 51–54.
Smith, A. (2005). Using integrated enterprise
systems to achieve strategic goals: A case study
of a dual mode university. International Review
of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 6(1).
Retrieved November 16, 2008, from http://www.
irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/220/868
University of Southern Queensland. (n. d.).
From the beginning. Toowoomba, Qld: Author.
Retrieved November 16, 2008, from http://www.
usq.edu.au/40years/beginning/default.htm
Vibert, A. B., & Shields, C. (2003). Approaches
to student engagement: Does ideology matter?
McGill Journal of Education, 38(2), 221.
Willans, J. A., Harreveld, R. E., & Danaher, P.
A. (2003). Enhancing higher education transi-
tions through negotiated engagements of learning
experiences: Lessons from a pre-undergraduate
preparatory program language education course.
Queensland Journal of Educational Research,
19(1), 42–50.
Zyngier, D. (2005). Advancing student engage-
ment through changed teaching practice: What
does it take to engage a student? International
Journal of Learning, 12(1), 102–113.
Zyngier, D. (2008). (Re) conceptualising student
engagement: Doing education not doing time.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1765–1776.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.09.004
43
44

Chapter 3
Instructional Leadership
and Blended Learning:
Confronting the Knowledge Gap in Practice
Martin R. Reardon
Virginia Commonwealth University, USA

ABSTRACT
Dewey’s concept of experience as an active engagement with a process of action, feedback, and reflec-
tion permeates the setting of the case reported in this chapter. The case involves an initiative to engage
a group of experienced teachers and school administrators (in the context of a doctoral level course)
with reading and reflecting on a vision of the future of education in a professional learning community
permeated by the experience of blended learning. While the blended learning was heavily weighted
towards face-to-face meetings, issues relating to the integration of technology with education became
experienced realities for the group members. These issues included pre-service teacher education, equi-
table access to online resources, and the creation of an environment in which contemporary approaches
to curriculum, teaching, and learning can flourish.

INTRODUCTION education. Blended learning retains the benefits of

Christensen, Horn, and Johnson (2008) argued per-
suasively that the traditional K-12 educational model
is on the verge of a renovation so comprehensive
that it amounts to something of a revolution. They
typified the emerging educational model as “learner
centered,” and focused on the central mediating
role of online resources in enabling the manage-
ment and delivery of learner-specific approaches to
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-880-2.ch003
face-to-face social interaction with fellow learners
while taking full advantage of the affordances of
the online environment like ubiquitous access and
virtual presence.
The exploration reported in this chapter was
motivated by a belief that instructional leadership
is an essential element in steering the implementa-
tion of blended learning in the K-12 setting. The
perspective of this chapter is that contributions to
the present and forthcoming discussions of the role
of blended learning and the evolving educational

Copyright © 2010, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Instructional Leadership and Blended Learning
model will be most credible if they emanate from
instructional leaders’lived professional experience
and expertise. The credibility of educational lead-
ers’ contributions is challenged by the contested
concept of “digital natives” (Bennett, Maton, &
Kervin, 2007; Prensky, 2001a; Prensky, 2001b),
in that many of those currently in instructional
leadership positions are less comfortable with
technology than the younger teachers and, par-
ticularly, the students. This generational difference
gives rise to an imbalanced pedagogical situation
and can result in the type of discordance between
words and actions so pungently summed up as “the
multi-prong problem” on a recent blog post:
I have found it increasingly annoying to hear from
on high that we need to integrate more technology
in our classroom…. (We have to) still (use) old
standbys because we don’t have the time to use
and troubleshoot our way through technology. (We
have to make) worksheets by copying and pasting
by hand. (We have to build) test questions from
book programs that only work on PCs or OS 9
on (sic) macs. (We want) to use videos from the
Internet only to find they are blocked. (We want
to) post information to a Web site or build (our)
own Web sites (only) to find that FTP is blocked,
or that online-services are clunky, restrictive, and
cumbersome. (Arizpe, 2008)
The larger question of the integration of digital
technology and education illustrated by Arizpe
(2008) is not limited to just the United States. Dis-
tilling educationally related questions with respect
to information and communication technology
(ICT) across the broad sweep of Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) countries, the Center for Educational
Research and Innovation (CERI, 2008) asked
“how far does, and should, (ICT’s) potential to
personalize learning get exploited, whether in
schools or in other places where learning can take
place?” (p. 57).
The CERI (2008) question invokes one of the
crucial advantages of the revolution foreseen by
Christensen et al. (2008): learner-centered educa-
tion. The Christensen et al. perspective is supported
by a range of findings. For example, Howell,
West, and Peterson (2008) declared that “one of
the latest education innovations to go mainstream
(was) online education” (Howell et al., 2008, ¶
1). To support their claim, they cited figures from
the North American Council for Online Learning
(NACOL) that suggested that enrollment in online
courses totaled 45,000 in 2000—a figure which
had grown to 1 million by 2007. Of these online
courses, according to Howell et al., 70 percent
were pitched at the high school level.
Along similar lines, Zandberg, Lewis, and
Greene (2008) found nearly a 60 percent rise
from 2002 to 2005 in the number of students
enrolled in technology-based distance educa-
tion programs in the U.S., with the total number
of students growing from 317,070 to 506,950.
Although the “technology-based” label includes
prerecorded video, and interactive voice technolo-
gies (among others), Zandberg et al. found that
“among districts with technology-based distance
education, 41 percent reported (using) two-way
interactive video and 40 percent reported (deliv-
ering) Internet courses employing asynchronous
computer-based instruction” (p. 44). Commenting
on likely future trends, Zandberg et al. (2008)
cited the United States Department of Education
Office of Educational Technology in noting that
“online (Internet-based) technology is considered
by some policymakers to be the cornerstone of the
educational landscape of the future” (p. 3). In this
regard, Singleton-Rickman (2008) reported, that
“Alabama’s high school students, beginning next
year, will be required to pass a distance learning
class in order to obtain their high school diplomas”
(¶ 4) and that, “across the 16 states that make up
the Southern Regional Education Board, there are
about 200,000 students taking online courses” (¶
13), including 77,000 students in Florida.
45

This chapter presents and discusses an initiative
to engage a group of potential educational leaders
in a blended learning environment in the context
of a course in a doctoral program. The adult-
learning setting and the 21st century curriculum
emphasis together constitute a fresh perspective
on instructional leadership and blended learning.
The graduates of the focus course will be eligible
for high-level school district leadership upon
graduation, and, consequently, will be the ones
most empowered to make strategic decisions in
terms of resource acquisition and allocation in the
near future. The purpose of this initiative was to
encourage the participants to enrich their perspec-
tive on the role of blended learning in the K-12
setting by their engagement with a blended learn-
ing environment in this doctoral-level course.
Policy Implications
Educational policymakers appear to be on secure
ground in their support for digital technology. For
example, to directly support their “mainstream”
claim from their own survey, Howell et al. stated
that “fully 69 percent of the public, and a solid
majority of every subgroup, say that they ‘would
be willing to have a child (of theirs) go through
high school taking some academic courses over
the Internet” (Howell et al., 2008, ¶ 3).
Shapira (2008) reported that “online school-
ing…is becoming more popular among students
and educators as a way to break from the traditional
classroom setting” (¶ 1). Shapira’s attribution of
“break from the traditional classroom setting” mo-
tivation to students and educators is not supported
by the findings of Picciano and Seaman (2007)
in their survey of school district administrators.
They found that the reasons for implementing
online learning in districts were highly pragmatic.
In order of importance, the reasons were: (a)
offering courses not otherwise available at the
school, (b) meeting the needs of specific groups
46
Instructional Leadership and Blended Learning
of students, (c) offering Advanced Placement or
college-level courses, (d) reducing scheduling
conflicts for students, and (e) permitting students
to retake courses they failed (p. 9).
Disrupting Class
Each of the five reasons listed by Picciano and
Seaman (2007) conform with the theoretical
position propounded by Christensen, Horn, and
Johnson (2008) regarding the ways in which
online learning can provide educational services
for those who have no option (as opposed to try-
ing to supplant existing face-to-face teaching).
Christensen et al. argued strongly in favor of
student-centered education—implemented online
in some appropriately supportive framework—as
the way of the future.
Song (2008) detailed a real-world scenario in
which pragmatism could well motivate a move
to a form of online learning when he described
the issues surrounding college prep program of-
ferings in Los Angeles Unified School District
(LAUSD)—the second-largest school district in
the US. In 2005, the LAUSD Board of Education
moved to ensure that all students would have
access to college prep classes by 2006, “and to
require (such classes) by 2012” (¶ 2). The human
resource implications of this decision are daunting,
but the situation could be alleviated by invoking
the concept of blended learning (Picciano & Sea-
man, 2007). Concept presentations and appropriate
learning resources could be made available on-line
for students. In the absence of a fully qualified
teacher, students could engage with these materials
under the guidance of an in-house tutor, allowing
highly qualified teachers to be used in a visiting
capacity. While this situation is not ideal, to return
to the Christensen et al. (2008) perspective, it is
better than its alternative (which is access to few
or no college prep courses).
Instructional Leadership and Blended Learning
Blended Learning Merges
Old and New
Picciano and Seaman (2007) defined a blended/
hybrid course as a course that blends online
and face-to-face delivery “where a substantial
proportion (30 to 79 percent) of the content is
delivered online” (p. 7). In this context, blended
learning employed in a classroom environment
is conceptualized as a way of merging the best
of the old- and new-era pedagogies. Ideally, the
burden of content delivery is shared by a variety of
online resources, largely leaving to the face-to-face
modality the creation of the social environment
in which learning occurs (although the effective-
ness of the virtual social environment should not
be underestimated—as discussed later in this
paper). The elegance of the blending of the old
and the new largely determines the effectiveness
of blended learning.
The observed percentage growth figures cited
in the introduction to this chapter accord with the
expectations of Christensen et al. (2008) for the
emergence of online learning from its current
“beach head,” but the 1 million students involved
in 2007 is small compared to the projected 15
million students in 2007 in the upper grades
alone predicted by the United States Department
of Education Institute of Education Sciences Na-
tional Center for Educational Statistics (NCES,
2008). It appears to be inevitable that there will be
many students who will not be engaged in “online
learning” during their school career. However,
the conceptually intermediate step between “not
online” and “online” provided by “blended”
learning relies on the wide array of educational
resources available online, while re-defining the
role of the teacher as “fellow knowledge worker”
rather than “omniscient guide.”
Case Theme: Confronting the
Knowledge Gap in Practice
Clearly, leadership at both the school district
and school building levels is crucial for ensur-
ing the creation of effective blended learning
experiences for students. In this regard, many
instructional leaders are not well versed in current
online learning technologies which (in some cases)
were not invented when they were encouraged to
develop lesson plans of their own. The image of
the knowledge gap being invoked in this case is
borrowed from the work of Tichenor, Donohue,
and Olien (1970) who proposed: that “as the
infusion of mass media information into a social
system increases, segments of the population with
higher socioeconomic status tend to acquire this
information at a faster rate than the lower status
segments, so that the gap in knowledge between
these segments tends to increase rather than de-
crease” (pp. 159-160).
Applying the knowledge gap concept in this
context, many instructional leaders are envisaged
as low in “technological SES,” whereas their
students are high in “technological SES.” (In
support of this typology, see, for example, the
undergraduate survey of Salaway, Caruso, and
Nelson, 2008.) To continue the analogy in the
tradition of Tichenor et al. (1970), the infusion
of educational technology into a social system
comprising both technological “haves” and “have-
nots” is likely to increase the gap in technological
knowledge between the two groups—the students
will take-up the new technology faster than the
instructional leaders.
The purpose of this chapter is to describe a
semester-long, multi-session learning experience
(incorporating blended learning) intended to de-
crease the knowledge gap of a group of instruc-
tional leaders. Participants explored the potential
47

of online learning in the process of engaging in
a learning community to create blended learning
experiences in their fields of expertise. Gagné’s
(1965) six varieties of performance associated
with learning (specific responding, chaining,
multiple discrimination, classifying, rule using,
and problem solving) were used as benchmarks
against which to measure the learning that occurred
among participants, with participants collaborat-
ing amongst themselves in a learning community
environment.
In particular, participants considered a set of
teaching models from a well-respected text com-
monly found in undergraduate teaching courses
(Joyce & Weil, 2004), and how these could be re-
conceptualized in a blended learning environment.
From this common experience, participants set out
to create their own blended learning “units” as sig-
nificant learning experiences that would enhance
teaching and learning in the 21st century.
BACKGROUND
The university in which this exploration of
blended learning is set is a large, public, urban
university in an east coast U.S. capital city. It was
established in the middle of the 20th century, when
two pre-existing, thriving “down-town” public
universities—one focused on medicine and the
health sciences, and the other focused more on
the arts—were merged. This university is rated as
exhibiting “high research activity” under the Basic
Classification Description (The Carnegie Founda-
tion for the Advancement of Teaching, 2007), but
the expectation that faculty will approach teach-
ing from a learner-centered perspective is made
very clear in university documentation, as well
as being exemplified in the creation of learner-
centered administrative structures—especially at
the undergraduate level.
The School of Education at this university
houses six departments with a total of over 100
faculty members. The graduate Educational
48
Instructional Leadership and Blended Learning
Leadership Department is one of the six School
of Education departments, and it caters for several
hundred masters-level participants (enrolled in
administrative endorsement programs), and over a
hundred doctoral-level participants in both Ed.D.
and Ph.D. tracks. The vast majority of courses are
delivered off-site at conveniently located school
district facilities. Most of the participants are in
cohort groups—which are usually at least partially
supported by the participants’ school districts—
although non-cohort participants are welcome.
Class groupings often consist of mixed cohort
and non-cohort participants.
SETTING THE STAGE
Digital technologies are heavily supported in the
School of Education—as they are in this university
as a whole. The School of Education supports its
own technology department, which houses faculty
members who not only provide courses in educa-
tional technology, but also ensure that School of
Education technology resources are maintained,
assisted by a cadre of tech-savvy undergraduate
students—most of whom are taking educational
technology courses.
At the university-wide level, the Center for
Excellence in Teaching (CET) actively supports
the integration of technology and teaching. In
addition to conducting many workshops on the
integration of technology and teaching, CET acts
as a sounding-board for faculty who wish to “push
the envelope” and explore ways of teaching that
take advantage of “the proliferation of intercon-
nectivity and interactivity of Web-delivered
content” (Web 2.0, 2008). As a minimum, the
university expects that faculty will utilize the
course-management aspects of Blackboard, but
many faculty members go well beyond that mini-
mum expectation and integrate a range of digital
technologies with the learning experiences they
orchestrate for their students. The confluence of
reliable and knowledgeable support for technology
Instructional Leadership and Blended Learning
and a high level of faculty motivation to engage
in cutting-edge research related to teaching and
learning constitutes the environment in which
this case plays out.
CASE DESCRIPTION
This case focuses on the initiative taken by a pro-
fessor in the Educational Leadership Department
in the School of Education at this university to
explore the concept of blended instruction in his
own course delivery of a doctoral-level course
designed to engage participants in examining
the instructional leadership ramifications of the
effective integration of digital technology and
learning. The participants in this particular course
are typically seeking endorsement at the school
district superintendent-level, making the focus
of this course particularly salient to instructional
leadership in the 21st century.
This course is focused on three key tasks of
instructional leadership: curriculum development,
group development, and professional development
(Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 2007). In
particular, in this course participants engage with
issues arising from (a) the creation and imple-
mentation of curriculum in the 21st century (b)
in an academic environment which challenges
them to earnestly pursue their own professional
development vis-à-vis digital technologies (c)
immersed in a group-supportive environment
which encourages risk-taking.
Technology Concerns
The main technological concerns relating to this
blended learning endeavor concerned the twin
problems of the expertise of the participants (the
“knowledge gap”) and reliable broadband Internet
access. The blended learning concept envisages
online learning experiences and face-to-face meet-
ings which complement each other.
The expertise of the participants. It is not
unusual to find a large range of comfort with
technology in an “adult” group of learners—even
in a group of highly capable academics. The pro-
fessor’s concern was that participants who were
challenged by particular instructional technologies
would be disinclined to persevere with them long
enough to realize the benefits those technolo-
gies promised. However, while this is clearly an
element to be taken into account, educational
technology is one area in which the adage “action
precedes learning” is borne out. In the first class
meeting, participants were encouraged to seek
support from each other, from the university’s
technical help desk, and from the professor. While
the unevenness of technological expertise was a
factor, it did not detract from the overall blended
learning experience—rather the opposite.
As an aside, the ease of interaction focused on
making things work that the participants developed
amongst themselves was strikingly evidenced
late in the course. On one scheduled face-to-face
meeting evening, an unexpected clash at the school
district level resulted in half the participants being
unable to attend. The remaining participants opted
to meet with the professor in a classroom at the
university. The previous meeting in the appointed
room ran late, so the professor and the group sat in
an adjacent classroom to wait. The participants—
who could all login to the university’s wireless
network—began to share in small groups while
they were waiting, with individuals moving freely
from one small group to another depending on the
software being used. The professor was reluctant
to interrupt this spontaneous social constructivist
occurrence when the designated room became
available.
Reliable broadband Internet access. Since the
face-to-face meetings were scheduled to occur
at a conveniently located middle school where
participants would be introduced to many of the
online resources, Internet access at that site was
essential. The middle school in question was
known to be wireless-enabled, but it was not clear
49

whether the participants from other buildings in
that school district would be able to use their own
logins at this designated site.
Even more problematic, the professor and four
non-cohort course participants needed Internet
access as well. Starting three months before the
course was scheduled to commence, repeated
phone calls and emails to individuals and to the
technology help desk of the relevant school district
asking for clarification regarding Internet access,
and, if necessary, guest logins were unproductive.
As the first meeting for the course approached
with no clear response in sight, the computer room
next door to the designated meeting room at the
host middle school was booked. The professor,
resigned to demonstrating the online experience by
simulation in the designated meeting room (with
participants trying the software out for themselves
in the computer lab next door), printed the screens
of Web sites relevant to the first class meeting to
Microsoft Windows Journal on his Tablet PC.
Fortunately, the professor decided on the spur
of the moment to take a 50-foot roll of CAT-5
cable that had been used in an earlier project to
the designated meeting room to try to “jury-rig”
a solution that would enable him to demonstrate
the online software live. The cable easily reached
a spare “drop” in the student computer lab next
door. The professor was preparing to use the ge-
neric student login and ID (provided by a helpful
secretary) when the Internet connection simply
went live. So, the first major learning for the
professor was that all the login protection in this
school resided in the computers themselves. The
course participants coped adequately with sharing
the one “presentation” computer during the class
meetings, and the computer lab went unused in the
time that was optionally available for access.
Technology Components
The main “hardware” component that participants
needed to procure was a set of audio-active head-
phones to facilitate their participation in Wimba
50
Instructional Leadership and Blended Learning
(http://www.wimba.com/products/ wimba_
classroom/) sessions. Wimba is the software en-
gine that drives the Live Classroom functionality
in Blackboard (http://www.blackboard.com/).
Blackboard is a learning management tool used by
many colleges, as it is at the college in this case.
Three “official” class meetings were conducted
on Wimba, but, after the first whole class meet-
ing, participants were encouraged to use Wimba
to meet with their research partners at their own
discretion to facilitate collaboration on the research
project that each partnership devised.
Participants were encouraged to buy an audio-
active headphone set that did not incorporate
a mute button. This advice was based on the
experience of a professor in the CET who had
found that participants in some of his Wimba
sessions accidentally bumped “mute” and became
frustrated when no-one could hear them. In this
case, the only “can you hear me?” glitch arose
when the professor did not emphasize sufficiently
strongly that participants should “click and hold”
on the “talk” button when they wanted to speak
(The script of the first Wimba session is included
in the Appendix A).
In addition to Blackboard, a wide range of
well-known downloaded software (e.g., Camta-
sia [http://www.techsmith.com/camtasia.asp],
Microsoft Word, Microsoft PowerPoint, Audac-
ity [http://audacity.sourceforge.net/]), online
software (e.g., ToonDoo [http://www.toondoo.
com/], Animoto [http://animoto.com/], Wordle
[http://wordle.com/], Twitter [http://twitter.com/],
Google Docs [accessible from http://www.google.
com/], Zoho [http://www.zoho.com/]), virtual re-
ality sites such as Second Life [http://secondlife.
com/whatis/], other sites such as Flickr [http://
www.flickr.com/] and Delicious [http://delicious.
com/], special purpose Web sites such as Statistics
Online Computational Resource [http://www.socr.
ucla.edu/], and MathScience Innovation Center
[http://msinnovation.info/index.html], and the
professor’s own course Web sites were utilized
to varying degrees by participants.
Instructional Leadership and Blended Learning
Pedagogical philosophy. It is important to
note that the philosophy of this course envisages
participants sampling from a “smorgasbord” of
options. Participants were not expected to delve
in equal depth into every learning opportunity
that was orchestrated. Participants’ were continu-
ally directed to the course assessment items as
the criteria of learning. These assessment items
encouraged participants to construct their own
meaning around the concept of blended instruction,
and create blended curriculum units that accorded
with their emergent concept, even while they were
experiencing the professor’s approach to blended
instruction. The philosophy in this course sits
well with Dewey’s (2004) concept of the active
sense of learning through experience. According
to Dewey, “when we experience something we act
upon it, we do something with it; then we suffer
or undergo the consequences” (p. 133).
THE PROJECT
The project involved utilizing digital technology
to re-cast into a blended learning experience an
existing doctoral-level course on the creation
and evaluation of K-12 (elementary through high
school) curriculum for the 21st century. This proj-
ect challenged the fifteen participants to produce
their own interpretation of a blended learning unit
of instruction.
In the first class meeting, participants were
encouraged to share their thoughts about the major
issues currently facing K-12 education. The issues
emerging from this discussion grouped naturally
under the “fundable research” headings of two
major national grants agency, lending credibility
to the participants’ suggestions. Further discussion
led to the cogency of the generic position adopted
by Christensen et al. (2008): learner-centered in-
struction that leverages the power of the Internet
and emerging Web 2.0 tools has the potential for
“disrupting” business-as-usual in education. This
course was situated as an opportunity for partici-
pants to take both an active and passive role in
exploring blended learning as an intermediate step
between business-as-usual and the cutting-edge
vision of Christensen et al.
The legacy course structure envisaged eleven
face-to-face, four-hour class meetings. The blend-
ed learning experience envisaged seven face-to-
face, four-hour class meetings, and two three-hour
face-to-face class meetings (see below for details
concerning the three-hour meetings). The two
three-hour face-to-face class meetings were held
subsequent to the introductory Wimba sessions
(held on the preceding afternoon), providing for
quick debriefing and problem-solving.
For the remaining two scheduled meetings,
one (the legacy sixth meeting) coincided with an
unanticipated school district requirement (men-
tioned above) that about half of the participants
had to be available at their respective schools that
evening. This meeting was cast as an optional
on-campus meeting in which Camtasia would
be used to generate podcasts of the participants’
discussions, with the added option of students who
remained off-campus participating real-time via
Wimba. The podcasts were uploaded to the course
Web site for later access by all participants.
For the legacy eighth meeting, participants
were expected to collaborate with their research
partners. They were urged to collaborate on-
line, since by then they were very familiar with
Wimba.
Although participants were encouraged to be-
come stakeholders in guiding their own learning
throughout the course by selecting from a wide
range of online learning components, there were
some compulsory components with which all were
expected to engage. The three compulsory online
components of this project were: (a) participation
in two, one-hour Wimba “training” meetings
online, (b) accessing the analysis of the course
text (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2008) from
the course Web site, and (c) engaging in online
dialog concerning the course text in the course
blog, establishing and using their own personal
51

reflective blogs, and contributing to specified
colleagues’ blogs.
Participation in Wimba Meetings
In the initial class meeting, participants were
instructed to procure a set of audio-active head-
phones to enable them to participate in a Wimba
session scheduled for the afternoon prior to the
third class meeting. Scheduling this first Wimba
session for the afternoon prior to a class meeting
ensured as quick a face-to-face debriefing as pos-
sible, thereby preventing too much accumulation
of frustration in the event of “glitches.” This first
Wimba session was scripted (see Appendix A)
to walk participants through some of the Wimba
functionality in a non-threatening way. In the
one-hour session which followed two weeks later,
participants were invited to view a pertinent online
video from within the Wimba environment, which
proved to be an interesting exercise that exposed
the deficiencies of the participants’ mental models
of how Wimba worked.
Following the initial one-hour Wimba meet-
ing, the participants’ research collaborative pair-
ings were given their own meeting rooms (with
“presenter rights” for all), and encouraged to use
this medium for collaboration. This two-pronged
approach (combining compulsory short sessions
for all with optional access to facilitate collab-
orative discussions) contributed to making the
Wimba experience an educational one for about
half the participants. The remaining participants
battled with Internet bandwidth issues and/or their
unease with the concept of a virtual classroom,
and found Wimba frustrating to use.
Overall, the Wimba experience in the context
of this project was disappointing, since a trial
project in the previous semester had resulted in
all except two of a similarly sized group of par-
ticipants operating with confidence in the Wimba
environment and expressing enthusiasm for the
concept. An intervening update to the Wimba
engine within Blackboard may have impacted
52
Instructional Leadership and Blended Learning
on the issues that this group experienced. Differ-
ing levels of comfort with the virtual classroom
concept may also have accounted for some of
the difference between the trial group and this
group—at least one of the earlier trial groups was
a “power user” of an alternative virtual classroom
tool, and forthrightly endorsed the technology to
her colleagues.
Increasing Engagement
with the Course Text
One of the points made strongly by Christensen et
al. (2008) concerned the over-reliance of business-
as-usual education on text-based materials, and
how this reliance mitigates against learners with
learning styles less amenable to text-based mate-
rial. In response to this critique, this author decided
to create a Web site on which each chapter of
Christensen et al. would be précised and integrated
with visually compelling graphics.
Further, instead of conducting more conven-
tional discussions in the face-to-face meetings,
participants were encouraged to respond to the
many questions incorporated into the text précis
on a course blog, and/or on their own personal
reflective blog. A deep level of engagement with
the course text outside of the face-to-face meetings
was evidenced in the way that many participants
referred to ideas in the text as touchstones of good
practice or counter-examples of points they were
making, rather than as ideas they were encounter-
ing for the first time.
Online Dialog
Throughout this course, participants were encour-
aged to perceive of themselves as growing into the
role of public intellectuals. In this regard, blogs
are integral to this course in that they empower a
market-place of ideas. Participants’ initial expe-
riences with blogs were very diverse—ranging
from the majority who had not established a blog,
through those who had established one but had
Instructional Leadership and Blended Learning
not really used it, through to some participants
who were very much at ease with this medium
(including one participant who maintained a well-
patronized, professional blog).
In addition to participating on the course blog,
participants were encouraged not only to establish
and use their own blog, but also to contribute to the
dialog on specified colleagues’ blogs. To facilitate
this, each participant sought the collaboration of
at least two others to respond to their blogs. In
this way, every participant was assured of at least
two different perspectives on the five blog entries
they were required to write throughout the course.
Participants were free to choose their own topics
for their blogs, or, alternatively, write in response
to any of the questions and issues raised concern-
ing the course text on the course Web site.
“UNIT” DEVELOPMENT
The unreservedly active part of this course required
participants to develop a blended “unit” of instruc-
tion of their own in their field of expertise, based
on their experience as learners in this blended
course. The extent of the “unit” was deliberately
left open. Two “deliverables” were required: (a) a
scope and sequence storyboard, and (b) a unit of
instruction incorporating the participant’s concept
of blended learning.
Scope and Sequence Storyboard
Again in deference to the Christensen et al. (2008)
critique of text-intensive documents, participants
were required to convey the scope and sequence
of their blended unit of instruction in a storyboard.
Participants were introduced to the concept of a
storyboard using the actual storyboard developed
by the New York-based advertising agency in the
process of creating a television advertisement for
well-known firm that produces condiments. (This
author wishes to express thanks to the advertising
agency executive for providing this resource. As
an added bonus, the actual television advertise-
ment was airing on some local channels during
this course.)
The professor’s intention was that participants
would produce their storyboard using the table
functionality of Microsoft Word, but one of the
participants (a “technology integrator” in a local
school district) suggested the use of ToonDoo to
produce the storyboard. This free, online software
was used by all except two of the participants
to produce storyboards that conveyed the scope
and sequence of their units in a visual-intensive
format.
Figure 1, developed by the author of this
chapter, shows the first page of a ToonBook (made
up of three ToonDoo cartoons linked together by
that software into a three-panel page). This page
sets out the beginning of a scope and sequence
description of a unit that envisages a set of stu-
dents (the “dreamers”) reading the book Barkbelly
(Weatherill, 2005) with a mentor, and then writing
their reflections on a blog.
Another participant discussed the potential
for using the free online software available from
Animoto for this same task. Animoto produces
short videos (the free versions are 30 seconds long)
which can also incorporate small amounts of text.
(See the online resources in Appendix A.)
ToonDoo and Animoto are examples of online
software that teachers could well integrate into
their teaching repertoire. In this instance, this
software enabled course participants to produce
scope and sequence documents that were relatively
free of text, but their potential use by K-12 students
in responding to higher-order prompts is clear.
For example, one of the participants introduced
ToonDoo to her Grade 5 class and was thrilled
when one of her students spontaneously used it
overnight to document the opening chapters of
what she knew of the story of her adoption. As a
further example, many of the participants found
themselves initially “talking” to the students who
would be potentially involved in learning from
their unit in their scope and sequence products,
53

Figure 1. The Opening Page of a ‘ToonBook’ Scope and Sequence Description
not the instructors (the latter being the traditional
audience for scope and sequence documents). An
unintended consequence of using a “text-light”
scope and sequence product was a discussion of
the subtleties of “voice.”
Unit of Instruction Incorporating
Blended Learning
Many participants produced exemplary units
which effectively integrated digital technology
and learning. Table 1, produced by Wendi Moss
who was a participant in the course, shows one
such unit, designed for “exceptional education”
Grade 9 English students. The unit aims to engage
students in a 21st century technology environment
by utilizing Wordle, Twitter, and Animoto.
Outcomes and Feedback
Throughout this project, participants engaged in
educationally profitable ways with 21st century
digital technology, and transferred their learning
to the units that they, in turn, constructed in their
individual fields of expertise. In this process, there
were numerous instances of participants’ learning,
as indicated by Gagné’s (1965) six performances
associated with learning, with the emphasis on the
54
Instructional Leadership and Blended Learning
higher-order performances. For example, there
were few occasions on which specific respond-
ing was required, but much problem solving. One
participant commented “I initially wanted to use
only a CD (for presenting the unit), but, during
our class discussions I realized I missed the point.
This realization led me into a new direction with
the integration of the Internet Web sites for a
wonderful unit to teach general and exceptional
education students.” This response attests to the
type of conceptual re-alignment which the profes-
sor hoped to engender through this project.
A couple of participants commented spontane-
ously on their encounter with the knowledge gap
in practice. One referred to successful implementa-
tion in a classroom where students are more tech-
nologically adept as requiring a “cultural shift…on
the part of the teacher—overcoming fear.” Another
participant also spoke of the role that fear plays
in hindering the “embrace” of technology. This
participant went on to extend the reach of fear
beyond the knowledge gap by referring to fear as a
significant element that constrains “turning control
(of their learning) over to the students.” Another
participant referred to the parents’ knowledge gap
in pointing out that “this learning experience will
also be very new for parents…because of their
previous school days.”
Instructional Leadership and Blended Learning

Table 1. A sample blended unit of instruction (Used with permission from W. Moss)

Objectives: The student will…

• Make planned oral presentations by using relevant detail to support main ideas.
• Explain the relationships between and among elements of literature: characters, plot, setting, tone, point of view, and theme.
• Describe the use of images and sounds to elicit the reader’s emotions.
• Explain the influence of historical context on the form, style, and point of view of a written work.
• Identify a position/argument to be confirmed, disproved, or modified.
Activities:
• Each student will write a short opinion of the book, The Watsons Go to Birmingham-1963 (Curtis, C. P. [2004], Thorndike Press). Stu-
dents will include a list of at least 30 words that stand out to them in the novel. These words can be taken from the novel or can be words
the student feels is appropriate in describing the novel.
• Students will type their chosen words and opinions into <www.wordle.net> and create a graphic depiction of their words.
• Students will, with a partner, pick a favorite scene from the novel and a character in that scene. They will log on to <www.twitter.com>
and write a tweet from their chosen character’s point of view. Once they are finished with their tweet, they will read two other tweets and
try to guess the scene about which others tweeted.
• Students will search the internet for various images of segregation, Civil Rights movement, Flint, MI, Birmingham, AL, Sixteenth
Street Baptist Church, etc. Once students have compiled their images, they will use them to create a music video on <www.animoto.
com>.
• Students will present their Wordle creations as well as their music videos to the class. Students must be prepared to defend their cre-
ations.

Students found the Wimba experience both
exciting and frustrating—sometimes for the
same participant. For example, one participant
commented that “I found the Wimba sessions to
be the most valuable (of the course).” However,
the same participant went on to describe as “frus-
trating” the participant’s research partnership’s
attempts to collaborate online, commenting that
“after an hour of trying and emailing back and
forth, we had to give up.” Another participant
commented that “I like the concept of Wimba.
I didn’t like the technical difficulties.” Another
participant provided an assessment that “I can see
how (Wimba) could be extremely effective when
functioning at peak and (this is) certainly an area
worth investigation for future use.”
Participants found blogs to be of mixed value.
One participant offered a theoretical perspec-
tive that “teacher blogging is a very valuable
endeavor because (blogs) provide a medium for
reflection and community building with stake-
holders in all areas of education, including the
media and policymakers.” At the practical level,
the response was that “I was excited during the
creation of my personal blog, but disappointed
about the usage.”
One participant was really enthused about
the potential of podcasting, and appreciated the
power of Camtasia. This participant commented:
“I would love to use (Camtasia) in my classroom
as a way to (record) PowerPoints and presentations
(for) absent students.”
A range of insightful comments were submit-
ted in response to the prompt regarding blended
learning as an instructional medium. Using the
concept of disruption in the sense employed by
Christensen et al. (2008), one participant high-
lighted the existence of the knowledge gap directly
as an issue to be addressed: “This (experience)
has been disruptive, in (the) sense of moving from
a monolithic, structured perspective to a flexible
‘let’s try it’ perspective. The disruption came in
the form of being overwhelmed and concerned
that the technological advances have not been
distributed equally throughout the school (dis-
tricts).” While local preferences with regard to
the prominence given to technological advances
would be expected, the above comment clearly
focuses in on the crux of the knowledge gap.
This resource availability issue was also evi-
denced in a number of other comments including
this: “I think part of the issue is the availability

55

within my school (district)” of Wimba (the virtual
classroom tool) and other online resources—a
number of which were “blocked” by particular
school district Internet use policies. The avail-
ability issue was also evident in a comment that
reflects the blog entry quoted in the introduction to
this paper: “Sometimes I feel like in my job I am
not given the time to explore the new technologies
so that we can use them in our current settings.”
This comment raises a negative outcome of this
particular session in that there was a sense among
the participants: “I have learned many useful and
innovative tools that I am excited to work with
in my classroom.” While this is a welcome com-
ment, it focuses on the practical application of the
technology rather that exhibiting the enthusiasm
for developing a research agenda that would be
more appropriate to participants in a doctoral
level course. However, given the makeup of the
group, this tendency to focus on the practical is
not unexpected, but it is something that needs to
be taken into account by the professor.
Overall, while a couple of participants referred
to themselves as initially “overwhelmed,” there
was a strong consensus that blended learning is
destined to play a role in the future of educa-
tion. One participant nicely captured this line of
thought in commenting, that “the methods used
for instruction will need to find ways to compete
with current technological innovations that vie for
attention through bold advances in graphics and
audio.” The lone, self-described pessimist among
the participants commented that “although I see
the value, the constraints of time, money, and
utilization have been a barrier for many quality
ideas, theories and practices.”
In response to the “big picture” question about
the future of blended learning as a concept, one
participant chose the “path of inevitability” ap-
proach.
I think that many educators have no choice but
to turn to blended learning in order to reach this
new generation of learners. Many of them are
56
Instructional Leadership and Blended Learning
so engrossed with video games and online chat
rooms, that it makes sense to incorporate this into
their curriculum. We talked tonight about cultural
relevance. If these students think that computers
and technology are the norm, why not use them
as teaching tools.
A more nuanced “bottom line” comment also
emerged from the specifically human concerns
in education, suggesting that “the main power
of blended learning (is) in its power to connect
people across divides and in its social capacities,
not in its ability to create learning....(because)
programs will never be as nimble as real people
trying to communicate in person.”
Finally, two enthusiastically supportive com-
ments will serve to nicely round out this feedback
section. The first again picks up on the role played
by effective instructional leadership in provid-
ing an environment in which the integration of
technology and education can flourish—from
equitable access, through provision of adequate
pre-service education, to the provision of time
and resources.
Blended learning will continue to evolve as new
technology is invented, existing technology is
improved upon and perfected, and technology is
made accessible for everyone. Because of this, it
is imperative that colleges and universities evolve
their teacher preparation programs to keep up
with the emerging technology. The technology is
often not used because teachers do not have time
or do not have the resources to learn on the job.
The second enthusiastic comment is more
in the visionary realm, but foresees the tension
inevitable as parents who expect schools to look
like it did when they attended wrestle with the
implications of blended learning for the way
schools are organized.
The future blended unit will be completely student
directed. The classroom teacher will serve as
Instructional Leadership and Blended Learning
a facilitator for students. Initially, the younger
students will require more support, but eventu-
ally they will become very independent. This
learning experience will also be very new for
parents to understand because of their previous
school days.
Even though this project on blended learning
was not devised as a test case, it bears strongly
on the current challenge which the Educational
Leadership Department (of which the professor
is a member) has given itself.
CURRENT CHALLENGES
The Department of Education for the state in
which the professor’s university is situated has
recently released a set of performance standards
for educational leaders. The impetus behind the
development of these standards was a desire to
make it clear that the successful completion of a
certain number of hours of coursework was not
necessarily a strong indicator of the potential of
an aspiring educational leader. The Educational
Leadership Department of which the professor is a
member has recently set itself the task of endorsing
the spirit of the state’s new performance standards
by essentially setting out to “disrupt” (Christensen
et al., 2008) its own traditional post-masters-level
leadership endorsement program that is based on
a set number of courses, each with a set number
of hours. The new program the Department is
envisaging will be learner-centered. This implies
that, at the outset, the level of proficiency of each
future participant on each of the standards will be
assessed, with the participant then being directed
to tailored instructional units. Further, the intention
is to deliver this tailored instruction in a blended
learning modality that fully leverages online, 21st
century learning tools.
In addition to the technological complexity of
creating such a program, there are other challenges.
For example, at the state Department of Education
level, there appears to be some shifting of ground
from the original intention of those who advocated
a performance-based approach (but who have since
moved out of the roles they once held). There is
clearly more political security in stipulating a set
number of hours in a set number of courses than in
supporting a truly performance-based approach. In
this sense, adopting a performance-based approach
would truly disrupt business as usual.
A procedural challenge arises from the conun-
drum that, according to Christensen et al. (2008),
to be successful, a disruptive innovation should not
attempt to usurp the established order. According
to Christensen et al., the niche most conducive to
the endurance of a disruptive innovation involves
providing something for those who otherwise
have nothing. The niche for such an online
blended leadership endorsement program would
involve potential leaders in school districts that
are geographically remote from the Department’s
established centers. The advantage of this niche
from the disruptive innovation perspective is a
disadvantage for those developing the program in
that the very remoteness of the participants exac-
erbates the ill-effects of the missteps that are not
unexpected in the development of a new program.
Thus, for more effective program development,
the participants should be in the local area—within
the range of the established centers.
The professor’s department is certainly not
the first university department to develop online
course offerings. The pool of instructional leader-
ship offerings based on performance rather than
course-work completion is more restricted. As
the professor’s department develops its online
presence in this direction, the experience gained
from the project on blended learning described
here provides valuable insights. As one of the
project participants commented, the blended learn-
ing project was an approach to “understanding
leadership from a learning perspective.”
57

CONCLUSION
The concept of blended learning represents an
intermediate step between business as usual in
education (an approach which seems destined
to exacerbate the knowledge gap), and the “far
horizon” perspective espoused by Christensen
et al. (2008). In a world in which the impact of
digital technology is profound, educational lead-
ers wrestle with a number of intractable issues.
It is imperative that those who will be making
the decisions that will bear on the design and
implementation of curriculum in school districts
have the experience and confidence to advance a
realistic agenda for education in the 21st century.
A strong contribution to future leaders’ accruing
of appropriate credibility involves their engage-
ment as learners with appropriate settings that
will afford them with the opportunity to cycle
through a sequence of action, feedback, and re-
flection. In this context, the setting incorporated
blended learning in the supportive environment of
a professional learning community. The outcome
of this initiative was encouraging.
REFERENCES
Arizpe, A. (2008). Teacher’s productivity
hampered by technology: No love. Retrieved
January 14, 2009, from http://www.43folders.
com/forum/2008/01/27/teachers-productivity-
hampered-technology-no-love
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2007).
The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review
of the evidence. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 39(5), 775–786. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2007.00793.x
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching. The. (2007). Basic classification de-
scription. Retrieved November 11, 2008, from
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifica-
tions/index.asp?key=791
58
Instructional Leadership and Blended Learning
Centre for Educational Research and Innovation
(CERI). (2008). Trends shaping education: 2008
edition. OECD Publishing. Retrieved January
14, 2009, from http://213.253.134.43/oecd/pdfs/
browseit/9608081E.PDF
Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C.
W. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive in-
novation will change the way the world learns.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Curtis, C. P. (2004). The Watsons go to Birming-
ham-1963. Waterville, ME: Thorndike Press.
Dewey, J. (2004). Democracy and education.
Mineola, NY: Dover. (Original work published
1916)
Gagné, R. (1965). The conditions of learning.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon,
J. M. (2007). Supervision and instructional lead-
ership: A developmental approach. Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Howell, W. G., West, M. R., & Peterson, P. E.
(2008). The 2008 education next-PEPG survey
of public opinion. Retrieved August 13, 2008,
from http://www.hoover.org/publications/edn-
ext/26380034.html
Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (2004). Models of teaching
(7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).
(2008). Fast facts. Retrieved July 8, 2008, from
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=65
Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2007). Online learn-
ing: A survey of U.S. school district administrators.
Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.
Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, dig-
ital immigrants. Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
doi:10.1108/10748120110424816
Instructional Leadership and Blended Learning
Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives,
digital immigrants, part II: Do they real-
ly think differently? Horizon, 9(6), 1–6.
doi:10.1108/10748120110424843
Salaway, G., Caruso, J. B., & Nelson, M. R.
(2008). The ECAR study of undergraduate students
and information technology, 2008. Boulder, CO:
EDUCAUSE.
Shapira, I. (2008, July 24). For more N.Va. stu-
dents, the classroom is on the computer. Wahi-
ngton Post. Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http://
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2008/07/23/AR2008072301180.html
Singleton-Rickman, L. (2008, November 15). Next
year, students must take distance learning course
to graduate. TimesDaily.com. Retrieved Novem-
ber 20, 2008, from http://www.timesdaily.com/
article/20081116/ARTICLES/811160343/1011/
NEWS?Title=Next_year__students_must_take_
Internet_course_to_graduate
Song, J. (2008, August 13). L. A. Unified college
prep goal sees little progress. Los Angeles Times.
Retrieved August 15, 2008, from http://www.
latimes.com/news/education/la-me-classes13-
2008aug13,0,1234916.story?track=rss
Tichenor, P. J., Donohue, G. A., & Olien, C. N.
(1970). Mass media flow and differential growth
in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34(2),
159–170. doi:10.1086/267786
Weatherill, C. (2006). Barkbelly. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf.
Web 2.0. (2008, November 7). Retrieved No-
vember 11, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Web_2.0
Zandberg, I., Lewis, L., & Greene, B. (2008).
Technology-based distance education courses for
public elementary and secondary school students:
2002-03 and 2004-05. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics.
ONLINE RESOURCES
Animoto.http://education.animoto.com/
Delicious. http://delicious.com/
Flick. http://www.flickr.com/
Google Docs. ttps://www.google.com/accounts/
ServiceLogin?service=writely&passive=true&n
ui=1&continue=http%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.
com%2F%3Fhl%3Den%26tab%3Dwo&follow
up=http%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2F%3
Fhl%3Den%26tab%3Dwo&ltmpl=homepage&
rm=false
MathScience Innovation Center. http://www.
msinnovation.info/index.html
Statistics Online Computational Resource. http://
www.socr.ucla.edu/
ToonDoo. http://www.toondoo.com/
Twitter.http://twitter.com/
Wordle. http://www.wordle.com/
Zoho. http://www.zoho.com/
59
 Instructional Leadership and Blended Learning

APPENDIX A

Script of Initial Wimba Session

Welcome to Wimba
Type the above welcome message on the eBoard, along with:
If all else fails, close Blackboard and try again.
Click and hold the “Talk” button to talk.
In this session I will walk you through some of the capabilities of Wimba by asking you to interact
with me as we use them. I’m not going to try to tell you everything about Wimba —just enough to give
you a working knowledge of what gives.
Look at the whiteboard (called the eBoard in Wimba) where I wrote the welcome message. The
presenter can write here with the mouse
(Write “HI”)
But, as you can see, it is ugly.
So it’s best to type.
(Type “HI”)
You can’t see how I did that, because you aren’t presenters in this room. I will share this tool with
you a little later in this session. At present, you know it exists.
The next thing to look at is the window down the bottom headed “People” with my name in red at
the top. You should also be able to see your name on this list, though you might have to scroll down to
see it.
At the bottom of this window, there are a number of icons. Click on the check mark, and see what
happens.
A check mark appears against your name under the column headed with the check mark and cross.
This gives you a way of saying “I agree” or “Correct” or, by clicking on the “x” you can say “I disagree”
or “Wrong.”
The next icon is a little hand. Click on it and see what happens.
A little hand appears against your name under the column with a little hand on top of it. This gives
you a way to tell me that you have a question, and automatically puts you in order to get an answer.
YOU HAVE TO CLICK ON THIS AGAIN when we have dealt with your question TO LOWER YOUR
HAND.
Even if you have a question right now, please click to lower your hand. I’ll take questions in a min-
ute.
Directly above this class list box is a horizontal bar. At the left hand end is the button with TALK on
it. Don’t talk right now. As in any classroom, if everybody tries to talk at once, bedlam ensues.
Raise your hand, and I’ll invite you to comment in order. Don’t forget to lower your hand after you
have commented.
Somebody please raise your hand and make a comment or ask a question when I call on you.
Look again at the list of icons under the class list.
The fourth button from the left gives you a dropdown menu with what are called “emoticons” on
them. This gives you a way of telling me how you are feeling. Click on the “thumbs up” or “thumbs
down” emoticon and observe that your choice shows against your name in the column with the smiley
face above it.

60
Instructional Leadership and Blended Learning

Next click on the “Options” button and see what your options are. Notice the one to lock your talk
button.
At present, that won’t work for you because I didn’t give you that option in this room. I have my
microphone locked on—which is why I can talk over the top of whoever is talking—like in a phone
conversation. When you get your own room I will enable that option because there will only be two of
you (or three) and you can dispense with the hand raising procedure.
In the bottom left hand corner there is an area which probably reads “Connected to server…you have
connected successfully…” This is the text message area.
Underneath this text message area is a very small box to the right of where you see a dropdown box
which reads “Main Roon.” Click in the box, type a short message like “Hi” and hit the “return” key on
your keyboard.
This gives you a way to interact with each other and me on a stream of consciousness plane. The
secret is to type very few words before you key “return,” and then develop a tolerance for getting a full
message which is split up by lots of other part messages. If you wait to type a full sentence, often the
“conversation” will have moved on by the time you chime in. This is definitely an acquired skill—and
not one that I claim to have acquired fully yet. I still find it quite demanding.
The presenter can disable this text message area.
Let’s try to use the functionality we have discussed so far.
Look at the eBoard area again. Supposing I have a graphic that I have come across that I want to
share with you. I will import it so you can see it.
Please give me a check sign when you can see the graphic.
Send me a smiley face if you are following.
Now take your smiley face off.
Please raise your hand if you have a question or comment.
Don’t forget to lower your hand when your question or comment has been addressed.
This graphic represents the learning gains of students of different socio-economic status over a number
of years of primary school. What do you conclude?
Please raise your hand if you have a question or comment.
Don’t forget to lower your hand when your question or comment has been addressed.
For the following, I will use the tool bar which, at present, you don’t have. I will turn it on for you
shortly.
Supposing I wanted to highlight some part of this graphic. I could use the ellipse tool. If I make a
mistake, I just click on erase and whatever I added goes away.
Or I could click on the arrow, and then click on the graphic to draw your attention to what I’m talking
about. Again, just click the eraser to make the arrows go away.
I could also click on the upper-case T and type in the box. I can see what I type as I go in grey. What
I type turns black and you can see it after I key “return.”
Send me a smiley face if you are following.
Now take your smiley face off.
Please raise your hand if you have a question or comment.
Don’t forget to lower your hand when your question or comment has been addressed.
Now I’m going to enable the tool bar for you to see. I will describe the functions for you and then
call on each of you to use a tool. Please don’t all use a tool at once, or no-one will be able to tell which
mark is theirs.

61
 Instructional Leadership and Blended Learning

“Enable” everybody.
Describe the tools.
Call down the list for Watch while he/she uses the tool bar.
Now I’m going to disable everybody. When you are in your own rooms, everybody will be presenters,
which also means you can lock your talk buttons on. This isn’t a problem with just two or three people,
so you can do away with the hand raising process too.
The next two functions you also need presenter rights to be able to see, so I am just going to demon-
strate them so you know this functionality exists, and I will show you more in class.
If I wanted to preserve what this slide looks like before we move on, I would click on the “Save” button
in the tool bar, and the slide with all the annotations would be saved in a “Snapshots” folder, which you
will be able to see to the right in a drop-down menu when you have presenter rights. Let’s do that.
Now, to clean the whiteboard, I click “Clear slide” and everything goes away.
Let’s get the whole screen back.
Look at the right hand side where there is a dropdown button beside a box that reads “Default Con-
tent Folder.” Click the dropdown button and select “Snapshots.” Then click on “Go” to make it happen.
Select the slide you want to get back and presto—it is on the whiteboard.
Send me a smiley face if you are following.
Now take your smiley face off.
Please raise your hand if you have a question or comment.
Don’t forget to lower your hand when your question or comment has been addressed.
The last thing I want to do today is to show you that you can use a PowerPoint presentation in Wimba.
In fact, this is one of the best ways to share and discuss information in Wimba. Again, you need presenter
rights to do this.
Let’s load last week’s Session PP. I browse to it, and choose the option to display it in the eBoard.
Click on “Import.” If all goes well, you will see a set of little squares being filled up as the upload pro-
ceeds. If it doesn’t work, just try it again.
In the right hand window, you will now see the PP with each slide in the PP listed separately. Click
on the one you want to appear on the eBoard and use the tool bar tools to help you discuss whatever
you want on it.
Send me a smiley face if you are following.
Now take your smiley face off.
Please raise your hand if you have a question or comment.
Don’t forget to lower your hand when your question or comment has been addressed.
Send me a hand clap if you are following.
Feel free to sign off now and thank you for making it to our session today. If you want to ask some
more, or practice what we did above, then stay online.

62
 63

Chapter 4
Blended Learning in a
Creative Writing Program:
Lessons Learned from a Two-
Year Pilot Study
Chris Morgan
Southern Cross University, Australia

Janie Conway-Herron
Southern Cross University, Australia

ABSTRACT
This case study reports on the results of a two-year pilot study in blended learning in an undergraduate
creative writing program at Southern Cross University in Australia. It documents the development and
implementation of a blended delivery model that dispenses with outdated divisions between face-to-face
and distance modes of delivery, creating a converged, blended learning experience for all students.
Findings from the pilot provided important data in relation to student satisfaction, pedagogical consid-
erations, institutional constraints, teaching technologies, faculty workload issues, and costs associated
with blended learning. These findings will contribute to a University-wide move to converged, blended
learning in 2009.

INTRODUCTION in detail upon both the successes and problems

This chapter documents the results of a two-year
pilot study in blended learning in an undergradu-
ate creative writing program at Southern Cross
University (SCU) in Australia. The pilot study was
conducted over three semesters, between 2006 and
2008, with formative and summative evaluation
points, and was completed in July 2008. Drawing
from the evaluation data, this chapter will report
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-880-2.ch004
encountered in the transition to blended learning,
along with lessons learned along the way. It will
also report on ways forward for this program in the
light of pilot evaluation results.
BACKGROUND
SCU is located along the east coast of Australia
with three campuses spread over a distance of 600

Copyright © 2010, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

kilometers. It is a relatively small university with a
current enrolment of around 12,000 students. The
student population is predominately mature aged
and is generally drawn from a comparatively low
socio-economic grouping. Approximately one half
of the students study via distance education, while
the other half attends one of the three campuses for
face-to-face education. There is a strong expressed
need for flexible learning in a variety of formats
to meet the needs of mature students often with
heavy competing family and work commitments,
and a wide geographic spread.
The subject of this pilot study was the under-
graduate creative writing program. The program
was established in the mid-1990s and has been of-
fered in traditional ‘dual mode’ delivery – students
either enroll as internal students and attend tradi-
tional weekly lectures and tutorials on campus, or
as distance education students, and undertake a
combination of print-based home study supported
by online activities and interactions.
However, the division between on-campus and
distance students has not always been entirely
clear-cut. On-campus students have always been
encouraged to access the distance study materials
and online discussion to assist their study, and
conversely, distance students have been encour-
aged to attend classes wherever possible. With the
addition of newer technologies, such as videocon-
ferencing, Web conferencing, and lecture podcast-
ing, the boundaries have further blurred, and the
duplication of teaching in the separate modes has
proliferated (Oliver, Omari, & Herrington, 1998;
Samarawickrema & O’Reilly, 2003).
SETTING THE STAGE
It was decided, therefore, in 2006 to blend the
on-campus and distance students into one, flex-
ible mode of delivery, offered in the same man-
ner to all students irrespective of location. The
learning encounter comprised intensive one day
face-to-face traveling workshops held in multiple
64
Blended Learning in a Creative Writing Program
locations at key times in semester, supported by
print-based study materials, Web conferencing,
and a variety of asynchronous online activities and
interactions. Students were encouraged to make
their own decisions about how they would interact
with the program, given their own preferences,
learning styles, and other life commitments. The
weekly traditional on-campus lectures and tutorial
classes were significantly reduced.
The pilot project was funded by SCU to explore
new models of blended learning and report to
SCU community on its methodologies, strengths,
weaknesses, obstacles, and potential ways forward
for other programs wishing to proceed down this
pathway.
A New Blended Delivery Model
Blended learning is often conceptualized as the ad-
dition of a variety of computer-mediated learning
options to face-to-face teaching (Graham, 2004).
In this instance, the ‘blending’ also ensured that
there were no longer any separate internal and
distance categories of students, each with their own
entitlements. Rather, a new single flexible mode
of delivery, with a variety of study choices, was
available to all students irrespective of location.
Converged modes of delivery have long been the
‘holy grail’ of distance education providers (Tait
& Mills, 1999); yet it has only been in relatively
recent years that technologies have become suf-
ficiently pervasive to be accessed by the vast
majority of students, regardless of socio-economic
status and location (Challis, 2005).
The blended delivery model was designed with
the following ideas and principles in mind:
• to eliminate any unnecessary or duplicated
teaching activities that were not considered
to be particularly productive (e.g., the lec-
ture/tutorial format);
• to develop and strengthen the key peda-
gogical tools in the program (e.g., the writ-
ers’ workshop);
Blended Learning in a Creative Writing Program
• to ensure that all students, irrespective of
location, have equitable access to program
teaching and resources;
• to provide as much choice as possible to
the many mature students who are strug-
gling to balance work, family and study
commitments; and
• to develop expertise in and evaluate the ef-
ficacy of new teaching technologies in the
context of this program.
Planning
Key issues to be addressed in the planning phase
included:
• pedagogy – how to reconfigure delivery
strategies in the program to engender the
best possible learning outcomes for all
students. What to keep? What to discard?
What to blend? What to re-develop?
• sustainability – how to cost new arrange-
ments and ensure that teaching budgets and
workloads are appropriate and sustainable
• student satisfaction – how to create and
fulfill appropriate and realistic expecta-
tions in students who are experiencing al-
tered delivery arrangements
• technological capacity – what interest and
capacity exists with the student body to
move towards more technologically medi-
ated forms of learning
• institutional culture – how to inspire staff
who are resistant to change and reticent to
let go of traditional ‘tried-and-true’ deliv-
ery patterns
• administration – how to navigate through
administrative structures and systems
which are not currently geared for this kind
of delivery
Major activities in this planning phase in-
cluded:
• Consultation with stakeholders – Key
stakeholders were initially consulted, in-
cluding teaching staff in the writing pro-
gram, the Head of School andAdministrative
Officer, Student Services, the Library, and
the Information Technology Committee.
Discussions focused on practical issues in
designing and conducting the pilot studies,
including enrolment categories, use of new
teaching technologies, and a consideration
of the range of blended options that could
be offered to students, along with associ-
ated costs and workload issues.
• Investigation of other convergence or
blended learning activities within the
higher education sector – A survey of all
writing courses in Australia was conducted
by telephone and email. While twelve oth-
er universities were delivering writing pro-
grams in distance or dual mode, no univer-
sities had plans for converged or blended
delivery. It alerted us to a competitive ad-
vantage for SCU in attracting students who
wish to study creative writing in a flexible
mode, but with many more options and at-
tractions than just traditional print-based
distance education.
• Investigation of literature and reported
studies of convergence – While there is a
significant international body of literature
on blended learning, which focuses on the
use of information and communication
technologies to enhance or replace face-to-
face instruction, there is only a very mod-
est literature in relation to convergence of
distance and on-campus modes in higher
education There are very few studies that
exemplify the kinds of complex conver-
gence required here with large external en-
rolments blended with face-to-face teach-
ing commitments on multiple campuses.
• Student needs analysis – There was no
formal student needs analysis conducted
before commencement of the pilot studies.
65

However, the issues of student needs and
preferences in relation to study modes, as
well as interest in and capacity for greater
use of technology in learning (e.g., Web
conferencing, podcasted lectures, and
asynchronous online workshops) were cen-
tral to the pilots, the feedback provided by
students, and the cyclical development of
the blended learning model over the three
semesters of piloting.
• Course demographics analysis- Course de-
mographics were analyzed along with other
sources of data such as student feedback,
enrolment, growth and lecture attendance
patterns. A principal concern in this analy-
sis was the existing inequity in resources
between on-campus and distance delivery:
Although on-campus students consisted
of about one-third of the total enrolment,
it was calculated that they consumed ap-
proximately 80% of the course resources,
when costs of lecturing by full-time staff
are included. And yet, in recent years, the
on-campus enrolments have been margin-
ally in decline, while distance enrolments
represent the program’s best growth poten-
tial. This prompted a consideration of ways
in which we could make a more considered
investment in the learning experience of
the cohort as a whole.
The needs and patterns of existing on-campus
students were also considered. Although weekly
face-to-face delivery is still clearly regarded as
a first option by many students, the reality of at-
tendance patterns tells another story. Attendance
at weekly lectures in writing often falls away
dramatically as semester progresses, as students
struggle with balancing work, family and study
commitments, and the often significant costs as-
sociated with driving to a campus from outlying
regions. It suggested to us that internal students
are also, to varying degrees, seeking more flexible
delivery options.
66
Blended Learning in a Creative Writing Program
• Clarifying pedagogical principles and de-
veloping a new delivery model– For the
purpose of this exercise, we considered
pedagogical issues under three key head-
ings as follows:
Content Provision
A primary pedagogical principle in the design of
the blended units for this pilot was to use each
medium for its particular strengths in meeting
students’ learning needs. It was considered that
the existing high quality print-based materials
very effectively provided the content of the unit.
Previously, internal students experienced a mixture
of weekly lectures and tutorials; however, weekly
lectures were mostly repeating what was already
contained in the printed distance materials and
could therefore be dispensed with. The printed
material was therefore made available to all stu-
dents free of charge, and the additional costs of
this were factored into the delivery mix.
Interaction and Dialogue
Workshopping is the primary pedagogical strat-
egy in creative writing. Students come together,
either online or face-to-face, to present drafts of
creative work for discussion and feedback from
peers and the teacher. Face-to-face workshops
had previously been available to internal students
only – those studying at a distance workshopped
online using asynchronous discussion threads.
Distance students had commonly expressed some
dissatisfaction with online workshops, concerned
that it entailed a lot of reading on screen at night,
that it was passive, and not nearly as engaging as
its face-to-face counterpart.
It was therefore decided to expand and
strengthen this face-to-face component by the use
of traveling writers’ workshops. An analysis of
student demographics revealed that approximately
75% of students lived along the eastern seaboard
from Brisbane to Sydney and were within com-
Blended Learning in a Creative Writing Program
muting distance of at least one of the three SCU
campuses, or a Sydney destination. In addition,
the Sydney destination provided an inexpensive
opportunity for those located in other parts of
Australia to fly in for a one-day intensive. Utilizing
cost savings from the deletion of weekly lectures,
the traveling writers’ workshops were introduced
as a key component of the new delivery mix.
For those students unable or unwilling to attend
a writers’ workshop, the online version was still
available. Weekly on-campus workshops were
also discontinued, in favor of the same one-day
traveling workshops. In effect, this created a single,
flexible, equitable mode of study for all students,
with significantly increased opportunities for
students formerly categorized as ‘distance.’
Assessment and Student Support
Although there was no necessity to significantly
alter assessment tasks, it was necessary to consider
how effectively students would be supported to
fulfill assessment requirements given the changes
in the delivery mix. We expected that the print-
based study guide, which includes activities and
prompts, combined with workshops and online
interactions, would provide an adequate basis for
student preparation and support for assessment.
However, we were aware that on-campus students,
who had previously experienced weekly lectures
and workshops, would feel the loss of that structure
and weekly interaction. It was decided to schedule
a weekly un-facilitated drop-in time, in a desig-
nated room, where on-campus students could meet,
discuss issues and assessment work-in-progress.
This time also coincided with the faculty student
consultation time, in which students could consult
in person about any issues or difficulties.
Evaluation Design
A mixture of qualitative methods were employed
in gathering data from the pilots, including focus
groups of students during and after the travel-
ing workshops, and extensive individual phone
interviews with those unable to attend. Teaching
staff involved in the delivery of the relevant units
were also interviewed at the end of each teaching
period providing detailed feedback on perceived
successes, problems, issues to be addressed, and
overall impressions of the new delivery mix.
Quantitative data (such as distribution of
grades, student satisfaction data, and attrition
statistics) was analyzed at the end of each teach-
ing period to provide further insight into student
performance and satisfaction with the altered
delivery mix.
Evaluative data was gathered and analyzed to
allow cyclical improvements during the course
of the pilots, and to enable lessons learned to be
incorporated into the design and planning for the
next iteration of the pilot.
CASE DESCRIPTION
Pilots of the new converged mode of delivery
were conducted in four units over three semes-
ters, from Semester 1, 2007 to Semester 1, 2008
inclusive. These included two upper level units
and two introductory first year units. Pilot details
are as follows:
Pilot 1 (Semester 1, 2007)
The advanced unit Writing from the Edge was
selected for the first pilot. In previous years it
had been offered as a conventional dual-mode
unit; internal students offered weekly lectures and
workshops, and externals receiving a print-based
study guide, set of readings and online interac-
tions. In the new converged mode, students were
encouraged to make their own decisions from the
following flexible mix of resources and events:
• free supply of print-based study materials;
• a one-day workshop at choice of four
locations (attendance at one strongly
encouraged);
67

• online workshops for those unable to
attend;
• online discussion and support for all stu-
dents; and
• a weekly un-facilitated drop-in space on-
campus for students to enable social inter-
action and group work.
Students undertaking this unit were a mix of
second and third year students with consider-
able existing academic skills and were therefore
judged capable of a reasonable level of autonomy
without the need to be ‘driven’ by weekly lectures
and tutorials.
Pilot 2 (Semester 2, 2007)
A further unit Writing Project was piloted in con-
verged mode in the second semester of 2007 with
similar delivery arrangements to Pilot 1. Writing
Project is an upper level unit designed to be the
last unit in the writing major. It is significantly
self-directed and has only ever been offered in
distance mode. As a variation to the traveling
workshop, we designed a one-day intensive work-
shop held at a key location to which all students
were invited. The workshop was scheduled in the
period between the submission of the first draft
and the final draft of a significant creative piece.
The piloted unit consisted of:
• free supply of print-based materials to all
students;
• a one-day workshop available to all stu-
dents (but not compulsory);
• online workshops for those unable to at-
tend the workshop; and
• online discussion and support for all
students.
Pilot 3 (Semester 1, 2008)
In the first semester of 2008, we piloted two intro-
ductory units in the writing major Introduction to
68
Blended Learning in a Creative Writing Program
Written Texts and Introduction to Creative Writing.
These two units work with a complimentary focus
that provides foundation reading and writing skills
for beginning creative writing students. The units
are pre-requisites for all other writing units and
the cohort in each is generally large (100+ stu-
dents). Special care was taken when introducing
the converged learning mode to these first year
students: (1) to ensure introductory units had
enough face-to-face contact to provide optimum
learning conditions for novice students; and (2)
to ensure that commitments were met for those
who had enrolled as face-to-face students.
The following delivery design was arrived
at:
• all students received a full set of print-
based study materials;
• all students had access to online work-
shops, staffed by casual(short-term con-
tract teaching/ lecturing staff) and/or per-
manent staff;
• there were no lectures, but 3 hour seminars
were delivered in each unit that included
both writers’ workshops and tutorial-style
discussion. These workshops were held in
four locations and were run four times dur-
ing the semester for both units;
• Web conferencing (Elluminate) sessions
were also provided for those students who
were are unable to travel to the centers
where the workshops were held; and
• the Study Guide exercises and assessment
were shaped to support the four seminars
with a modular approach to the material
that fitted with the workshop schedule.
Findings from the Pilots
Theme 1: Student Satisfaction
with Blended Delivery
Although there were minor thematic variations in
the evaluative data between the three pilots, there
Blended Learning in a Creative Writing Program
were clear and consistent patterns of student feed-
back on the blended learning experience. Students
who would have normally experienced weekly
classes on campus felt somewhat cheated by this
experience. There was a spectrum of responses
from these students but the majority felt that they
were being ‘turned into distance students,’ and
that the motivation declined without the weekly
stimulus of lectures and workshops. On the other
hand, students who would normally be classed
as distance students, and who now had access to
face-to-face workshops found the experience to
be quite transformational, and greatly appreciated
the opportunity for attendance.
Clearly students are alert to a shift in resources,
and the politics of ‘who gets what.’ While on-
campus students in the unit understood and even
supported the principle of equitable delivery and
improved services for distance students, they were
actively opposed in principle to any diminishment
in their own ‘entitlements.’ Distance students, in
contrast, found the opportunity to attend travel-
ing workshops as a significant improvement to
their prior status as ‘second class citizens’ of the
program.
The polarity of these results is not surpris-
ing. The pilots have significantly interrupted an
established delivery pattern and learning culture
for students whose expectations are already firmly
set. Current enrolment categories do not provide
for a ‘converged’ or ‘blended’ mode of study,
and so the students were enrolled in the piloted
units, at random, as ‘internal’ or ‘external,’ only
to discover their particular delivery arrangements
in Week 1. This resulted in some initial confusion
among on-campus students and a lingering dis-
satisfaction that was very difficult to ameliorate
during term.
However, student preference for regular face-
to-face contact is a perplexing one. Despite their
vocal demands for maintenance of a traditional
face-to-face experience, the on-campus students’
attendance at the four scheduled half-day work-
shops during Pilot 3 was unexpectedly poor. When
asked about non-attendance, a variety of reasons
were given including other commitments such
as work or holidays, lack of transport, and some
students simply forgot.
It seems there is a distinction to be drawn
between students’ ‘in-principle’ demands and
the reality of their lives. However, we also ac-
knowledge that the writing program contains
a highly diverse student body with seemingly
endless varieties and combinations of motivation,
needs and preferences in relation to their study.
This student body included a certain percentage
of students who needed and wanted a rich on-
campus experience, at least in their first year of
study, with all the structure, direction and social
interaction that this entails.
Theme 2: Pedagogical Considerations
The Traveling Workshop
Almost all students who attended the writers’
workshops, irrespective of location, found it to
be a highly rewarding experience and well worth
the effort of attendance (which in some cases was
considerable). This reaffirmed our belief that, in
Creative Writing, the intensive workshop is the
best way in which to provide a face-to-face ex-
perience that is immersive, interactive and highly
developmental for students, not only in relation to
their writing skills, but other graduate attributes
such as peer- and self-review, and interpersonal
communications.
Attendance at workshops, however, was signif-
icantly below expectations at all sites. During the
pilots we experimented with different scheduling
options to allow part-time distance students (the
majority of students in the program) maximum
choice in relation to attendance. Student feedback
revealed a plethora of issues in relation to timing,
competing commitments, travel expenses, and an
unexpected theme: a fear of attendance and expo-
sure of one’s creative work in a public space.
Efforts were made to accommodate these is-
sues, and to create a ‘buzz’ around the workshops
69

that would encourage distance students to partici-
pate in greater numbers. Yet it seems that in the
same way that some students will need and demand
a highly directed on-campus experience, so too
will some demand a ‘purely distant’ experience
and will choose not to attend scheduled events
unless they are made compulsory.
The Printed Study Packages
Students were almost universally very happy with
the quality and role of the print-based study guides.
On-campus students were very happy to be access-
ing them free of charge. Students generally found
the study materials to be engaging, stimulating and
relevant and provided good direction and support
in relation to the assessment tasks.
Online Participation and Online Workshops
There were typically three functions within the
online component of the units: (1) threaded
discussion of key unit issues and themes; (2) a
help forum in which questions could be posed
for a tutor’s response; and (3) online workshops
of creative writing drafts for those who did not
attend a writers’ workshop.
Students’ responses to the online components
were typically mixed – those distance students who
were familiar with the format and protocols of on-
line interactions were essentially satisfied, whereas
on-campus students who were experiencing it for
the first time found it of limited value, particularly
when considered as a substitute for face-to-face
interactions. Common concerns included: too
much reading on screen; a lack of spontaneity
that comes from face-to-face interactions; and too
much irrelevant ‘chat’ between students. For many,
the online components function as an integral part
of their teacher and peer communications and
workshops, while for others it is a minor, almost
irrelevant aspect of their study.
Web Conferencing
It was proposed that the synchronous Web confer-
encing software (thus Elluminate) be employed as
70
Blended Learning in a Creative Writing Program
another tool for student interaction and workshop,
particularly for those who were unable to attend
live workshop events. Initial trials proved to be
problematic for both faculty (who required more
staff development to be able to run a sophisticated
Web conferencing session) and students who
experienced a range of technical difficulties in
getting started.
While we are optimistic that Elluminate will
prove to be a useful addition to the flexible delivery
mix, it requires more time and investment than
we were able to give it in these pilots.
Summary
Despite the variety of issues that arose in relation
to each of the components of the delivery mix, we
felt that the range of options provided students with
a sound pedagogical structure to their study, and a
reasonable series of choices associated with how
they engaged in the learning. Despite the evident
discontent of the on-campus students, there was
no greater than normal attrition rate from any of
the units offered as part of these pilots (attrition
hovered typically around 20%, which came largely
from part-time distance students who tend ‘drop-in
and drop out’ of study). Significantly, there was
no noticeable difference in relation to quality of
work produced for assessment during the pilots,
when compared with previous years.
Theme 3: Institutional Constraints
Institutional Timetabling
Reform to current timetabling approaches is es-
sential to the delivery of units that adopt a blended
and converged learning mode and current moves
towards a more user-friendly timetabling system is
required, particularly with a whole-of-university
approach towards more flexible modes of course
delivery.
• Room allocation and event attendance:
With the move away from standardized
weekly scheduling of lectures and tutorials,
Blended Learning in a Creative Writing Program
to a more event-based schedule of intensive
workshops, event attendance and room al-
location proved inordinately difficult.
• Timetabling: Classes offered outside of
the standardized weekly patterns of deliv-
ery pose particular problems with booking
rooms that are utilized on an irregular basis.
Moves to student-centered online booking
and more flexible systems of timetabling
will improve this situation, but the chal-
lenge is still there to move away from the
mindset that still privileges lecture/tutorial
format.
Enrolment Categories
It has been very difficult to conduct these pilots
in the absence of a formal enrolment category
that gives legitimacy and effectively describes to
students this mode of delivery. By default, students
must enroll in either on-campus or distance mode,
even though there is no practical distinction be-
tween the two. We considered offering the piloted
units in ‘distance only’ mode, however this was
not an accurate descriptor given the rich face-to-
face options on offer, and we feared a significant
exodus from the program if students perceived
they could only study in this mode.
The expectations of students upon enrolment
in programs and units are directly linked to their
ongoing satisfaction with the program. The on-
campus/distance divide immediately sets up false
expectations in students’ minds, particularly for
those who enroll on-campus, which then must be
quickly dispelled when term commences. This
creates considerable risk for faculty, who will need
to contend with student confusion, complaints,
and highly variable student feedback.
Theme 4: Teaching Technologies
The move towards blended learning is intricately
connected to new teaching technologies such as
Web conferencing, Web-based discussion, online
submission of tasks, online assessment and feed-
back, podcasting, Webcasting, and videoconfer-
encing. Although most of these technologies were
employed at some point during the pilots, in at least
an exploratory way, there is still much to be learned
from both a teaching and learning perspective.
Student feedback from these pilots indicates
that interest in and uptake of new learning tech-
nologies is highly variable and generally conserva-
tive. We need to know much more about students’
current technological capacity and learning prefer-
ences before we can confidently make a serious
investment in particular technologies. It should
be recognized that teaching in a converged mode
makes complex demands on teachers, and requires
confident mastery of a range of technologies.
Although staff development opportunities at SCU
are growing in relation to new technologies in
teaching, a more systematic approach is required
if these are to move into the mainstream. The is-
sue of staff development for casual and sessional
staff is particularly critical, given the volume of
teaching that they conduct and the minimal cur-
rent allocations for staff development.
Theme 5: Workload Issues
A key motivation for this pilot project was the
elimination of unnecessarily duplicated teaching
practices that is now inherent in dual-mode de-
livery. While historically on-campus and distance
have been separate, parallel modes, technology
has enabled us to significantly bridge the divide.
In this program, there is no longer any point in
delivering lectures when the content is fully ex-
plicated in study guides available to all. Similarly,
there is no point in limiting the writers’ workshops
to on-campus students, when it could be readily
made more widely accessible. There is no longer
any logic in restricting online forums to distance
students only, when all students are seeking greater
flexibility. A considerable amount of duplication
in teaching can eliminated, while strengthening
and giving new vigor to the pedagogical strengths
of the program.
71

Yet there is a range of stumbling blocks ap-
parent in current workload models that create
significant disincentives for staff to become more
flexible in their teaching:
• Workload models: Current workload
models represent very traditional notions
of teaching. Lecturing is still accorded a
privileged status over a cluster of activi-
ties referred to as ‘facilitation of learn-
ing’ – workshops, online teaching, Web
conferencing sessions, one-on-one phone
support, and so on. Yet in flexible learning
these activities are primary, higher order
and comprise the substance of the learn-
ing encounter. They need to be undertaken
with considerable professionalism and ex-
pertise to engender student engagement
and satisfaction. While these activities re-
tain their lower order status in the hierar-
chy of teaching, academics will have little
incentive to re-conceptualize their teach-
ing. Lectures will remain the cornerstone
of teaching, irrespective of its pedagogical
appropriateness.
• Sessional staffing and payment: In dual-
mode programs, casual and sessional staff
are often corralled into distance teaching,
as these activities (e.g., online facilitation,
Web conferencing sessions, and phone
contact) can be outsourced most cheaply.
It reinforces the now quite artificial divide
and the inequities between on-campus and
distance provision. Ironically, sessional
staff may find that under flexible learning
arrangements their pay drops, yet expecta-
tions of them in terms of time and expertise
is greater than ever. If moves towards flex-
ible learning represent a diminished return
for sessional staff, as was sometimes the
case in this pilot, it will be difficult to re-
tain their goodwill, energy and expertise.
72
Blended Learning in a Creative Writing Program
Theme 6: Comparative Costing
An important principle in the move to blended
delivery is to work within existing budgets. Clearly
blended learning will not deliver any wholesale
cost savings to SCU, but we need to ensure that
any new arrangements are no more expensive than
the existing modes and will not create additional
cost burdens.
All new delivery arrangements in these pi-
lots, including travel, accommodation, hire of
facilities, and staffing were costed in advance
and were approved by the Head of School prior
to implementation. However it is very difficult to
quantify how these altered arrangements, in total,
compared with standard costs of running a unit
in traditional dual mode. While it is recognized
that money was saved by withdrawing the weekly
delivery of lectures and workshops on-campus,
and at least some of those savings were passed
on to blended delivery arrangements, the final
balance of cost is still very unclear.
This situation highlights the difficulties faced
by faculty when altering their delivery mix in the
absence of clear guidelines in relation to the cost
of various existing and new elements. We see par-
ticular advantage in being able to make a strategic
investment in certain units in the program, such
as core and first year units, with less intensive
and therefore less expensive delivery patterns in
upper level units, where students may be expected
to be a little more self-directed.
CURRENT CHALLENGES
It is clear from these pilots that blended learn-
ing provides a vehicle for universities to make a
generational leap in relation to flexible delivery
of courses. It is apparent that older forms of de-
livery such as traditional face-to-face and distance
education no longer suit our students well and
are becoming increasingly unsustainable from a
teaching perspective.
Blended Learning in a Creative Writing Program
The following implications are discussed in
relation to a more widespread institutional move
to blended learning:
An Institutional Vision of
Blended Learning
It was apparent in this study that student percep-
tions of what constitutes a ‘university experience’
are very closely linked with their responsiveness
to and satisfaction with blended learning. Student
perceptions and expectations, we have found, are
relatively traditional in nature, and are culturally
formed long before entry into higher education.
Any erosion of traditional forms of teaching, such
as lectures and tutorials, in favor of technological-
ly-mediated delivery, will be met with skepticism
and dissatisfaction unless the new arrangements
are demonstrably and readily meeting their needs,
both academically and socially.
Universities need move away from ‘ivy league’
images and actively promote these new kinds of
learning and engagement patterns as part of the
university experience of the 21st Century. Students
need to understand, upon entry, that old forms of
didactic teaching and delivery have given way
to a new set of standards in relation to student
engagement and the ways learning is mediated.
They need to understand that learning is now a
lifelong responsibility requiring a skill-set that
includes the ability to use a variety of contemporary
technologies to advance their self-management
of learning.
Universities, for their own part, must be able
to remove institutional impediments to blended
learning. In this study, institutional impediments to
the widespread adoption of blended learning were
considerable and included a range of issues such
as academic workload models, staffing patterns,
recognition for innovation, and administrative
issues such as timetabling systems, enrolment
categories, and classroom allocations. Much
of the SCU’s infrastructure, it was realized, is
predicated on very outdated notions of teaching
and learning that requires a whole-of-institutional
effort to reform.
Sustainability of Blended Learning
Blended learning can potentially burden the teach-
er with an ever-increasing array of new teaching
commitments to add to an already over-burdened
teaching role. This pilot was enacted with the
principle that there was no extra money or staff
time available to do more teaching. If something
is added into the delivery mix, something else has
to go. This principle provoked some productive
ongoing discussions amongst both teachers and
learners regarding the components of the delivery
mix that offered the best value, best aided learn-
ing, was sustainable, and ultimately produced the
most effective learning outcomes.
These are complex issues and are not easily
resolved. It was considered in this study that
iterative experimentation and evaluation was
the only way to really shed light on these issues,
accepting that both students and teachers need
time and experience to familiarize themselves
with new technologies employed and to be able
to form a considered view on their efficacy. Hav-
ing experimented for three semesters, we feel
that there are still further adjustments to make
in achieving a sustainable balance in relation
to affordability, quality learning outcomes and
student satisfaction.
During this pilot, some faculty members ex-
pressed suspicions that blended learning is a cost
cutting exercise by stealth: a way of cutting back
on teaching and delivery costs and associated
infrastructure. In this pilot, the costs associated
with the new blended delivery model proved to be
significantly more than normal arrangements, both
in terms of staff time and expenditure. However, in
the longer term, the aim is to finesse the delivery
model to the degree that blended learning is es-
sentially revenue neutral. Certainly, there are few,
if any, opportunities in a quality blended learning
model such as this to actually reduce costs when
73

compared with normal arrangements, nor was there
any pressure from any quarters to do so.
Quality Pedagogy
It is clear that there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ pattern
of blended learning that can be generalized across
a particular university, or discipline, or sector. We
realized that decisions made about the particular
components of the delivery mix are very context
dependent, and related to variables such as: the
student context and demographics; the demands
of the discipline; the socio-economic context; the
technological literacy of teachers and learners;
the learning preferences of students; the teach-
ing preferences and strengths of staff; to name
but a few. To achieve quality pedagogy, blended
learning models should grow from the ground
up, having regard to the needs of and interactions
between teachers, students, the curriculum, and
the discipline.
Some faculty expressed concerns during the
pilots that the move to blended learning repre-
sented an attack or an erosion of face-to-face
teaching, at the expense students who become
more isolated in their study. From the results
of this pilot, we firmly believe that face-to-face
teaching remains centrally in the mix of delivery
methods, recognizing the important motivational
and inspirational qualities of fine lecturing, along
with the spontaneous interactions that may arise.
Yet much of one’s lecturing is perhaps a little more
routine than this, and certainly students report a
range of experiences in their lectures from the
sublime to the ridiculous.
Blended learning, we argue, provides faculty
with the opportunity to step back from the rou-
tines of teaching, and to examine methods such
as lecturing from a fresh perspective. What are
their strengths as a teacher? What is the value
of the lecturing they are undertaking? What do
students think of it? We argue that it is important
to retain the richness of quality face-to-face
74
Blended Learning in a Creative Writing Program
teaching, particularly when it is appropriate for
the subject matter and aligned with our teaching
and learning objectives. Yet much routine lec-
turing – those grinding monologues of content
delivery – could be re-conceptualized with the use
of blended learning to more engaging, interactive
events, enabling students to become a little less
spoon-fed and a little more self-directed in their
acquisition of knowledge.
Staff Development
We learned that ongoing and systematic staff
development is critical to the success of an in-
stitutional move to blended learning. This pilot
revealed the need for two layers of staff develop-
ment as follows:
To enable planning for a move to blended learn-
ing, a first phase of staff development is required
to develop an understanding of:
• contemporary student needs and prefer-
ences in relation to study;
• changing student demographics and the
mix within programs;
• current student technological preferences
and capacity; and
• pedagogical strengths and weaknesses of
elements available in the blended learning
mix.
This phase of staff development is relatively
generic and can be conducted on a university-
wide basis.
A second phase of staff development relates
to actual hands-on skills development in selected
technologies and new delivery elements, and
requires iterative, just-in-time support. This staff
development should be situated at the ‘coal-face,’
with maximum use of techniques such as staff
learning circles and peer support, where best prac-
tice is identified, and expertise is incrementally
developed and shared among staff over time.
Blended Learning in a Creative Writing Program
CONCLUSION
Blended learning initiatives are by no means
new to the higher education sector in Australia
or internationally. However, the form of blending
undertaken in this study, which removes outdated
divisions between on-campus and distance stu-
dents, and draws together disparate and far-flung
cohorts of students into a single, equitable mode
of study, is still relatively uncharted territory.
We have concerns that, among the student
cohort, there are winners and losers. Clearly, the
winners are students who would formerly have
been disadvantaged by the isolation of distance
education, and who now have access to a signifi-
cantly expanded set of study options, including
attendance at specialized face-to-face events and a
new array of computer mediated events and com-
munications. The losers are students who expect
and need a traditional on-campus education with
scheduled weekly face-to-face tuition. While there
is a reduction of weekly teaching on campus in this
model, and a developing reliance on independent
learning for all students, it is vitally important that
we don’t erode the ongoing vitality of a campus
experience, and we must retain a viable core of
on-campus teaching that provides structure, en-
gagement and motivation for those who need it,
particularly in their first year of study.
In the light of these pilot results, it is intended
that SCU move gradually to a fully blended
and converged model of delivery across all its
programs. Above all, it is considered that the
entrenched inequities between distance and
on-campus students are no longer necessary or
conscionable. However, there is much reform at
the institutional level to successfully make this
move, and we have learned that universities can-
not ‘dabble’ in converged or blended learning. At
SCU, the current institutional constraints, such
as enrolment systems, workload models, staffing
arrangements, and inadequate staff development
will cause enthusiastic faculty to revert, chastened,
to conventional delivery arrangements. It requires
a whole-of-university approach, underpinned by
a vision for the university as a ‘next generation’
flexible delivery provider, and actively promoted
to students, to bring this to fruition.
REFERENCES
Bonk, J., & Graham, C. R. (Eds.), Handbook
of blended learning: Global perspectives, local
designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Challis, D. (2005). Eroding distinctiveness: Blur-
ring the boundaries between on- and off-campus
students by the adoption of learning management
systems. Open and Distance Learning Association
of Australia Forum Conference Proceedings 2005.
Retrieved February 10, 2009, from http://www.
odlaa.org/events/2005conf/referred-papers.htm
Graham, C. R. (2004). Blended learning systems:
Definition, trends, and future directions. In C.
Oliver, R., Omari, O., & Herrington, J. (1998).
Developing converged learning environments for
on and off-campus students using the WWW. Con-
ference proceedings of the Australasian Society
for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education
(ASCILITE) 1998. Retrieved February 10, 2009,
from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/wol-
longong98/asc98-pdf/ ascpapers98. html
Samarawickrema, G., & O’Reilly, J. (2003). A
converged learning environment to support all
learners. 16th Conference Proceedings of the
Open and Distance Learning Association of
Australia Forum Conference – Sustaining Qual-
ity Learning Environments, 2003. Retrieved
February 10, 2009, from http://www.odlaa.org/
publications/2003Proceedings/abstract.html
Tait, A., & Mills, R. (Eds.). (1999). The conver-
gence of distance and conventional education:
Patterns of flexibility for the individual learner.
London: Routledge.
75
76

Chapter 5
Blended Learning for
Adaptation to Needs
Joan E. Aitken
Park University, USA

ABSTRACT
Blended learning is an instructional method that opens the channels of communication in the learning
process so that there are increased communication strategies. This chapter discusses two different ap-
proaches to using blended learning as a way of adapting to program needs. In one example, pharmacy
instruction is provided by top faculty to distance sites. In another example, blended learning is used to
reduce instructional costs and increase student enrollment in a graduate program in the humanities.
The differences in approaches are because of the different purposes for the use of blended learning.
Blended learning can be useful in this time of dwindling resources and budget constraints as a method
for improving instruction designed to reach more students and distance locations.

INTRODUCTION be a way to optimize effective instruction (e.g.,

Blended Learning may be the traditional learning
method of the future. Blended learning has been
called a “total mix of pedagogical methods, em-
ploying a combination of diverse learning strate-
gies, both with and without the use of technology”
(Verkroost, Meijerink, Lintsen, & Veen, 2008, p.
499). In essence, blended learning combines tradi-
tional learning methods with technological support.
Some educators believe that blended learning can
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-880-2.ch005
Balram & Dragicevic, 2008; Ho, Lu, & Thurmaier,
2006; Mason, 2005). Blended learning—sometimes
called hybrid or web-assisted learning—is as di-
verse as the faculty and institutions that support
the combination approach (e.g., Lee, Yeh, Kung,
& Hsu, 2007; Schober, Wagner, Reimann, &
Spiel, 2008). Typically, one or more technological
elements—individualized e-instruction, self-paced
e-instruction, asynchronous e-instruction, synchro-
nous e-instruction—are combined with face-to-
face instruction. For the discussion in this chapter,
blended instruction is defined as teaching that uses

Copyright © 2010, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Blended Learning for Adaptation to Needs
a combination of traditional face-to-face and
computer-mediated communication.
The purpose of this chapter is to present ideas
about how to employ blended learning to adapt to
the particular instructional context. By consider-
ing examples, implementation possibilities for
blended learning are discussed. In one example
context, a professional program in pharmacy
uses blended learning so that faculty and staff
can offer the program on another campus. In
another example context, a graduate program in
the humanities uses blended learning to adapt to
student needs and increase student enrollment in
a new and growing program. In both examples,
the use of blended instruction has offered a valid
approach in a time of fewer resources to hire full-
time faculty. The chapter includes an explanation
of the type of technology used, the way blended
learning has been configured, and questions
about the future applications of blended learn-
ing. The chapter offers answers to this question:
How can students, faculty, and administrators
adapt blended learning to achieve goals for their
particular contexts?
BACKGROUND
This section will consider historical information
that has led to blended learning. In the profes-
sional pharmacy example, technology use has
evolved over many years through the leadership
of Information Technology (IT) and Academic
Affairs. In the graduate humanities example, the
university developed two administrative branches
of instruction—onground and online—which
operate separately. Blended learning has become
a challenge that requires collaboration between
two different administrative units.
Across higher education contexts around
the world, the lack of institutional support and
financial restraints have prompted universities
to seek ways to improve and transform education
(Vega-Jurado, Fernandez-de-Lucio, & Huanca,
2008). Given the global economic crisis, more
institutions may turn to blended learning. Some-
times blended learning is considered little more
than a way of updating education, while in other
cases, it is considered a way to provide financial
support to an institution (Boyle, 2005). Clearly,
blended learning is more than the old distributed
learning modes of correspondence courses or
televised courses and more than the one-way
teacher lecture course.
Optimally, blended learning should improve
both face-to-face and online instruction. The model
of blended learning--which uses technological
support rather than replacement of traditional
instruction—holds promise for student learning
(Condie & Livingston, 2007). Enrollment in dis-
tance education courses is exploding (DeNeui &
Dodge, 2006), sometimes to the point of seeming
out of control with limited faculty training or su-
pervision, faculty beyond of their comfort zone,
and other concerns. So in a time when the quality
of e-courses is sometimes questioned, blended
learning has become an increasing popular way
of improving the quality of online instruction
(e.g., Boyle, Bradley, Chalk, Jones, & Pickard,
2003; Oravec, 2003; Schweizer, Paechter, &
Weidenmann, 2003). Concurrently, resources
for education are dwindling during the economic
hard times, so blended learning may be a stimulus
that takes advantage of the resources available,
encourages faculty creativity, and adapts to stu-
dents with special needs (Marschark, Sapere, &
Pelz, 2008).
From the perspective of the communication
scholar, technology channels are intertwined with
potential for new ways for faculty and students
to interact. Scholars in other fields conceptualize
the concept of communication differently from
scholars of communication (Fraser & Schalley,
2009), but for people who study communication,
everything about mediated learning includes op-
portunities to improve communication. E-learning
has changed communication in education, for
example, particularly from the standpoint of so-
77

cial interaction (Slevin, 2008). Blended learning
uses more channels of communication than does
face-to-face instruction. When one considers
the communication devices involved in blended
learning, the approach seems to be about blended
communication. In blended communication, the
professor and students can use multiple interac-
tions, which include the following:
1. Blog
2. Chat and instant messaging
3. Course management system
4. Electronic course environment
5. Electronic files
6. Email
7. Listserv
8. Podcasting
9. Social networking software
10. Teleconferencing
11. Video
12. Web page
13. Wiki
The variety of communication options may
help students to feel engaged in the learning
process through a sense of connectedness. This
connectedness comes through the immediacy
and interpersonal nature of online communica-
tion. Face-to-face instruction in a traditional
classroom is often public communication, but
online interaction is more similar to interpersonal
communication than other types of communica-
tion (Wang, Walther, & Hancock, 2009; Walther,
1992). This interpersonal nature is what gives the
potential for informal and personal communica-
tion in these learning situations. In some cases,
the communication is similar to intrapersonal
communication or self-talk (Smith & Kurthen,
2007), as when the computer acts as a second self
(Turkle, 1984). Sometimes online journaling, for
example, engages a student intrapersonally. The
journals of bloggers seem to share the feeling
that their communication allows them to develop
self-identity and expression (McCullagh, 2008).
78
Blended Learning for Adaptation to Needs
In addition, blended communication may use
the Internet to communicate information, values,
and ideas through technology. In some ways, this
communication through a blended learning ap-
proach may make the acquisition of knowledge
easier. If one considers learning preferences, for
instance, blended communication allows the in-
structor to provide adaptive instruction that can
reach all students (Wall & Ahmed, 2008). Thus,
we can conclude that blended communication
involves communication process of expressing,
sharing, gathering, disseminating, and collaborat-
ing online.
Some students like computer learning. In
fact, they may consider the conventional one-
way communication of traditional classes to be
old fashioned or boring. Although faculty have
complained about the television and video game
generation’s shortened attention span of students
for years, the Internet may take the problem to a
whole new level (Jackson, 2008). Students may
be very adept at using technology and distracted
during online learning by “50 million Web sites”
and “75 million blogs” (p. 13).
Other students may be reluctant to use new
technologies. Understandably, student attitude can
affect the success of using technology in learning
(Lee, Yeh, Kung, & Hsu, 2007). In the traditional
one-way face-to-face course, some students may
have difficulty engaging actively in the learning
process. Of course, most faculty use an array of
face-to-face learning approaches, but one potential
way for increasing active classroom involvement
is to use laptop computers for e-discussion dur-
ing oral discussion. This kind of approach can
encourage students to engage in communication
channels that make them feel comfortable in the
learning process. Consistent with research on
the topic, technology provides diverse channels
of communication for educators (Verhoeven &
Graesser, 2008). By way of illustration, a student
may feel embarrassed if the professor thinks an
oral answer is wrong, but feel reassured after
checking with a classmate through instant mes-
Blended Learning for Adaptation to Needs
saging. This observation is consistent with a study
by Shen, Wang, and Pan (2008), which found that
blended learning in classrooms may increases
student engagement and interactivity. In their
analysis of real-time blended learning, they found
mobile support increased student questions and
suggestions.
Effective communication seems difficult in the
best of circumstances, so adding to the commu-
nication channels during the educational process
of blended classes seems like a potentially useful
idea. In addition to the difficulty of asynchronous
conversation, the online format for communica-
tion may affect the depth of conversation. People
expect emails to be short and quick to read, which
also may transfer into online instructional assign-
ments. A 750 essay assigned to be posted for peer
response may seem long in the online format,
when students skim and speed read posts. This
expectation for brevity may affect the depth of
thought and conversation in mediated environ-
ments. Motteram (2006) discussed the importance
of engaging students for depth of discussion online,
however, and how success is more a function of
the nature of the conversation and less with the
method of conversation.
SETTING THE STAGE
In this section, the adaptive use of technology for
the two example programs is discussed. Technol-
ogy may be seen as a way of supporting students
and faculty, and the investment in equipment
and software may grow out of concern for good
instruction and effective adaptation to students.
To illustrate how blended learning can improve
learning, the method can motivate teachers to
change and improve their instructional practices
(Owston, Sinclair, & Wideman, 2008). Blended
learning also can improve collaboration, which
may be one of the most effective learning strategies
for the widest number of students (Lim & Yoon,
2008). Because of the demands on nontraditional
students, programs for graduate students may be
more popular if they use an approach that provides
online collaboration and less classroom time (Cox
& Cox, 2008).
Using blending learning to adapt to the con-
text is consistent with research about e-learning,
which has demonstrated creative approaches in
virtually every field of academics (e.g., Black,
Beck, & Dawson, 2007; Knobel & Lankshear,
2008; Michinov & Michinov, 2008; Rush, 2008). A
fundamental element in creating blended learning
may be the course environment software, such as
Blackboard, WebTycho, First Class, and eCollege.
The course environment provides content, testing,
group, chat, and other e-options. As DeNeui and
Dodge (2006) explained:
One of the main benefits to students is the unfet-
tered access to virtually anything an instructor
presents in the classroom. For example, access to
syllabi, course notes, interactive demonstrations,
handouts, audio or videotaped lectures are all
possible via this interface. (p. 256)
Even if course environment software is not
available, there are other options for blended
learning. Faculty can create tutorials, which they
put on external Web services. In addition, teachers
can use many free Internet services in their classes.
Faculty can use Facebook.com, for example, and
set up a Facebook group to add another dimen-
sion to the course. With the graduate program
example, faculty and students used the following
free online Internet services: Twitter, Facebook,
MySpace, SurveyMonkey.com, Glogster.com,
Dandelife.com, Secondlife, Squidoo.com, Blog-
ger.com, Squidoo.com, YouTube.com, PBwiki.
com, Code.Google.com/p/YouTeach, and Video.
YouTeach.de.
These kinds of communication strategies
can enhance instruction and are consistent with
research on the topic. In a study by Vaughan
(2007), students indicated that they found more
time flexibility through blended learning. Fur-
79

ther, students believed their learning improved
in the blended context. That finding supports the
idea that the blended approach may enhance a
variety of instructional approaches so that they
better adapt to student needs. The faculty in the
Vaughan study thought that a blended learning
approach improved chances for faculty to interact
with students. In the graduate program example,
some students used a combination of learning
approaches, including face-to-face, blended, and
totally online instruction. These students could
fit the instruction to their needs and improve
flexibility in ways similar to the students of the
Vaughan study. Similarly, although the blended
approaches required considerable work, faculty
were willing to provide the instruction to meet
student needs and increase class size in a grow-
ing department.
Responsible Parties Involved
At both example universities discussed in this
chapter, they are considering changes in their
use of courseware as a cost saving measure. One
university is considering using an open source
courseware such as https://open.umich.edu/ or
http://ocw.mit.edu/ Faculty are upset at the pros-
pect of the changes this approach will require. The
other university is considering passing the course
environment costs directly to the student. In both
universities, these cost saving measures are being
made at the upper administrative level.
Regarding the way blended courses are taught,
developed, and support within the School of
Pharmacy at the one university, the process is
controlled by the faculty. At the other example
university, the way blended courses are taught,
developed, and supported takes place primarily
within an administrative unit separate from the
academic departments and separate from the IT
department. In this second case, both adminis-
trative units are responsible. First, the academic
department is responsible for content. Second, the
online learning department is responsible for (3)
80
Blended Learning for Adaptation to Needs
making sure certain types of content is present,
(1) supervising faculty, (2) seeing that course
content is uploaded into master courses, and (4)
coping the appropriate classes. An online learning
instructional designer is knowledgeable about put-
ting the materials into the course shell. The idea
is that the designer will work with the individual
faculty member, who supplies the course content.
There are online learning supervisory staff mem-
bers who are responsible for administrative tasks
related to working with the online courses. The
program director is responsible for the program
in the department. The director selects faculty to
provide course content. At the end of the process,
the director can review the course and approve
content before the instruction begins. There are
academic administrators involved in encouraging
online courses and overseeing the process. Faculty
involved in the process may be full or part-time.
The faculty are hired by the program director, who
then turns the process over to the online learning
department. As Boyle (2005) explained about
using a course development team:
The design/development team needs to have an
appropriate mixture of roles, and in academic
settings, clarity about the commitment of people
working part-time on the project. There should be
a clear plan for tackling the design and develop-
ment tasks. The plan involves breaking the overall
problems into sub-tasks and allocating these to
groups and individuals within the group. There
needs to be regular group meetings to discuss the
progress against targets. Good design requires a
creative and motivated group. (p. 228)
CASE DESCRIPTION
In this section, the blended learning adaptations
of the two example programs are described. The
programs are (1) a professional program in phar-
macy and (2) a graduate program in the humani-
ties. Both programs are about three years old. The
Blended Learning for Adaptation to Needs
professional program has used a blended approach
from the beginning. The graduate program still
has not decided if or how blended instruction will
be used long-term in the program.
Example One: Launching a New
Professional Program in Pharmacy
A state university with a well-established school
of pharmacy decided to launch a professional pro-
gram at other state universities. Blended learning
research suggests the approach is appropriate in
health care education (Duque, Roberts, Hui, Posel,
Fleiszer, & Chiu, 2006; Espey, Ogburn, Kalish-
man, Zsemlye, & Cosgrove, 2007). This program
required substantial investment in new facilities
which contained large lecture halls with built-in
projection screens and recording facilities.
A few faculty members are located at the dis-
tance campuses, but nearly all of the faculty are
located at the main campus site. The faculty pro-
vide lectures and academic guidance to students,
but staff are hired for advising functions.
In addition to using a course environment with
extensive peripheral supports, the faculty teach
synchronous courses to students. A large lecture
hall contains multiple screens, a microphone for
every two students, and an onsite video-operator.
The lecture is Internet-broadcast to the distance
campuses, where students can see the projected
images and interact with the faculty member. The
video-operator at the main campus location records
the professor and any students who interact in that
space. The video-recorded lectures are then made
available to students as podcasts. The information
technology services provide an open-instructional
lab for faculty once a month. Faculty can receive
individualized, face-to-face instruction on any
software or hardware they desire. The online
supports show the kinds of add-ons available for
course environments.
1. Blogs and wikis software is added to the
course environment.
2. Course environment management system
software is available for all course delivery,
staff training, and organizational collabora-
tion. This system contains a request function
so that instructors can make special copying
requests or create a new organization site.
3. Some classrooms with special technology
have technology for large lecture class-
room interactivity through quiz formats,
attendance-taking, learning games, and
student answers to synchronous questions.
4. Instant messaging is available inside the
course environment software.
5. Learning Object Creation enables various
media resources, such as document scanning
and video streaming.
6. Listserv electronic mailing list use L-Soft’s
LISTSERV software to provide communica-
tion lists to any interested people, including
faculty and students.
7. Podcasting is available for recording in
many classrooms. In addition to videore-
cording faculty lectures and PowerPoints,
students can use a search function based
on PowerPoint content. The system allows
multi-way audio, video, application sharing,
polling, and content display.
8. Test-making software allows transfer from
commonly used software to the course
environment. The software also allows test
security so that students cannot print tests
or go to another URL during the exam.
This process is particularly valuable during
proctored exams.
9. The courseware provides collaboration soft-
ware available to the university community.
In addition, VideoPresence life-size, high-
definition meeting abilities are available.
10. Turnitin is a plagiarism detection and pre-
vention system available to the university
community.
11. A voice board is available for learning oral
language, vocal instruction, collaboration,
and coaching Voice Board allows students
81

to post and listen to voice messages within
discussion boards. Voice Email-send allows
audible email. There are also voice recorder,
podcasting, and presentation services
available.
Example 2: Launching a New
Graduate Program in the Humanities
Based on program goals, courses were developed
for both online and onground formats. Typically, a
faculty member would teach the course onground,
create materials, and then develop the course in
an online course environment shell. The courses
were developed so that the content can be used by
other faculty. Both part-time and full-time faculty
develop the courses.
For this program, experimentation with the
blended approach enabled more flexibility for
onground students and allowed for both distance
and local students to attend a class together. In a
new program--where not every course would have
enough students to make, the idea was to see if
distance (online) and local (onground) students
could work together in a blended class format. In
this example, the professor tried three blended ap-
proaches. A multiple course trial of this approach
was implemented as a way to adapt to program
needs and student needs.
First, the professor used synchronous blue
tooth telephony with an online course shell. In
some courses, the faculty member arranged to
use a telephone call-in service. While meeting
with some students face-to-face, other students
telephoned in through a conferencing system.
Probably the main disadvantage of this approach
was the inability of all students to hear the students
on the phone. The communication was primar-
ily one-way from the professor to the students.
When students tried to interact in discussion,
the professor was the only one who could hear
distance students. The administration ended this
approach because of the high cost of the telephone
conferencing system.
82
Blended Learning for Adaptation to Needs
In the second trial, the professor used syn-
chronous Skype.com voice-over freeware. In
their instructional study using Skype, Pan and
Sullivan (2005) found that student reaction toward
the system was positive. The study suggested
that students were better able to better work with
abstract topics. Skype worked well to augment
group interaction. Typing is not needed, so students
can focus their mental energy on the topic, which
helped them stay motivated and on task. Skype
seemed particularly effective with virtual teams,
including immediate input and feedback (27-30).
They provide the following recommendations for
using Skype:
1. Divide students into groups of four for con-
ference calling.
2. Encourage headsets and other useful tools.
3. Encourage tools such as Blackboard Chat,
which record conversations.
4. Organize a pro-class training session for a
subset of the entire class.
5. Provide protocols for disconnects.
6. Schedule the students’ Skype subscription
in the class orientation.
This study was consistent with case here,
adding support to the idea that Skype can be a
useful learning tool (Jaya, 2008). Thus, Skype
and the course environment system were used to
provide a video connection between the onground
and online course. The University supplied a
motion-activated camera for the classroom. This
approach allowed freedom lecture and discussion
as usual. Although the approach worked, it seemed
a temporary and haphazard solution.
In the third trial, the professor used asynchro-
nous online instruction combined with face-to-face
instruction. In other words, shortened face-to-face
class meetings were supplemented by course envi-
ronment software use between class meetings.
One configuration of this approach includes
coordination between two universities. In fact, a
blended approach can work well when developing
Blended Learning for Adaptation to Needs
an international instructional program (Mathur &
Oliver, 2007). The two universities have decided to
work together in a program where students in one
country will receive a graduate degree from both
their own and a US university. A key advantage of
using international students or multinational loca-
tions in e-learning is that students learn effective
international public discourse. Students from the
other country will be taking online courses and
faculty from the other country will be teaching
students from the e-courses developed by US
faculty. Further, by having students from both
countries in the classes, faculty hope to use online
technology in collaborative learning as it has been
done successfully elsewhere (Cho & Lee, 2008).
The courses will be conducted in English, and
the faculty believe that the questions of training
faculty, recruiting students, creating community,
and cultural differences may necessitate some
kind of blended approach. E-learning has taken
shape according to cultural and national expecta-
tions (e.g., Thomas, 2008; Van Bauwel, 2008), so
requires adaptation to the opportunities and styles
in both countries. The cost of flying faculty and
students back and forth has become prohibitive, so
the need for adaptation to international faculty and
students is a major consideration in this case.
CURRENT CHALLENGES
FACING THE ORGANIZATION
In this section, the needed problem-solving for the
example programs in this case are synthesized.
To make the examples relevant to other contexts,
they are discussed in a general way, so they are
consistent with research findings on the topic.
After a general overview of challenges, relevant
questions will be considered.
Clearly, e-learning is a complicated process
with paradoxical ups and downs, pros and cons,
strengths and needs regarding e-communication
during course instruction (Shedletsky & Aitken,
2001). If students, faculty, and administrators are
using available communication technology to en-
hance instruction and learning, blended learning
may be successful. A key challenge, however, is
finding ways to use these complicated communi-
cation channels so they enhance the educational
process.
One challenge in using blended learning is
that it requires careful planning and practices
(McAndrew, 2006). When perceived as a way to
bring better resources to students—as in the phar-
macy school example—all parties seem onboard.
When perceived as a power grab by a technical
or academic unit—as in the humanities program
example—a transition to blended learning may
develop slowly, if at all.
Another challenge in using technology in edu-
cation may be the focus on technical details that
take away from an academic focus on theoretical
issues (Slevin, 2008). Academics may have to
become experts on communication technology
in addition to course content. Nearly any faculty
member can give examples of students asking
them technical questions about the communica-
tion technology instead of asking Instructional
Technology staff. Some students may expect their
faculty to know it all.
Although a way of saving money in some
cases, blending learning may be quite expensive
too. The professional pharmacy program in this
case had extensive planning, cost, and technology
requirements. These costs are less than setting
up a second program at another campus, how-
ever. With a financial crisis requiring cost cuts,
both example programs in this case are trying
to find new ways to pay for the communication
technology they want to use in instruction. Thus,
similarly related to the financial restraints of
challenging economic times is whether or not
communication technologies are affordable. De-
termining whether technology investments will
pay off may be a challenge. Blended teaching
can be a way of repurposing resources (Davis &
Fill, 2007), which may be needed when resources
are limited.
83

Another challenge of using blended learning
is faculty resistance to change (Vaughan, 2007).
A study conducted in Australia and Canada sug-
gested that there are many similarities between
teaching philosophies of online and onground
faculty, which may mean blended learning is a
valuable trend (Stacey & Wiesenberg, 2007).
Yet in the humanities example, there is a sense
of competition, where the online faculty pay the
bills and the onground faculty are the content
experts. Perhaps in a time of dwindling resources,
faculty will need new ways of working together
and adapting to change.
Universities may need to find ways to help
students adapt to the communication technolo-
gies they will use in their course work. Some
students may have troubling keeping motivated
and up-to-date with their work in a blended ap-
proach. The advantage for students of flexibility
and increased learning has the challenge of time
management and learning complicated technolo-
gies (Vaughan, 2007).
Many full-time faculty see their work expec-
tations and responsibilities expanding. Enticing
faculty to do the work of adopting new technolo-
gies and teaching methods for blended instruction
can be difficult (Davis & Fill, 2007). Thus, full
faculty participation in blended learning may
be a challenge. It tends to be administrators and
students—more than faculty—who believe in the
ability of blended learning to improve instruc-
tion and student access to education (Condie &
Livingston, 2007). Faculty may have concern
over some of the work-intensive elements—time,
resources, and course redesign--of providing
instruction through both the online and face-to-
face formats. The examples in this chapter are
consistent with research that suggests that faculty
and administrators have many issues to solve
regarding using technology, including how to use
social networking, games, and mobile services
(Milliron, Plinske, Noonan-Terry, 2008). Staying
up-to-date with continually changing technology
can increase work and stress.
84
Blended Learning for Adaptation to Needs
CONCLUSION
The pharmacy program example in this case
clearly sees blended learning as a viable learning
approach. The humanities program example seems
to lack clear direction for using blended learning
because the online and onground approaches
remain distinctly different. The different results
suggest that the complexities of organizations,
faculty, staff, students, and contexts determine if
and how blended learning will be used. Appropri-
ate adaptations need to be made to fit program
purposes. So how might the example programs in
this case provide ideas for other contexts?
A key advantage to using communication
technology in instruction is that it allows learning
to be personalized for students. Virtual resources
can enhance usability and task completion by
enhancing other instructional methods (Mackey
& Ho, 2008). Although the original expectation
was that computer learning would become more
impersonalized, online instructional support can
facilitate multimedia adaptation to student needs
and learning styles through individualized in-
struction. For the blended course, this means that
additional communication channels are opened to
the instructional process. Abrahmov and Ronen
(2008) contended: “The Web-based component
enabled us to engage the students in individual
activity, where each student, in his own time, can
develop” (p. 13).
Some of the cited research in this case suggests
that blended learning may work better than online
learning in international or global contexts. This
finding is relevant for the international component
under development in the humanities example in
this chapter. In a study of courses in Denmark, for
instance, Heilesen and Josephsen (2008) found
that challenges of holistic and individual user
perceptions have led to a growing disillusion-
ment about learning through technology. They
believe that a potential result may be the use of
technology as augmentation, which is consistent
with some types of blended instruction. Ryan and
Blended Learning for Adaptation to Needs
Kopischke (2008) also found that Internet technol-
ogy can provide opportunities and the ability for
globalization. Research suggests that opportunities
for blended learning should recognize that dif-
ferent countries have implemented government
policies about the Internet. In blended learning
courses taught internationally, the faculty will
need to adapt to any governmental restrictions.
Although openness may not be experienced in
all national contexts, research does suggest that
the users in China, for instance, seek a balance
of freedom and self-restraint (Giese & Muller,
2007). International blended learning will need
appropriate adaptations.
“Information and communication technologies
are here to stay and are expected to enhance learn-
ing” (Donnelly, 2006, p. 95). Blended learning
tries to use all available means of communica-
tion to improve instructional effectiveness. New
technologies are already available and on the
horizon, and those technologies can facilitate
blended learning. As new computer technologies
make downloading a video-lecture to an iPod in-
expensive and easy, for example, a convergence
of mediated communication approaches can
be blended to benefit students. Perhaps a trend
toward blending course instruction is primarily
about using all available means of communica-
tion. Blended learning can be a flux of frustration
and fun, while administrators, faculty, and other
stakeholders work together to make education
more effective. We can expect that as communi-
cation technology develops, many challenges lie
ahead for educators to use technology to meet the
needs of learners. Note that Appendix A is a list
of further reading.
REFERENCES
Abrahmov, S., & Ronen, M. (2008). Double
blending: Online theory with on-campus practice
in photography instruction. Innovations in Edu-
cation and Teaching International, 45(1), 3–14.
doi:10.1080/14703290701757385
Balram, S., & Dragicevic, S. (2008). Collab-
orative spaces for GIS-based multimedia car-
tography in blended environments. Computers
& Education, 50(1), 371–385. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2006.07.004
Black, E., Beck, D., & Dawson, K. (2007). The
other side of the LMS: Considering implementa-
tion and use in the adoption of an LMS in online
and blended learning environments. TechTrends,
51(2), 35–39. doi:10.1007/s11528-007-0024-x
Boyle, T. (2005). A dynamic, systematic method
for developing blended learning. Education
Communication and Information, 5(3), 221–232.
doi:10.1080/14636310500350422
Boyle, T., Bradley, C., Chalk, P., Jones, R., &
Pickard, P. (2003). Using blended learning to im-
prove student success rates in learning to program.
Journal of Educational Media, 28(2/3), 165–178.
doi:10.1080/1358165032000153160
Cho, H., & Lee, J. (2008). Collaborative informa-
tion seeking in intercultural computer-mediated
communication groups: Testing the influence
of social context using social network analysis.
Communication Research, 35(4), 548–573.
doi:10.1177/0093650208315982
Condie, R., & Livingston, K. (2007). Blending
online learning with traditional approaches:
Changing practices. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 38(2), 337–348. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2006.00630.x
85
 Blended Learning for Adaptation to Needs

Cox, B., & Cox, B. (2008). Developing interper- Heilesen, S., & Josephsen, J. (2008). E-learning:
sonal and group dynamics through asynchronous Between augmentation and disruption? Comput-
threaded discussions: The use of discussion board ers & Education, 50(2), 525–534. doi:10.1016/j.
in collaborative learning. Education, 128(4), compedu.2007.09.006
553–565.
Ho, A., Lu, L., & Thurmaier, K. (2006). Testing
Davis, H., & Fill, K. (2007). Embedding blended the reluctant professor’s hypothesis: Evaluating
learning in a university’s teaching culture: a blended-learning approach to distance educa-
Experiences and reflections. British Journal tion. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 12(1),
of Educational Technology, 38(5), 817–828. 81–102.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00756.x
Jackson, M. (2008). The erosion of attention and
DeNeui, D., & Dodge, T. (2006). Asynchronous the coming Dark Age. Amherst, NY: Prometheus
learning networks and student outcomes: The Books.
utility of online learning components in hybrid
Jaya, R. (2008). Skype voice chat a tool for
courses. Journal of Instructional Psychology,
teaching oral communication. Language in India,
33(4), 256–259.
8(12), 9.
Donnelly, R. (2006). Blended problem based
Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2008). Remix: The
learning for teacher education: Lessons learnt.
art and craft of endless hybridization. Journal
Learning, Media and Technology, 31(2), 93–116.
of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 22–33.
doi:10.1080/17439880600756621
doi:10.1598/JAAL.52.1.3
Duque, G., Roberts, A., Hui, J., Posel, N., Fleiszer,
Lee, C., Yeh, D., Kung, R., & Hsu, C. (2007). The
D., & Chiu, W. (2006). From the facts to the screen:
influences of learning portfolios and attitudes on
A blended model of teaching basic hospital skills to
learning effects in blended e-learning for math-
2nd year medical students. Medical Teacher, 28(8),
ematics. Journal of Educational Computing Re-
729–733. doi:10.1080/01421590601032450
search, 37(4), 331–350. doi:10.2190/EC.37.4.a
Espey, E., Ogburn, T., Kalishman, S., Zsemlye,
Lim, D., & Yoon, S. (2008). Team learning and
M., & Cosgrove, E. (2007). Revitalizing problem
collaboration between online and blended learner
based learning: Student and tutor attitudes towards
groups. Performance Improvement Quarterly,
a structured tutorial. Medical Teacher, 29(2/3),
21(3), 59–72. doi:10.1002/piq.20031
143–149. doi:10.1080/01421590701316522
Mackey, T., & Ho, J. (2008). Exploring the
Fraser, H., & Schalley, A. (2009). Communicating
relationships between Web usability and stu-
about communication: Intercultural competence as
dents’ perceived learning in Web-based mul-
a factor in the success of interdisciplinary collabo-
timedia (WBMM) tutorials. Computers &
ration. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 29(1),
Education, 50(1), 386–409. doi:10.1016/j.com-
135–155. doi:10.1080/07268600802516418
pedu.2006.08.006
Giese, K., & Muller, C. (2007). Ethical-moral lim-
Marschark, M., Sapere, P., & Pelz, J. (2008).
its of public communication -- Neglected dimen-
Learning via direct and mediated instruction by
sion within the discourse on Internet censorship
deaf students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
in China. China Aktuell, 36(4), 74–95.
Education, 13(4), 546–561. doi:10.1093/deafed/
enn014

86
Blended Learning for Adaptation to Needs

Mason, R. (2005). Blended learning. Education Pan, C., & Sullivan, M. (2005). Promoting syn-
Communication and Information, 5(3), 217–220. chronous interaction in an elearning environment.
doi:10.1080/14636310500350406 T.H.E. Journal, 33(2), 27–30.
Mathur, R., & Oliver, L. (2007). Developing Rush, A. (2008). The design of online tertiary
an international distance education program: A courseware for a blended learning, project-based,
blended learning approach. Online Journal of e-business management program in the Middle
Distance Learning Administration, 10(4). East. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(4),
667–701.
McAndrew, P. (2006). What is needed for global
e-learning in higher education? Information Tech- Ryan, K., & Kopischke, K. (2008). Blurring the
nology . Education and Society, 7(1-2), 5–24. lines: Leveraging Internet technology for suc-
cessful blending of secondary/post-secondary
McCullagh, K. (2008, March). Blogging: Self
technical education. Community College Jour-
presentation and privacy. Information & Com-
nal of Research and Practice, 32(11), 877–879.
munications Technology Law, 17(1), 3–23.
doi:10.1080/10668920802394784
doi:10.1080/13600830801886984
Schober, B., Wagner, P., Reimann, R., & Spiel,
Michinov, N., & Michinov, E. (2008). Face-to-face
C. (2008). Vienna e-lecturing (VEL): Learning
contact at the midpoint of an online collaboration:
how to learn self-regulated in an Internet-based
Its impact on the patterns of participation, interac-
blended learning setting. International Journal
tion, affect, and behavior over time. Computers
on E-Learning, 7(4), 703–723.
& Education, 50(4), 1540–1557. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2007.03.002 Schweizer, K., Paechter, M., & Weidenmann,
B. (2003). Blended learning as a strategy to
Milliron, M., Plinske, K., & Noonan-Terry, C.
improve collaborative task performance. Jour-
(2008). Building for a new generation of learn-
nal of Educational Media, 28(2/3), 211–224.
ing: Conversations to catalyze our construction.
doi:10.1080/1358165032000165699
Planning for Higher Education, 37(1), 7–14.
Shedletsky, L. J., & Aitken, J. E. (2001).
Motteram, G. (2006). Blended education and the
The paradoxes of online academic work.
transformation of teachers: A long-term case study
Communication Education, 50(3), 206–217.
in postgraduate UK higher education. British
doi:10.1080/03634520109379248
Journal of Educational Technology, 37(1), 17–30.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00511.x Shen, R., Wang, M., & Pan, X. (2008). Increas-
ing interactivity in blended classrooms through a
Oravec, J. (2003). Blending by blogging:
cutting-edge mobile learning system. British Jour-
Weblogs in blended learning initiatives. Jour-
nal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1073–1086.
nal of Educational Media, 28(2/3), 225–233.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00778.x
doi:10.1080/1358165032000165671
Slevin, J. (2008). E-learning and the transforma-
Owston, R., Sinclair, M., & Wideman, H. (2008).
tion of social interaction in higher education.
Blended learning for professional development:
Learning, Media and Technology, 33(2), 115–126.
An evaluation of a program for middle school
doi:10.1080/17439880802097659
mathematics and science teachers. Teachers Col-
lege Record, 110(5), 1033–1064.

87

Smith, G., & Kurthen, H. (2007). Front-stage
and back-stage in hybrid e-learning face-to-face
courses. International Journal on E-Learning,
6(3), 455–474.
Stacey, E., & Wiesenberg, F. (2007). A study of
face-to-face and online teaching philosophies in
Canada and Australia. Journal of Distance Educa-
tion, 22(1), 19–40.
Thomas, P. (2008). Managing the change towards
a blended learning model at the University of
Botswana. Nawa: Journal of Language & Com-
munication, 2(1), 106–125.
Turkle, S. (1984). The second self: Computers
and the human spirit. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Van Bauwel, S. (2008). Media literacy and au-
diovisual languages: A case study from Belgium.
Educational Media International, 45(2), 119–130.
doi:10.1080/09523980802109563
Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended
learning in higher education. International Journal
on E-Learning, 6(1), 81–94.
Vega-Jurado, J., Fernandez-de-Lucio, I., &
Huanca, R. (2008). University-industry relations
in Bolivia: Implications for university transforma-
tions in Latin America. Higher Education, 56(2),
205–220. doi:10.1007/s10734-007-9098-9
Verhoeven, L., & Graesser, A. (2008). Cognitive
and linguistic factors in interactive knowledge con-
struction. Discourse Processes, 45(4/5), 289–297.
doi:10.1080/01638530802145353
Verkroost, M., Meijerink, L., Lintsen, H., & Veen,
W. (2008). Finding a balance in dimensions of
blended learning. International Journal on E-
Learning, 7(3), 499–522.
88
Blended Learning for Adaptation to Needs
Wall, J., & Ahmed, V. (2008). Use of a simulation
game in delivering blended lifelong learning in
the construction industry -- Opportunities and
challenges. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1383–
1393. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.12.012
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal ef-
fects in computer-mediated interaction.
Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90.
doi:10.1177/009365092019001003
Wang, Z., Walther, J., & Hancock, J. (2009). Social
identification and interpersonal communication
in computer-mediated communication: What
you do versus who you are in virtual groups.
Human Communication Research, 35(1), 59–85.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.01338.x
ADDITIONAL READING
Bejerano, A. (2008). The genesis and evolu-
tion of online degree programs: Who are they
for and what have we lost along the way?
Communication Education, 57(3), 408–414.
doi:10.1080/03634520801993697
Falconer, I., & Littlejohn, A. (2007). Designing
for blended learning, sharing and reuse. Journal
of Further and Higher Education, 31(1), 41–52.
doi:10.1080/03098770601167914
Gunga, S., & Ricketts, I. (2008). The prospects
for e-learning revolution in education: A philo-
sophical analysis. Educational Philosophy and
Theory, 40(2), 294–314. doi:10.1111/j.1469-
5812.2007.00332.x
Open Courseware, M. I. T. (2009). Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. Retrieved August 27,
2009, from http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/
home/home/index.htm
Blended Learning for Adaptation to Needs
Open Source. (2009). Open source software
development. Irvine, CA: Institute for Software
Research, University of California. Retrieved
August 27, 2009, from http://www.isr.uci.edu/
research-open-source.html
Park, Y., & Bonk, C. (2007). Synchronous learn-
ing experiences: Distance and residential learners’
perspectives in a blended graduate course. Journal
of Interactive Online Learning, 6(3), 245–264.
Shedletsky, L. J., & Aitken, J. E. (Eds.). (2010).
Cases on online discussion and interaction:
Experiences and outcomes. Hershey, PA: IGI
Global.
Sloan-C Blended Learning. (2006). Sloan-C
blended learning research perspectives. The Sloan
Consortium. Retrieved Augutst 27, 2009, from
http://www.blendedteaching.org/
Tang, M., & Byrne, R. (2007). Regular versus
online versus blended: A qualitative description
of the advantages of the electronic modes and a
quantitative evaluation. International Journal on
E-Learning, 6(2), 257–266.
89
B: Courses
 91

Chapter 6
Virtual Reality or Virtually Real:
Blended Teaching and Learning in a
Master’s Level Research Methods Class
John Lidstone
Queensland University of Technology, Australia

Paul Shield
Queensland University of Technology, Australia

ABSTRACT
This paper examines the enabling effect of using blended learning and synchronous internet mediated
communication technologies to improve learning and develop a Sense of Community (SOC) in a group
of post graduate students consisting of a mix of on-campus and off campus students. Both quantitative
and qualitative data collected over a number of years supports the assertion that the blended learning
environment enhanced both teaching and learning. The development of a SOC was pivotal to the success
of the blended approach when working with geographically isolated groups within a single learning
environment.

INTRODUCTION that henceforth, educational reform will ensure that

In recent decades, educational reform has become a
catchword in the Anglo-American world, including
the United States, Canada, Australia, and England
and Wales, as well as in the Confucian Heritage Areas
such as Mainland China, Singapore, Hong Kong,
and Taiwan. Of particular interest is the remarkable
consistency of political statements to the effect
that in order for a nation to remain internationally
competitive, its education systems must focus on
producing skilled graduates for the workforce and
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-880-2.ch006
any particular country will become “a smart state”
or a “clever country.”
Across the world, the educational reform mea-
sures being implemented are surprisingly similar.
On the implementation side, educators are placed
in a pivotal position and are required to take up the
work of designing high-quality teaching and learning
for students to meet standards set by governments
including demands for increased use of technology.
Lankshear and Snyder (2000) point out, teachers
[at all levels] are pushed to adopt Information
and Communication Technologies (ICT) in their
teaching. National leaders frequently pronounce

Copyright © 2010, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

that since societies are changing, so also should
education (Hargreaves, 2003; Kelly, 2004). The
rhetoric usually includes statements to the effect
that in the “Information Age,” the skills of the
populace needed for national (economic) survival
must adjust accordingly. There is almost always
reference (at least until the full ramifications of
the U.S. sub-prime mortgage crisis were felt) to
international competition in “global markets.”
Perhaps because of the perceived economic
benefits of technologically mediated pedagogies,
educators themselves have often adopted new
technologies with sometimes breathless enthusi-
asm. Hartman, Dziuban and Moskal (2007), for
example, assert the impact of the World Wide Web
attributes of ubiquity, interactivity, multimedia
capability, multilingual capacity, multiplatform
capability, multi-protocol capability and synchro-
nous and asynchronous communication on learn-
ing. However, despite the undoubted benefits and
future potential of the virtual world to enhance
education, there are signs that some equilibrium
in expectations may be returning with Jasinski
(2007) suggesting that there may be a shift from
the “e” and back to the “learning” with e-learning
seen as just one of a suite of useful models to
explore in enhancing professional educational
practice leading to what has become known as
“blended learning.”
This chapter presents a case study of the
development and impact of a Master’s level
research methodology unit (officially coded as
EDN611: Professional Applications of Research)
in the Faculty of Education at the Queensland
University of Technology (QUT) in Brisbane,
Australia. Professional Applications of Research
is a core unit in a number of the Faculty’s suite of
Master’s courses and is intended to help students
to become critical professional consumers of
research reports. The development of this unit in
recent years illustrates many of the stages in the
emergence and development of blended learning
implied above.
92
Virtual Reality or Virtually Real
BACKGROUND: THE ECONOMIC
AND POLITICAL CLIMATE IN
WHICH THE UNIT WAS INITIATED
The economic and political climate that formed the
backdrop and in some measures the catalyst for the
development of the blended learning environment
has been summarized by Singh, Atweh and Shield
(2005). These authors identified the Australian
Government policy document Our Universities.
Backing Australia’s Future (Nelson, 2003) as of
particular interest in terms of teaching and learn-
ing. This document listed a number of significant
problems facing Australian universities at the time
that are still current, particularly:
• considerable increases in course provision
costs;
• access to increased resources in the longer
term, including those from additional in-
come streams;
• significant duplication in some university
activities and course offerings and far too
many units across universities and facul-
ties with very small enrolments;
• under-representation of students from dis-
advantaged backgrounds;
• large numbers of students not completing
university studies (approx. 30%); and
• over-enrolments of students leading to
overcrowding and adverse impacts on
quality. (Nelson, 2003, p.10)
The document then moved on to present a
vision statement of reform underpinned by four
key principles. These were as follows:
• Sustainability: Maximum opportunity
given to institutions, consistent with pub-
lic accountability and social responsibility,
to develop innovative responses to rapidly
changing environments in teaching and
learning.
Virtual Reality or Virtually Real
• Quality: A renewed emphasis on teaching
and learning outcomes … to ensure that
students develop knowledge and skills that
are relevant to their own needs and to those
of employers, professional associations,
labour markets and society.
• Equity: Targeted intervention measures
and new approaches to student financing
to encourage participation and retention of
under-represented groups, particularly in-
digenous students.
• Diversity: Institutions encouraged forging
distinct missions within the overall system
and through greater collaboration between
individual universities and other education
providers, industry, business, regions and
communities (Nelson, 2003, pp. 10-11).
Finally, the policy document signaled the
formation of a central institution and regulatory
framework aimed at measuring teaching and
learning performance outcomes: the National
Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher
Education. Some of the responsibilities of this
Institute included:
• liaison with the sector about options for
articulating and monitoring academic
standards;
• improvement of assessment practices
throughout the sector, including investiga-
tion of the feasibility of a national portfolio
assessment scheme;
• facilitation of benchmarking of effective
teaching and learning processes at national
and international levels; and
• development of mechanisms for the dis-
semination of good practice and profes-
sional development in learning and teach-
ing. (Nelson, 2003, pp. 29-30)
As a direct result of these regulatory and policy
changes Australian universities were compelled
both to improve the quality of the learning ex-
perience and to increase accessibility while at
the same time improving efficiencies in terms of
cost-benefits. It is probably unsurprising that many
embraced the idea of the open learning concept
in an effort to increase market share and improve
efficiencies. What was probably little understood
or even considered at the time was the shift in the
pedagogical space that would be required to gener-
ate a quality learning experience for students and
a satisfying teaching space for academics.
The immediate consequence of this for that
designing university curricula/pedagogy was
that academic workers had to manage the ten-
sions between two positions – the outwardly
oriented, prospective identities constructed by
market forces and state regulatory frameworks;
and the inwardly oriented, introspective identi-
ties of disciplinary knowledge. This pedagogic
position is Janus-faced – with one face always
looking outwards to market and state regulatory
forces, and the other face looking inwards to the
introspective demands of disciplinary knowledge
(Bernstein, 1999).
At the turn of the century, a number of higher
education researchers talked about changes to
academic work brought about by three significant
factors, namely: (1) growth in higher education
participation rates; (2) accelerated growth in
knowledge production; and (3) the transformation
of teaching by information communications tech-
nology (Coaldrake & Stedman, 1999; Stromquist,
2002; Tyler, 2001). Changes to academic work, in
particular, changes to teaching and learning were
also the subject of numerous policy discussion
papers. The Nelson (2003) reforms of Australian
higher education emphasized the importance
of teaching and learning in developing generic
graduate skills and the need for higher education
workers to accommodate to the needs of a large,
diverse clientele of learners.
In particular, the revolution in ICTs was viewed
by some as the panacea for dealing with the growth
in student numbers, including the diversity of the
student clientele (in terms of academic preparation,
93

language, socio-economic background, and other
factors), and the move to ‘student-centred’ learn-
ing. As Coaldrake and Stedman (1999) argued, the
growth in student numbers was not accompanied
by relative increases in state funding. Rather,
students were and are expected to contribute to
the costs of higher education which resulted in
the concerns of students becoming increasingly
important in this user-pays model of education.
‘Now students are more concerned about flexibil-
ity and convenience, quality of teaching, ensuring
the status and quality of their awards, obtaining
more attention and feedback from staff, and hav-
ing access to high quality facilities’ (Coaldrake
& Stedman, 1999, p. 3).
This ‘student-centred’ learning, with its teach-
ing focus on ‘flexibility’, ‘convenience’, and
‘quality’, was thus the higher education context
in which EDN611: Professional Applications
of Research was initially designed. It sought to
develop a student/learner focus mediated through
a ‘community of learning’ populated by both on-
campus and off-campus students.
SETTING THE STAGE: THE HISTORy
OF THE UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Daniel Chandler (1995) invites us to question
whether socially driven change in pedagogy
leads the application of technology or whether
advances in technology drive change in pedagogy.
The possible mismatch between “conventional”
pedagogy and “technology mediated” pedagogy
is also worthy of examination. We now consider
the history of events that laid the foundation for
the pedagogical approaches adopted in this unit
of work and then discuss some of the questions
posed by Chandler (1995).
In the mid 1980s, a Graduate Diploma in
Computer Education, primarily directed at teach-
ers, was developed with the objectives to retrain
general or subject teachers as computer studies
teachers and to introduce the application of com-
94
Virtual Reality or Virtually Real
puter technologies across the curriculum. The
course was very successful and there was pressure
to offer the course in external mode.
Delivery of units in external mode at that time
was invariably print based and it soon became
obvious that there was a mismatch between the
technical, hands on, content being presented in
the on-campus course and this form of remote
pedagogy. At about this time Australian Telecom
(now Telstra) released its electronic e-mail system,
KEYLINK. A memorandum of understanding was
reached with Telecom to make this system avail-
able to both students and lecturing staff in order to
provide more immediate and personalized help to
students studying at a distance. This approach was
only partially successful due to system instability,
rudimentary telephone networks in country areas
and Subscriber trunk dialing costs (long distance
phone calls costed on a time basis) associated
with dialing into a city based mail server. This
was a clear case of pedagogical design leading
the ability of the technology to deliver.
The rapid growth of the Internet during the
early 1990s prompted a second attempt to develop
a pedagogy more suited to students studying at a
distance. A Web-based On-Line Teaching system
(usually called by its acronym OLT) was developed
by QUT in-house. This system was database driven
and had similar functionality to systems in popular
use at present. It allowed for synchronous (chat
room) and asynchronous (Web board, e-mail lists)
communications. It also allowed the structuring
and delivery of learning materials albeit mostly
print based. The advent of this system heralded the
“blurring” of the distinction between on-campus
and off-campus students, as both had access to
the system. In this instance the technology led
the pedagogy which had been primed by previous
exposure to the KEYLINK system.
By this time PowerPoint presentations started
to appear as a core component of on-campus teach-
ing, replacing the ubiquitous overhead transparen-
cies. It seemed a natural extension to make these
available to off-campus students. Closer exami-
Virtual Reality or Virtually Real
nation of the way in which PowerPoint presenta-
tions were used in teaching revealed deficiencies
in this strategy. Most lecturers used PowerPoint
presentations as prompts for monologue and
sometimes dialogue with their students; at best
they were used to summarize key points. Remove
the verbal backdrop and the presentations were
devalued as a component of a pedagogy tailored
to off-campus students. Lack of effective audio
compression, small bandwidth and lack of audio
streaming technologies precluded packaging audio
with the presentations for use across the internet.
In this instance, pedagogical specifications led the
ability of the technology to deliver.
Over a period of several years a variety of strate-
gies were tried to overcome this hurdle, including
the development of new presentations that were
coded in Flash or developed as Java applets. Both
formats proved suitable and enabled students with
relatively slow dial-up connections to access the
material in an acceptable way. The problem with
this approach was that a high level of technical
expertise was required to produce the presenta-
tions. Furthermore, the strategy did not tap into the
existing resource of already prepared PowerPoint
presentations available for most on-campus units.
This limitation was finally overcome through the
release of some commercial products that convert
PowerPoint presentations with embedded or linked
audio directly into flash movies or java applets.
This process was trialed extensively in the unit
and with some reservations was found satisfactory.
Once again the technology lagged the pedagogical
specification for some time.
This journey also encouraged us to examine
the nexus between conventional on-campus face-
to-face pedagogy and the technology-mediated
off-campus pedagogy we were attempting to
implement in the unit. Initially the consensus
was perhaps that the on-campus experience was
the optimum and the challenge was to graft as
much of that type of experience as we could on
to the off-campus experience. As the development
of the unit progressed there was a fundamental
shift in that philosophy. The imperative started to
become: What type of pedagogy mediated by the
technology best suits both on-campus and off-
campus students given the conceptual difficulty
of the material we were trying to teach and the
threshold understandings of our students?
Deliberation on this question first manifested
itself in the decision not simply to video the on-
campus lectures and stream these to the off-campus
students. It was judged this would be detrimental
to the formation of a learning community (Palloff
& Pratt, 1999) across the unit as the off-campus
students would experience a measure of discon-
nectedness. This decision proved a catalyst for us
to examine whether face-to-face lectures really
added anything to the learning mix. The outcome
was that traditional face-to-face lectures were
replaced with a combination of on-line scaffolded
asynchronous resources and a bounded mixed-
mode (on-campus, off-campus) synchronous
experience. This approach is described elsewhere
in the chapter and anecdotal evidence suggests it
has been successful.
CASE DESCRIPTION: THE
CURRENT MANIFESTATION
OF EDN611- PROFESSIONAL
APPLICATIONS OF RESEARCH
The on line blended offering of the unit EDN
611, Professional Applications of Research was
designed and first implemented in Semester 1,
2005. It is the initial postgraduate research training
unit offered in the Master of Learning Innovation
course in the Faculty of Education at QUT. The
unit outline states that:
This Unit focuses on the needs of professionals
for reading, understanding and evaluating profes-
sional research both within and across different
paradigms. It assists students to develop skills in
understanding and appreciating the process and
techniques used in research in order to critically
95

read and interpret a wide range of research studies.
… This Unit focuses on the needs of professionals
to seek research knowledge that addresses specific
problems or issues in their practice and to develop
a positive attitude towards research in general.
It assists students to search databases and other
sources to locate published research reports in
their field and evaluate them critically.
Further skills in planning and conducting re-
search projects are developed in a follow up unit
within the Faculty. As a compulsory unit at the
postgraduate level, it also aims to ensure that stu-
dents develop sufficient information literacy and
academic writing skills to complete the remaining
postgraduate units in the Master of Learning In-
novation course successfully.
Open to master’s and doctoral students, the
Unit or its predecessors have been offered to
students for about fifteen years in three different
modes: (1) internal, (2) external, and (3) block
mode conducted during school vacations. How-
ever, the pedagogical experiences provided in the
three modes were often quite distinct. In addition,
the instructional content (knowledge and skills)
varied depending on the specific focus of the
different lecturers responsible for teaching the
different modes. In particular, internal modes of
offering of this unit have employed pedagogies
that allowed the development of collaboration
between students and were successful in de-
veloping a sense of community (SOC) between
them and the teaching staff – pedagogies not
easily achieved in the other mode of teaching.
Moreover, when offered in external mode, the
unit relied on printed materials and assessment
submission with minimal use of a Web site. In
addition, the external notes were based on one
specific textbook which meant that updating or
changing the textbook could prove difficult and
expensive as the print materials had to be rewrit-
ten. Furthermore, the numbers of students enrolled
in internal and block mode continued to decline,
while the numbers in external mode increased
96
Virtual Reality or Virtually Real
substantially. This change in enrolment pattern
was a consequence of declining numbers of local
clients plus a demand by students for a flexible
mode of delivery more in line with their busy life
styles. This latter concern was particularly evident
with female students (representing the majority
of enrolments) who were trying to balance the
commitments of work (full-time or part-time),
family and child-care as well as study.
In 2005, the three modes (internal, external,
block) were combined in a single mode where all
students shared the same pedagogical experiences
based on the same access to a unit Web site host-
ing the lecture notes, resources, and activities that
were necessary to complete the unit. Further, it
provided off-campus students with the opportunity
to participate in synchronous bi-weekly tutorials
together with on-campus students. Off-campus
students utilizing a chat room can view the on
campus “physical” classroom, other students and
lecturers via live video feed as well as receive
audio of proceedings in the tutorial. Further, they
can participate in the discussion by typing their
comments and questions which appear in the chat
message window projected on a large screen at
the front of the classroom. The video feed is in
the form of a “postage stamp” size image of the
room and is meant only as a “cueing” device to
give off campus students a sense of “connected-
ness.” It is not intended to act as a transmission
medium for content or interaction. Restricting
the size of the image has the added advantage of
consuming minimal bandwidth – an important
consideration given that some students still have
only dial-up access.
While this situation could be seen as restrictive
for off-campus interactions it does have several
advantages. Firstly the moderation of the discourse
is greatly simplified allowing a single lecturer to
manage all aspects of the interaction. This is of
particular importance given that there may be 30
on-campus and 40 off-campus participants. It also
eliminates the technical hurdles associated with
catering for limited bandwidth and audio feedback
Virtual Reality or Virtually Real
problems. Far from curtailing the interaction
between on-campus and off-campus participants
this arrangement actually seems to enhance it
perhaps due to the filtering effect of having to type
queries which seems to result in highly directed
and relevant questions that often prompt heated
debate amongst all participants. It also results in
an enduring list of questions and comments that
can be referred to at any time during the tuto-
rial. Lastly, just as in a face-to-face classroom,
off-campus students can be allocated to small
discussion groups and enter virtual “breakout
rooms” to engage in an activity in-depth and then
return to the main chat room “lobby” for report-
ing their deliberations to other groups including
on-campus groups.
Four pedagogical principles underpinned the
development of the unit: increased autonomy of
the learner; the creation of a community of learn-
ers; providing a supportive teaching and learning
environment; and maintaining rigor in discipline
knowledge. First, we sought pedagogical practices
that were removed from the traditional transmis-
sion model where lecturers and texts are the sole
sources of knowledge. By providing students
with a range of lecture presentations in the form
of Flash-encoded movies, references and relevant
Web sites, and reflective activities on the Web
site, students have the opportunity to utilize as
many or as few of the resources as required to
develop their knowledge and confidence in the
content. Although the material is structured on a
week-by-week basis, all material is presented in
total at the start of semester allowing students to
control the pace appropriate to their individual
learning styles and circumstances.
Second, through the formation of small groups
and the use of synchronous and asynchronous
communication tools, we provided students with
the means to share their questions and concerns
with each other. These communication tools could
be accessed at two levels – the Class Group level
and the Small Study Group level. The commu-
nication facilities in the Class Group Area were
monitored regularly by the lecturers who respond
to students’ questions and comments in an open
manner for the benefit of the whole class. On the
other hand, the communication mechanisms in
the Small Study Group areas are not regularly
monitored and students are free to discuss their
concerns amongst themselves.
Thirdly, a great deal of attention was focused
on improving students’ direct and flexible access to
help. Several lecturers have always been assigned
to the unit not only to access expertise in specific
discipline areas but to strengthen the likelihood
of responding to student queries in a more than
timely manner. The bi-weekly tutorials were also
designed primarily to provide a forum to address
difficult aspects of the Unit in depth and to allow
students to discuss their queries directly with
teaching staff and their peer group rather than to
present new material.
Fourth, during the on-going development
process, the depth and spread of the discipline
knowledge required in the unit is fore-grounded.
The content of the unit covers a range of theoretical
and methodological topics necessary for critical
engagement with published research. The content
and the supporting material reflect historical as
well as current debates in educational research.
Care is taken not to allow innovation in presenta-
tion to occur at the expense of academic content
and rigour. Further materials to develop informa-
tion literacy and academic writing are integrated
within the week-by-week activities and addressed
in assessment items.
A by-product of the above design features is
increased flexibility in the way students engage
with the learning materials and environment. This
has been evidenced by the following sample of
comments from students:
• really enjoyed the blend of on line and
classroom facilitation in the one session. It
created equality for those who were unable
to attend in person due to family commit-
ments or geographic location.
97

• I had to be in London to arrange my fa-
ther’s funeral and was still able to ‘attend’
the tutorial. On the day of the funeral, I
missed the tutorial but was able to down-
load the audio later. Great use of the infor-
mation technology.
• I really like the mode of delivery. Very
flexible catering for a wide range of family
situations.
CURRENT CHALLENGES:
BARRIERS AND BOOSTERS
TO IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE CASE STUDy
Publications by workers from Gilbert (1995)
and Leggett and Persichitte (1998) to Mishra
and Koehler (2006) suggest that barriers to us-
ing technology to support teaching and learning
have remained virtually unchanged for several
decades. Mishra and Koehler suggest that we
should think in terms of appropriate levels of
content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge
and technological knowledge, with all three
forms required for success both in designing and
learning from technologically mediated learning
experiences. Jasinski (2007) also emphasizes the
importance of targeted support in implementing
innovative practice.
These contentions are supported by our experi-
ences in implementing the technology mediated
learning and teaching environment of EDN611.
Frayer (1999) identified some strategies to in-
crease the uptake of e-learning in faculties with
an aim to improving teaching and learning. Frayer
used a model developed by Jane Marcus (cited
in Gilbert, 1995) to help conceptualize factors
which impact on the development, implementation
and uptake of on-line learning environments. In
Marcus’s model, the decision to adopt a particular
innovation “is a function of available resources,
the perceived value the individual ascribes to the
innovation, and whether the individual engages
98
Virtual Reality or Virtually Real
in communication with other adopters” (cited in
Gilbert, 1995, p. 43). This relationship can be
expressed as a function: A=f(R, PV, C)
This function describes a 3-dimensional space
within which an environment for developing e-
learning initiatives can be placed. It is a useful
construct as it allows the examination of socio-
contextual parameters as well as technological
and other infrastructure resources. Each of the
variables can be discussed in terms of positive and
negative contributors. However, it is important to
keep in mind that acceptance overall is a function
of the interplay between the three variables not
just one variable in isolation.
Perceived Value (PV)
Marcus (cited in Gilbert, 1995) defined PV as
a “subjective cost/benefit analysis” where the
pros and cons of adopting new technology are
weighed.
The positive indicators to PV in this unit in-
clude: strong commitment by the unit coordina-
tor, a desire by the teaching team to improve the
learning experiences of off-campus and on-campus
students in what is perceived as a conceptually
difficult unit, the strategic decision of the Fac-
ulty to place all off-campus units on-line and the
placement of the unit within a re-conceptualised
post-graduate course.
The negative indicators include: lack of
recognition for the effort required for effective
implementation, lack of an environment that
encouraged “risk taking” by academic staff and
uncertainty as to whether the return would justify
the effort.
Communication (C)
Marcus (cited in Gilbert, 1995) defines C as
the measure of the ability to communicate with
“earlier” adopters. In this context we expand the
definition to include communication between the
Virtual Reality or Virtually Real
developers, support personnel, clients and the
wider university community.
Positive indicators to C include: good rapport
with high levels of trust between teaching staff;
formal communication channels established with
university Audio-Visual services; Library and
Teaching and Learning Support Services; formal
dissemination of outcomes to the wider University
community and in-built extensive evaluation of
the final teaching-learning experience.
Negative indicators include: no single concep-
tual model of the final product held by all stake
holders prior to implementation; no common
universe of discourse between academic/ develop-
ers, support personnel/developers and technical
support; no easily accessed directory of where to
obtain assistance in a timely fashion and lack of
opportunity to consult students/clients as part of
the design process.
Resources
Marcus (cited in Gilbert, 1995) describes the
availability of resources as the “controlling vari-
able.” While this may be the case, it needs to be
emphasized that it is the interplay between the
three variables that ultimately controls the success
or otherwise of the enterprise. The resource vari-
able embodies aspects of technology, expertise,
infrastructure and funding. The e-learning environ-
ment for the unit was initially constructed within
the OLT system developed in-house by QUT. The
positives associated with this included: a sense of
ownership by the technical support staff which
tended to simplify problem resolution and a feeling
that any feedback on performance of the system
would be taken seriously and feed into the design
cycle. On the negative side the system tended to
be constraining and in some ways actually inhibit
innovation. Some examples included; the inability
to upload multiple interdependent media files
to the streaming server without first packaging
them as a single application; the inability to re-
size Flash presentations easily within OLT pages;
non-intuitive techniques needed to format some
Web pages as required; file size upload limita-
tions that were restrictive; static file management
procedures that were complex and non-intuitive
and some aspects of the chat room operation that
were dysfunctional. There were six members of
the teaching and developmental team all with
considerable expertise and experience spread
across the areas of content, pedagogy, e-learning
environments, audio-visual, computer technology
and computer programming. Other people were
involved by invitation when specific problems
needed to be addressed. Having this level and
breadth of expertise available was essential to
the success of the project. The negatives were the
overheads associated with coordination and the
aspects of communication discussed earlier.
The blended on-line/face-to-face presentations
have always taken place in a computer enabled
classroom (CEC) containing a computer, internet
connection, projection facilities and serviced by
a wireless network. While the space is adequate
and the equipment is usually reliable, this level of
infrastructure could be considered the minimum
level required. One major negative aspect initially
was that the computer image was not customized
to support the activities. This required a time
consuming manual configuration of the operat-
ing environment and loading of hardware drivers
and adapters before each teaching-learning event.
This was a recurrent process as the machines are
re-imaged with the university standard operating
environment on shut down. A typical configura-
tion sequence would include: disable the agent
that automatically switches audio input to line in,
install drivers for Web cam, disable USB audio
adapter for Web cam, switch audio recording to
microphone, adjust audio levels, adjust mixer for
multiple microphone feed and finally load Web
site. This level of intervention is obviously unde-
sirable and acts as a barrier to implementation in
a wider context. More recently, this process has
been simplified. However the software drivers still
have to be loaded manually and are lost when the
99

machine is re-imaged as happens several times
each semester.
The project was initially funded by the Faculty
of Education as part of the redesign of the Master
program. While the positive was that this commit-
ment was made, the negative was that the money
was withdrawn at a later date. There were no funds
made available centrally to purchase software
or hardware to support the project. Software to
convert power point presentations with audio to
flash movies and a Web cam were sourced by
“alternative means” (purchased by one of the
teaching team). In conclusion it is worth reiterating
that it is the interplay between the three variables
in the model proposed by Marcus that determines
the success or otherwise of these forms of project,
not any one element alone. The lack of any one
element will jeopardize the whole. Evaluation of
the Unit – Quantitative Evaluation All such in-
novations are undertaken for a variety of reasons,
ranging from the personal technology challenge
of teachers via desires to meet emerging needs
of students to responses to institutional policy
decisions. In this context, we will focus primar-
ily on the pedagogical intentions underlying the
initiative and their evaluation.
Outcome 1: Development of
SOC in the Blended Space
As indicated earlier, one of the underlying
pedagogical principles in the development of
the blended environment was to encourage the
establishment of a community of learners within
the unit. In particular we wanted to break down
the feelings of isolation that had been expressed
in the past by the off-campus students. One of the
mechanisms chosen to do this was the instiga-
tion of the on/off-campus synchronous tutorials
described previously.
The term ‘community of learning’ is taken from
the work of social psychologist Lev Vygotsky and
refers to the social institutions in which ‘think-
ing occurs as much among as within individuals’
100
Virtual Reality or Virtually Real
(Cole & Engestrom cited in Bourne, 2003, p. 505).
From this perspective, communities of learning,
whether they take the form of a class of students
working face-to-face with one teacher or a virtual
classroom, are crucial sites for the development
of conceptual thinking. The class of students as
a cohort moves together in their learning by lis-
tening and engaging with each other, as well as
the teacher/instructor. The discourse of learning
is thus generated by all members of the class or
group, rather than just one individual learning
alone. The principles of communication in a
learning community are specifically oriented to
‘induction into a system of knowledge’ (Bourne,
2003, p. 509). SOC and Learning Traditional
pedagogies associate with supporting learning at
a distance in tertiary based units were constrained
by circumstances to, at best, a constructivist ap-
proach (Brook & Oliver, 2003) and at worst, a
transmission model. Learning experiences were
packaged in a text environment and scaffolded
in an attempt to assist students to internalize the
concepts and processes which formed the basis
of the unit. Little attempt was made to address
the social component of the learning process.
An important component of a learning network
is an underlying SOC (Dueber & Misanchuk,
2001). The use of the term community in an
educational context is common but the meaning
of the concept is not well articulated. However,
most commentators agree that the construct of
SOC is multi-dimensional and the dimensions
will map feelings of connectedness, communica-
tion, belonging and common purpose (Dueber &
Misanchuk, 2001; Long & Perkins, 2003; Rovai,
2002). How the dimensions are operationalised
depends on the context and environment in which
the community is formed. Operationalising the
dimensions of a SOC for a learning network built
in a “face-to-face” environment differs from one
supported by synchronous and/or asynchronous
technologies. This happens for a variety reasons
including differences in the way text and speech
are processed, absence or otherwise of visual
Virtual Reality or Virtually Real
cueing and query-response time expectation.
Learning communities also differ in the way
in which their boundaries are mapped (Wilson,
Ludwig-Hardman, Thornam, & Dunlap, 2004). In
an unbounded system, acceptance into the com-
munity is based on some common interest or goal.
A community of natural vegetation regenerators
might be indicative of such a system. As long as
a member is interested in learning or teaching
about vegetation regeneration they will remain a
member of the community. Once this is no longer
their goal, they will leave the community; the
life span of the community is indeterminate and
member participation dependent. In a bounded
system community membership is activated by
some external body and the life span of the com-
munity is likely to be predetermined. A community
of learners within a tertiary unit of study is an
excellent example of this latter community. The
dynamics of a community are therefore likely to
depend not only on the method of communication
but also on the bounded or unbounded state of the
system. The challenge for this evaluation project
was to construct an instrument which would give
a measure of SOC for a bounded, blended learn-
ing community.
The Instrument
The design considerations in the construction of the
instrument included: • defining SOC space specific
to the bounded, hybrid context described earlier;
minimising the number of dimensions mapping
the space; maximising orthogonality between
the dimensions; and • minimising the number of
questions underpinning the dimensions without
compromising construct or content validity. An
instrument was constructed (Shield, Atweh &
Singh, 2005) in the form of a survey of 12 ques-
tions that map to three underlying dimensions
(4 questions per dimensions). The three dimen-
sions were labeled: community identity, learning
(through discourse) and emotional support. The
questions were rated on a Likert scale 1 (strongly
disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (undecided), 4 (agree),
5 (strongly agree). An index was calculated for
SOC overall and for each dimension. This was
done by summing the score on each question
and calculating the mean. While it is recognized
that a Likert scale is technically an ordinal scale
which precludes the calculation of means, in this
context it is treated as being of interval level of
measurement which is in line with common prac-
tice in educational research (Lehman, 1991). Face
validity was established through review by peers
who were either experienced in on-line teaching
and learning or were knowledgeable about learn-
ing communities or both. Construct validity is
argued on the grounds that since the SOC space
is mapped in an on-line and face-to-face hybrid
context that the constructs should be able to be
identified in a synthesis of the existing literature
that describes SOC in an on-line learning context
or in a face to face context. This was found to be
the case (Dueber & Misanchuk, 2001; Long &
Perkins, 2003; Rovai, 2002). Internal reliability
was measured by calculating a cronbach alpha
across questions for each dimension. The values
for community identity, learning (through dis-
course) and emotional support were 0.82, 0.80
and 0.85 respectively. This compares well with
the commonly accepted minimum level of 0.70
for cronbach alpha for short scales with five items
or less (SPSS Inc., 1998).
Method
The instrument was administered to 71 postgradu-
ate students undertaking the unit previously de-
scribed. The response rate was 51%. This consisted
of 13 students who attended all tutorials on line,
10 students who attended all tutorials face to face,
4 students who attend in mixed mode (sometimes
on line sometimes face to face) and 9 students who
did not attend any tutorials. For the purpose of
this study the 4 students who attended in mixed
mode were reallocated to either the face to face
or on line groups based on which mode they
101

employed most. In all cases the distinction was
quite clear. The final categorization then became
15 on line, 12 face to face and 9 non attendees. A
quasi-experimental design was utilized with the
non-attendees acting as the control group. It was
expected the control group would still register
positively on the SOC index as all students: •
were required to participate in two group work
assignments collectively weighted 30% of the total
assessment with most groups being a mix of on and
off campus students; had access to asynchronous
communications (e-mail lists, discussion boards)
at the small study group, class and unit level; and
• had access to synchronous communications (chat
room) at the small study group level.
The broad question therefore became: “Did
the synchronous form of the tutorials contribute
in an incremental way to the SOC experienced
by those students who participated?”
In particular the following null hypotheses
were tested across the three categories of partici-
pation in tutorials i.e. none, on and off campus
attendance:
• there was no difference in the mean SOC
index among the three categories; and
• there was no difference in the mean score
on each dimension of the SOC among the
three categories.
Descriptives and box plots were initially used
to explore these relationships. The hypotheses
were then tested using a multi-variate analysis of
variance (MANOVA) with level of significance
predetermined at 0.05. If there was no statisti-
cally significant difference indicated between
the on and off campus students it was intended
to increase the power of the test by relaxing the
level of significance to help support the argument
of no actual real difference in SOC experienced
by these two categories.
102
Virtual Reality or Virtually Real
Analysis of Results
An analysis of the means and standard deviations
of the SOC index and constituent dimensions
displayed in table 1 might seem to indicate a
small difference between the face to face and on
line categories on these measures. There would
appear to be a difference between no attendance
and face to face and no attendance and on line on
the same measures.
This impression is reinforced when the box
plots (figures 1, 2, 3, 4) are examined.
The observed differences were tested for
significance (p <0.05) by applying a MANOVA
with category as the independent variable and the
dimensions of the SOC as dependent variables.
Levene’s test for equality of error variances was
satisfied for the dimensions of community identity
and learning discourse but not for the emotional
dimension. Given the test was satisfied for the first
two dimensions and that MANOVA is reasonably
robust with respect to small divergences from ho-
mogeneity of variance across a dependent factor
(SPSS Inc., 1998) it was considered appropriate
to proceed with the analysis.
The multivariate analysis of variance showed
that the effect of category on the SOC index was
significant, Hotelling’s trace F(6, 60) = 4.94,
p = 0.000. Post hoc analyses using the Least
Significant Difference (LSD) criterion for sig-
nificance indicated that the mean community
ID, learning discourse and emotional dimension
was significantly lower in the non-attendee cat-
egory (M=2.64, SD=0.84; M=2.97, SD=0.61;
M=2.92, SD=0.86) as compared with the face-
to-face (M=4.04, SD=0.75, p=0.000; M=4.00,
SD=0.61, p=0.000; M=4.27, SD=0.52, p=0.000)
and on-line categories(M=3.6, SD=0.57, p=0.003;
M=3.73, SD=0.52, p=0.003; M=3.85, SD=0.41,
p=0.000).
There was no significant difference between
the on-line and face-to-face group on any of the
dimensions. This could be considered an important
observation and one might be tempted to conclude
Virtual Reality or Virtually Real

Table 1. Descriptives for SOC index and dimensions

Category
none face to face Online
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
community ID 2.64 .84 4.04 .75 3.60 .57
learning discourse 2.97 .61 4.00 .61 3.73 .52
emotional dimension 2.92 .86 4.27 .52 3.85 .35
community index 2.84 .71 4.10 .54 3.73 .41

Figure 1. Community identity across category Figure 2. Learning discourse across category

Figure 3. Emotional dimension across category Figure 4. Community index across category

103
 Virtual Reality or Virtually Real

Table 2. Homogenous subsets SOC index

that the SOC experienced by the on-line group was
the same or similar to the face-to-face group. The Tukey HSD Subset for alpha = .1
logic of hypothesis testing precludes interpreting category 1 2
a non-significant difference as no real difference. none 2.8426
However, if sufficient statistical power can be
on-line 3.7278
demonstrated then the likelihood of committing
face to face 4.1042
a type II error is minimized i.e. retaining the null
Sig. 1.000 .230
hypothesis when it should be rejected.
To support the case for no real difference in
SOC between the on-line group and the face-to-
Summarizing the Quantitative
face group a one way ANOVA was conducted
Evaluation of the Unit
between the groups using the SOC index as the
dependent variable. The power of this test was
The instrument developed to measure SOC in a
increased by relaxing the level of significance
bounded, blended learning community would ap-
from 0.05 to 0.10 delivering a power coefficient
pear to be valid and reliable in this limited context.
of 0.99 i.e. there would be a 99% chance of de-
It would also appear to be sensitive enough to dif-
tecting a difference if a real difference existed.
ferentiate between the level of SOC experienced
The analysis of variance showed that the effect of
by a control group who did not participate in the
category on the SOC index was significant, F(2,
learning community bounded by the tutorials and
3) = 5.94, p = 0.000. Post hoc analyses using the
those who did.
Tukey HSD criterion for significance indicated
The mean community ID, learning discourse,
that the mean SOC index was significantly lower
emotional dimension and SOC index were
in the non-attendee category (M = 2.84, SD = 0.71)
meaningfully lower in the non-attendee category
than in the on-line (M=3.73, SD=0.41, p=0.001)
as compared with the face-to-face and on-line
or the face-to-face (M=4.10. SD=0.54, p=0.000)
categories. It could be argued that the learning
categories.
experience of students was enhanced by partici-
No significant difference was detected on the
pation in the combined off/on campus tutorials.
SOC index between the face to face and on line
Further there would appear to be no difference
groups despite the high level of power associated
between the on-line and face-to-face group on
with the test. This non difference was further
the same dimensions. This could be considered
illustrated by generating Tukey homogenous
an important observation and one could conclude
sub-sets (Table 2) which attempts to combine
that the SOC experienced by the on-line group
non significant groups together. Non attendees
was the same as or similar to the face-to-face
were shown to form a single subset while on line
group as a direct result of participation in the on/
and face to face categories were combined into
off-campus tutorials.
a second single sub-set. Given the results of this
On this basis it would appear that one of the
analysis it is reasonable to argue that there is little
main pedagogical goals in the redevelopment of
difference between the on line group and the face
the unit in a blended mode has been achieved.
to face group with respect to SOC.
Specifically the SOC experienced by on-campus
and off-campus students is similar, positive and
meaningful.

104
Virtual Reality or Virtually Real
Outcome 2 – Overall Unit Satisfaction
The University conducts on line evaluations of all
units. This evaluation termed the Learning Experi-
ence Survey (LEX) is administered at the central
level with information disseminated to the Faculty,
School, Course and unit level and measures unit
performance across 5 dimensions.
The five dimensions are:
U01: The unit activities helped me develop use-
ful skills and knowledge.
U02: The relevance of the unit activities was
clear.
U03: The structure and organization of the unit
assisted my learning.
U04: I received helpful feedback on my
learning.
U05: I have been satisfied with the overall qual-
ity of this unit.
The dimensions are rated on a Likert scale
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
The ratings for the on-line blended unit have
consistently (since the introduction of the system
in 2005) been above both Faculty and University
means on all dimensions (Table 3).
This is further quantitative evidence that the
blended learning environment used in the unit is
performing at a par or better than other learning
environments used in other units, including strictly
face-to-face lectures.
Table 3. LEX mean unit rating for EDN611
Unit/Response U01 U02
EDN611 4.1 4.3
Faculty: 3.8 3.8
University 3.8 3.8
Evaluation of the Unit –
Qualitative Evaluation
Two sources of data are dealt with in this section
to illustrate the development of SOC in this unit:
the open-ended questions from the LEX evaluation
questionnaire discussed above and the transcripts
of the chat rooms in the small study groups.
The evaluation questionnaire asks students
to comment on their mode of participation in the
tutorials during the semester. In the majority of
cases where students had a choice of attendance
they preferred face-to-face attendance. These
choices, however, are limited by a number of
factors. Naturally distance from the campus was a
main factor identified by 7 students. One student
summarizes the sentiments of many, including
those who participate from overseas: Participat-
ing in online tutorials was ideal as I still felt like
I was a part of the class even though I couldn’t
be on campus.”
Secondly, family commitments prevented four
others from participating face-to-face. According
to one student “The online [tutorials] enabled me
to “supervise” [my children] and attend a tuto-
rial.” With an overall majority of students in the
class being women, this option provided many
of them with a chance to combine home duties
with attendance of classes. However, even with
this option, not all mothers could participate. One
student said “I’m studying externally because I
work and have two small children. Tuesday was a
workday and I had to leave lessons for my teach-
U03 U04 U05
4.2 4 4.1
3.7 3.6 3.7
3.6 3.4 3.6
105

ing partner. Result was late [arrival at] home
[between] 4.45 to 5.15 on a Tuesday with two
tired, hungry kids. I decided not to attempt the
impossible and did not go online for the tutorials.”
Finally, work commitment was also a factor with
4 students regarding face-to-face attendance not
a viable option, and in certain cases neither was
the on-line participation. For those who were able
to participate in the on-line tutorials the major-
ity of the comments relate to the great benefit
that resulted. One student summarizes it in these
words: “I felt more a part of the group through
the tutorials and small group work.”
One student, however, indicated a preference
for on-line tutorials. She describes it this way:
“I have always preferred face to face tutorials
but after not be able to attend one face to face
tutorial because of work commitments I tuned in
late to the online tutorial. I found it convenient
and less distracting. I felt comfortable with the
anonymity and became hooked”. Perhaps, this
anonymity provided by the on-line participation
had a positive effect on other participants in the
on-line tutorials. The lecturer in the unit noted a
great imbalance in the number of questions about
the content and procedures in the unit asked by
on-line students compared with the face-to-face
attendees. Moreover, this pattern has reversed from
the first few tutorials, indicating the possibility that
after an initial period getting used to the technol-
ogy, on-line students have more confidence to ask
their questions than face-to-face students.
Similarly, students who were able to participate
in the face-to-face tutorials preferred to do so for
a variety of reasons. Face-to-face participation
provided more familiar means of interaction with
students and lecturers. At least two students in-
dicated a preference for face-to-face interactions
in dealing with the more demanding concepts in
the unit. For one student at least, the unfamiliar
modes of communication caused “difficulties to
concentrate when I participate on-line tutorial,
because it feels like listening to the radio without
face-to-face contact.” While another student puts
106
Virtual Reality or Virtually Real
it this way: “Being physically present makes me
feel more involved and committed”. Lastly, a
few students raised difficulties with technology
as a reason to prefer face-to-face meetings. The
initial two tutorials experienced considerable
difficulties in sound and image transmission. Oc-
casional problems persisted due to slow Internet
connection and firewalls at the students’ end of
the interaction.
The second source of data for studying SOC
comes from the use of the Small Study Group chat
rooms. In 2005 there were 15 different Small Study
groups each between 3 and 5 students. While each
group had access to a chat room, only 7 groups
had shown evidence in using it between 1 and 7
times. Other groups have utilized the messaging
system and email to communicate with each other
while there has also been communication between
the groups through face-to-face meetings and
chats over the phone. The analysis here will only
consider the use of the chat rooms.
For many of the participants the chat room
is an unfamiliar environment. Some at least ap-
proached it with a sense of wonder.
Sally: Hi Brenda and Bob! Never done this so
hope it looks right!
Brenda: hi Sally
Sally: hi! How exciting I’ve never done this
Brenda: Yes it’s fun
Very early students were giving help to each
other about technical aspects of the use of the
chat room.
Jannet: Remember you can copy our chat and
paste it into Word to view later.
Virtual Reality or Virtually Real
Fred: if you press the history button at the top
of this window you can read about what we have
said so far
Surprisingly, given the public environment
students spent considerable time exchanging per-
sonal information about their courses and family
life. This obviously contributed to the sense of
connectedness and community.
Mary: Ok. How are you going with your assign-
ments?
June: terribly...and you?
Mary: very slowly. It’s like learning a new lan-
guage and then having to apply it before it has
made any sense.
June: I find that I am concentrating more on this
unit than I am on my other...I can’t get my head
around the other unit
June: very true+-
Mary: What is your other unit?
And after a short social chat:
Mary: Shall we discuss our group work proj-
ect?
Lisa: For sure... What topic are you and Lesley
looking at doing?
Social chats were intermittent with talk about
the task at hand and were considered an important
form of discourse. It is worth commenting that
these forms of social chats were more common
among the online student than the on campus
students.
Jim: sorry I missed that that other comment with
all the numbers I’m carrying on a real time con-
versation and I’m onto number 3 glass, I think it
might my last! Well we’ll talk on Thursday night
then, look forward to it. See ya!
Jackie: See ya! Enjoy the wine!
Chat room discussions often centered on stu-
dents supporting each other once again adding to
SOC. For example:
Jo: everything with this course seems very time
consuming, and the assignment load particularly
for the next 8 weeks is just enormous
Erin: So just to clarify the plan is to do the
reading this week and then discuss the tasks next
Wednesday at 8.00pm.
Sue: I find the terms and concepts tp grasp very
daunting too
Jo: I find that i am getting more out of the lecture
and the follow up readings than the tutes, there
is gaps in sound. Yep we will chat again next
Wednesday.
Sue: Yes, Lisa. Thanks
Jo: night night
107

Erin: I’m really pleased that you guys are say-
ing this because at about 12.00 today I was just
considering how much better I could have spent
my $1000.00 donation to XXX! I’m afraid most
of what they are talking about makes me feel as
dumb as a box of hammers. Good to talk to you
both. Bye
Jo: i had the thought today that i just can’t do it
but you have cheered me no end
As to be expected the large majority of dis-
cussions in the chat room revolved around unit
process and content. Students indicated they
considered this an important form of discourse.
For example:
Pam: Phenomenology and phenomenography
give me night mares - sorry I was typing this as
you did
Sue: I don’t really mind
Sue: I think that maybe ethnography, case study
or action research would be pretty equal?
Pam: from what I understand, ethnography is
basically a description of what happened, although
I’m unclear of the difference between that and
case studies
Sue: Exactly my concern!!!
108
Virtual Reality or Virtually Real
CONCLUSIONS: WHAT HAVE WE
LEARNED ABOUT THE BLENDED-
LEARNING EXPERIENCES
OF OUR STUDENTS?
While the evaluations of the blended delivery of
Profession al Applications of Research presented
thus far in this chapter have focused primarily on
technological aspects, the overall picture of the
unit presented in student responses to the manda-
tory LEX is somewhat different. Teaching staff
initially expressed concern that the technological
mediation might impact negatively on the peda-
gogical experiences this however proved not to
be the case. Perceptions of the unit as a whole are
reflected by such anonymous comments as:
The whole set up of the unit has been fabulous.
There is support throughout, from the beginning
to the end, in terms of helping you understand the
requirements of the course, down to assistance
with the handing in of the assessment items. This
has been something totally different for me and I
feel I have learned much. From now when I read
research papers I have a better understanding
of the graph and number sections and won’t feel
totally lost, glossing over these, as I have in the
past.
Very clearly organized. Lectures were really
well presented, tied in well with textbook. Great
textbook- will be a great reference in the future.
Assignments were a logical assessment of what
we were learning. Excellent subject!
The very prompt feedback from teaching staff about
assessment was great. Being able to develop my
skills in research in a different discipline from
my primary degree and apply it to professional
practice was also great.
Virtual Reality or Virtually Real
Clear outline of content; assignments were appro-
priate; text book was good; lecturers all provided
helpful timely support.
Similarly, many of the comments of those
students who chose to avail themselves of the
invitation to offer suggestions for the unit focused
on aspects that were not primarily technological
issues. Sample comments included:
There were a lot of things to do each week and
I had trouble keeping up with all of the required
tasks.
More clarity on setting out assessment. Some of
the concepts, words taught were really abstract
to me and I still don’t understand them!
The lecturers in tutorials were often in disagree-
ment with each other in rigorous academic debate
about the examples each of them gave during the
tutorials which was although highly theatrical
and interesting, it was also confusing. It gave
me the strong impression of how ‘in-exact’ and
not consistent research methods, analysis and
interpretation could be.
Clear outline of content; assignments were appro-
priate; text book was good; lecturers all provided
helpful timely support.
Although there were off-campus students who
commented on problems with technical issues
such as slow downloads, audio clarity and Web
site design, for many students it appears that the
technology has become virtually transparent so
that, in Jasinski’s (2007) terms, we have moved
from the e- to the learning, or as in our chapter title,
we have moved from thinking of our pedagogy
in terms of virtual reality to a student experience
that is virtually real.
While there is obviously room for further
improvements in the delivery of the unit in all its
formats, the foremost task in the future, as perhaps
has always been the case, would appear to be as-
sisting all students, regardless of their physical
location, technological ability or preferred learning
style, to come to terms with complex concepts
and practical applications of research: in short,
to enhance teaching and learning.
REFERENCES
Beck, J. (2002). The sacred and the profane in recent
struggles to promote official pedagogic identities.
British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(4),
617–626. doi:10.1080/0142569022000038468
Bernstein, B. (1999). Official knowledge and
pedagogic identities. In F. Christie (Ed.), Peda-
gogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic
and social processes (pp. 246-261). London:
Continuum.
Bourne, J. (2003). Vertical discourse: The role of
the teacher in the transmission and acquisition of
decontextualized language. European Educational
Research Journal, 2(4), 496–521. doi:10.2304/
eerj.2003.2.4.2
Brook, C., & Oliver, R. (2003). Online learning
communities: Investigating a design framework.
Australian Journal of Educational Technology,
19(2), 139–160.
Chandler, D. (1995). Technological or media
determinism. Retrieved November 20, 2008,
from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/
tecdet/tecdet.html
Coaldrake, P., & Stedman, L. (1999). Academic
work in the twenty-first century changing roles
and policies (No. 99H, Occasional Paper Series.
DETYA No. 6391.HERC99A). Canberra: Higher
Education Division. Department of Education,
Training and Youth Affairs.
109

Dueber, B., & Misanchuk, M. (2001). Sense of
community in a distance education course. Paper
presented at the Mid-South instructional Technol-
ogy Conference, Murfreesboro, TN.
Frayer, D. (1999). Creating a campus culture to
support a teaching and learning revolution. Cause/
Effect, 22(2), 10-17.
Gilbert, S. (1995). An “online” experience: Dis-
cussion group debates why faculty use or resist
technology. Change, 27(2), 28–45.
Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge
society. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Hartman, J., Dziuban, C., & Moskal, P. (2007).
Strategic initiatives in the online environment:
Opportunities and challenges. Horizon, 15(3),
157–168. doi:10.1108/10748120710825040
Jasinski, M. (2007). Innovate and Integrate:
Embedding innovative practices. Australian Flex-
ible Learning Framework flexiblelearning.net.au.
Retrieved November 20, 2008, from http://in-
novateandintegrate.flexiblelearning.net.au/docs/
Innovate_and_Integrate_Final_26Jun07.pdf
Kelly, A. (2004). The curriculum: theory and
practice (5th ed.). London: Sage.
Lankshear, C., & Snyder, I. (2000). Teachers and
techno-literacy: Managing literacy, technology
and learning in schools. St Leonards, NSW: Al-
len & Unwin.
Leggett, W. P., & Persichitte, K. A. (1998). Blood,
sweat, and tears: 50 years of technology imple-
mentation obstacles. TechTrends, 43(3), 33–36.
doi:10.1007/BF02824053
Lehman, R. (1991). Statistics and research de-
sign in the behavioral sciences. Belmomt, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
110
Virtual Reality or Virtually Real
Long, D., & Perkins, D. (2003). Confirmatory
factor analysis of the sense of community index
and development of a brief SCI. Journal of Com-
munity Psychology, 31(3), 279–296. doi:10.1002/
jcop.10046
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technologi-
cal pedagogical content knowledge: A framework
for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Re-
cord, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9620.2006.00684.x
Nelson, B. (2003). Our universities: Backing
Australia’s future. Canberra: Department of
Communications, Information, Technology, and
the Arts.
Palloff, R. N., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learn-
ing communities in cyberspace. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rovai, A. (2002). A preliminary look at the struc-
tural differences of higher education classroom
communities in traditional and ALN courses.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
6(1), 41–56.
Shield, P., Atweh, B., & Singh, P. (2005) Utilis-
ing synchronous Web mediated communications
as a booster to sense of community in an online
teaching and learning environment. In: ASCILITE
conference, October 2005, QUT, Brisbane.
Singh, P., Atweh, B., & Shield, P. (2005). Design-
ing postgraduate pedagogies: Connecting internal
and external learners. In Proceedings AARE Edu-
cation Research Conference, ‘Creative Dissent:
Constructive Solutions,’ University of Western
Sydney, Parramatta Campus, Australia.
SPSS, Inc. (1998). Survey research using SPSS:
SPSS Inc.
Stromquist, N. P. (2002). Education in a global-
ized world. The connectivity of economic power,
technology and knowledge. Lanham, MD: Row-
man & Littlefield.
Virtual Reality or Virtually Real
Tyler, W. (2001). Crosswired: Hypertext, critical
theory and pedagogic discourse. In A. Morais, I.
Neves, B. Davies, & H. Daniels (Eds.), Towards a
sociology of pedagogy. The Contribution of Basil
Bernstein to Research (pp. 339-356). London:
Peter Lang.
Wilson, B., Ludwig-Hardman, S., Thornam, C., &
Dunlap, J. (2004). Bounded community: Designing
and facilitating learning in formal courses. Paper
presented at the meeting of the American Educa-
tional Research Association, San Diego, CA.
111
112

Chapter 7
Teaching Online:
What Does Blended Learning Require?
P. Toyoko Kang
University of Guam, Guam

ABSTRACT
This chapter provides an argument endorsing blended learning and teaching for foreign language
(FL)/second language (L2) courses, in lieu of total online learning and teaching or total face-to-face
learning and teaching (FFLT). Two main arguments are posed, citing concrete examples. First, that in
total online learning and teaching, one of the greatest challenges is to reduce the psychological and
social distance between teacher and student that leads to a dysfunctional parser (a mental language
processor) for FL/L2. And secondly, online learning and teaching encourage more input, hence clarify
communication---by making not only currently incomprehensible input comprehensible but also hard-to-
be-comprehended output easy-to-comprehend---- through “self-negotiation of form and meaning,” and
the parser’s strategy of being “first (prosodic phrase) come, first interpreted/processed.” This chapter
proceeds to strongly recommend that FL/L2 teachers make simple audio files to provide their students
with spoken input to prevent students from employing the L1 strategy of “first come, last interpreted/
processed.” Furthermore, this chapter shows what kind of spoken input is to be recorded in audio files
for students in Elementary Japanese II and Intermediate Japanese I.

INTRODUCTION (2006) and Colpaert (2006) raise an intriguing ques-

Researchers in the field of computer assisted
language learning (CALL) like Hauck and Sticler
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-880-2.ch007
tion: What does it take to teach online? Due to the
fact that our main concern is not total online learning
but blended learning (BL), this chapter modifies
their question as follows: What does it take to teach

Copyright © 2010, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Teaching Online: What Does Blended Learning Require?
online for BL? Omaggio (1984) opens her chapter
with the following provocative question:
The question addressed in this chapter is as old
as the language-teaching profession itself: How
do we help students learning a second language
classroom setting become proficient in that lan-
guage? Historically, the responses to this question
have been as varied as… those who have tried to
answer it. (p. 43, the italic I mine)
It is not the purpose of the present chapter to
tackle this question, but to make the question more
specifically focus on the issues of input and output:
How can we help students in a second language
classroom setting make incomprehensible input
comprehensible, and hard-to-be-comprehended
output easy-to-comprehend, such that they eventu-
ally become proficient in that language? As this
modified question indicates, this chapter’s answer
to the question in the title “what does BL require
(to make it work)?” is “to design an online FL/L2
learning & teaching in order to make not only
currently incomprehensible input comprehensible,
but also currently hard-to-be-comprehended out-
put easy-to-be-comprehended.”
This chapter has two purposes. One is to
argue that for FL/L2 classes, blended learning
and teaching (BLT) are more effective than total
online or totally face-to-face learning and teach-
ing (FFLT). The other is to demonstrate simple
ways of scaffolding students in the second and
third semester of Japanese language courses, by
making currently incomprehensible input more
comprehensible, and hard-to-be-comprehended
output easy to comprehend under a memory
efficient approach (MEA) issuing from human
parser learning theory (HPLT). Kang (2007a)
has demonstrated how to blend technologies in
an advanced Japanese class. The present chapter,
however, shows how to blend online learning in
Elementary Japanese II (JA102) and Intermediate
Japanese I (JA201).
BACKGROUND
Comprehensive Input and
Output in L2 Acquisition
Krashen (1985) proposes an Input Hypothesis
claiming as follows: “humans acquire language
in only one way---by understanding messages
or by receiving comprehensible input” (p. 2). In
other words, speaking has nothing to do with L2
acquisition. This is an extreme way to look at
the L2 acquisition process. Swain (1985, 2005)
claims as an Output Hypothesis that an “incom-
prehensible output” that is “pushed” to generate
comprehensible output for the listeners also
facilitates L2 acquisition.
In this section, two pitfalls of input compre-
hension are described; the third pitfall will be
shown in the section for Case Description. Input
comprehension is achieved not only through in-
teractive or task-related conversation, but also in
the context of one-way communication such as
radio, TV broadcasting, and reading newspapers or
magazines. Research has been conducted regard-
ing the specific ways that interaction helps learners
make incomprehensible input comprehensible
(e.g., Gass 1997; Pica et al., 1987; VanPatten,
1996). However, when it comes to processing
written input, the Japanese language learner whose
L1 (first language) is English may understand a
sentence by processing it as “first come, last in-
terpreted.” This development may occur in a case
like the following, where the learner, in order to
comprehend a sentence using their L1 syntactic
knowledge, does not process the sentence in the
order of “first come, first interpreted”:
(1) kono kuruma-o ka-oo to omou
this car-Acc. buy-will that think (Acc. =
accusative)
‘I think that I will buy this car ’
113
 Teaching Online: What Does Blended Learning Require?
The challenge taken up by the present study
is to avoid the above type of (written) input
comprehension and thereby not repeat the failure
common to traditional grammar translation. This
chapter will endorse the solution of providing
audio files for reading comprehension material.
This technique can enable learners to process ac-
cording to “first come, first interpreted” (Kang,
2008). In the reading comprehension questions
of VanPatten (1996), there are many complex
sentences in the reading materials. His Input
Processing and Grammar Instruction fails, as the
traditional grammar-translation approach did,
for those students whose L1 is a language like
Korean or Japanese. This is because Spanish is a
head-initial language like English, while Korean
or Japanese are head-final languages. A Japanese
native speaker translates an English sentence like
(I) think I will buy this car backward; “First come,
last interpreted.” This means that the parser of
a Korean or Japanese student learning Spanish
understands by processing the written Spanish
with an L1 processing algorithm. This process oc-
curs without any opportunities for parsers to start
processing input on a “first come, first interpreted”
basis, as a Spanish native speaker does.
Let us now turn to the other pitfall of input
comprehension with which this chapter is con-
cerned. The following interlanguage case provides
a good example:
Figure 1. Linguistic Processors in Human Parser Model (Source: Kang 1993, p. 225; GB stands for
“Government & Binding” model by Chomsky, 1982)
114
(2) ‘a cheap book’ in Japanese
a. *Yasui no hon (* means that a sentence
with it is ungrammatical)
cheap one/of book
b. Yasui hon
cheap book
A Japanese learner who uttered this kind of
sentence over-generalizes the genetive case no;
the genetive case marker is only attached to a
pre-nominal noun/noun phrase, but not to a pre-
nominal adjective. This kind of utterance indicates
that the learner seems to have comprehended
Japanese input like yasui hon, only paying atten-
tion to content words, which is the tendency of
beginners. (It is noteworthy that VanPatten also
observed the problem of input comprehension in
terms of content words, but was not concerned with
output.) As output, an utterance like this causes
“garden path” for a native speaker of Japanese.
It is well known that a “garden path” sentence
like the English sentence, A horse raced past the
barn fell, fails an adult native speaker’s first parse,
and requires reprocessing or reanalysis. In other
words, to process a garden path sentence is dif-
ficult. The same goes for the following Japanese
utterance:
• 1st parse:
First input: yasui no→cheap one
Teaching Online: What Does Blended Learning Require?
Second input: hon →crash! (because the
noun ‘book’ is not expected, but a verb or a
particle)
• 2nd parse: yasui hone →cheap book (elim-
inating no ‘of’)
This chapter’s L2 learning theory does not
exclude output hypotheses; as shown in Figure
1 below, HPLT has a generator, another mental
language processor, for production. However,
output like this can be comprehended only with
difficulty, severely burdening short-term memory.
Therefore, we have to help our students make
difficult-to-comprehend output easy-to-compre-
hend, to reduce the listener’s (short-term) memory
burden.
Why BLT for FL/L2 Classes?
The need for FFLT must be clarified. As the schol-
arly literature shows, in a FF meeting/ classroom
it is best to establish human connection, thereby
eliminating psychological distance (Conger &
Lawley, 2005; Wagmann & McCauley, 2007)
regardless of subject of a class, or training. When
it comes to FL/L2 learning, psychological distance
must be kept to a minimum, (Higgs, 1984; Pica
et. al., 1987), enabling trust to develop in teacher-
student relationship in FFLT. This development
facilitates not only input comprehension, but
also helps the student to produce output easily
comprehended by interlocutors. One may still
ask why online learning is needed instead of
FFLT. It must be emphasized that FFLT in FL/L2
classrooms is solely for the purpose of input com-
prehension and easy-to-be-comprehended output
production. We must expect more. Our learning
theory, HPLT, promotes a learning situation that
exposes students to spoken input as often as pos-
sible to force their parsers to start operating, so
as to expedite process input. In so far as students
are attentive and motivated to understand input,
input forces to their parser will start to work and
move understanding forward. We are arguing, in
short, that online self-learning is more desirable,
more effective than FFLT (although the online
learning is an extension of FFLT) for the follow-
ing reasons: online self-learning provides students
with more spoken input relevant to what they are
learning in the FF classroom; it makes currently
incomprehensible input comprehensible; and it
makes hard-to-be-comprehended output easy-to-
be-comprehended. The aforesaid is accomplished
by means of self-aware behaviors that indepen-
dently conduct acts of repetition, correction, and
so on. Such independent learning behaviors have
lasting value; in this regard, FL/L2 learning is
lifelong learning (Kang 2007a). The independence
instilled by online learning is obviously desirable;
moreover, blended learning enables our students
to easily transfer their refined learning skills to a
fully online learning environment.
Technological Developments
Foreign language courses at the University of
Guam (UOG) had been blended before I arrived
at this institution in 1993. To be exact, 20% of
a class is allocated for “self-study” by listening
to the tapes in the library. I started using digital
technologies in my instruction about ten years
ago, when the digital language lab was built at
UOG. In the digital language lab, at that time, our
students had access the Internet, and listened to
the CDs in target languages (TL). The Internet
provided plenty of authentic reading materials,
but not authentic listening materials or video
clips. It follows that digital instructional materials
could only improve reading or writing skills at
that time (Kang, 2000). Since then, technological
development has stunningly advanced, and more
instructional materials became available on the
Internet for Japanese language learners. It became
possible to watch news video clips that assist the
students in improving their listening comprehen-
sion skills; to use pop-up multilingual dictionaries;
and to see the stroke orders of kanji in movies.
Like many of my academic peers, I soon took
115
 Teaching Online: What Does Blended Learning Require?
advantage of these technological developments,
and made instructional use of authentic reading
materials available on the Internet. I subsequently
designed the 4th year Japanese class as described
in Kang (2007a). At that point, UOG adopted
Moodle as a course management program, but
for a while it was not possible to use Japanese
characters in the English mode setting. It was
only possible to use audio files, and I learned
how to use Audacity to create audio files. Then,
around 2005, it became possible to use Japanese
characters in English mode; however, since Spring
2007, no Japanese character input was readable.
This time I switched to another affordable course
management program, Quia, which costs only $40
per year with technical supports.
Synopsis of First Experience
with Fully Online Teaching
The present author’s first time to teach Japanese
online without FF classroom meetings, but with FF
individual meetings, was the fall semester of 2006.
This was a course in which the regular instructor
unexpectedly took medical leave mid-way through
the semester. The course was JA201. For a number
of reasons having to do with tight staffing, to teach
this intermediate Japanese course as FFLT or BLT
was physically impossible; total online learning
and teaching was the only solution.
Synopsis of BL for JA102
The present author conducted outcomes assess-
ment of student learning for JA102 in both spring
and fall semesters of 2007, in order to assess
student learning of reading kanji, writing kanji,
verbal grammar, adjective grammar, reading
comprehension, and directional task completion.
One noteworthy finding is that verbal grammar
learning is one of the worst. To improve student
learning of verbal grammar, it was decided to cre-
ate some simple online but effective exercises or
quizzes to help my students learn verbal grammar
116
for self-study.
Synopsis of BL Content for JA201
JA102 requires the students to read short stories
or journals, which have complex sentences. In
JA201, the length of stories or journals becomes
longer, and more complex sentences are in the
reading materials. In addition, more kanji are
used. To make their reading easier, and to let them
“first come, first interpreted,” I decided to make
audio files of those reading materials in JA201
as well as for JA102.
SETTING THE STAGE
As mentioned above, Moodle became available
at UOG in 2005. Workshops on Moodle were
initiated by a colleague, Brian Millhoff, and I
attended them during the Fall semester of 2005.
Through these workshops I became comfortable
using Moodle and came to recognize its functional
relevance. My own research discovered the helpful
Web site, Moodle for Language Teaching (http://
moodle.org/login/index.php). I also learned how
to make audio files, and discovered Audacity,
audio recording software available online for free.
Employing Japanese characters was not a problem
at that time; therefore, I was able to offer total
online teaching to JA201 in the fall of 2006. It is
noteworthy to point out that before committing to
Quia, I tried a 30 days free trial. I found that it is
easy and simple to use to create quizzes, especially
to upload audio files in a quiz; this is accomplished
in a couple of clicks. So, I subscribed it to start
making audio file with Audacity.
Teaching Online: What Does Blended Learning Require?
CASE DESCRIPTION
Concepts
Relation between Parser
and Generator in HPLT
The present chapter employs the same language
learning theory as in Kang (1993), namely HPLT.
According to HPLT, human beings have two lan-
guage processors, parser and generator (as shown
in Figure 1), in addition to a mental dictionary,
or lexicon.
Krashen’s claim, as mentioned briefly above,
that “humans acquire language in only one way-
--by understanding messages, or by receiving
‘comprehensible input,’” is translated under HPLT
in the following way: humans acquire language
only through successful parsing (“successful pars-
ing” means that input is correctly comprehended),
but not through generation at all. It is difficult
to agree with this claim. In our model, in terms
of learning of grammar and vocabulary, parser
and generator help each other’s development at
the developmental stage, as shown by arrows in
Figure 2. On the other hand, well-developed and
mastered grammar and vocabulary will facilitate
smooth operation of both parser and generator.
The degree of development at a particular
developmental stage between the parser and the
generator, however, may not be the same. The
commencement of the generator’s operation is
Figure 2. At a developmental stage (The dotted lines show “being not-yet-developed”)
assumed to be later than that of the parser. The
development of the ability of the parser is more
likely higher than that of generator, as shown in
Figure 2. In terms of learning grammar (regardless
explicit or implicit) and vocabulary, the parser
and generator help each other’s development.
On the other hand, grammar and vocabulary in
progress will facilitate the parser and generator
to successfully operate. This is a mechanism of
interaction whereby “negotiation of meaning/
form” by the learner can facilitate comprehension
of currently incomprehensible input, as well as
make hard-to-be-comprehended output, easy-to-
be-comprehended.
It is generally understood among FL/L2 teach-
ers and researchers that without input no language
learning occurs. To my knowledge, however, it
has never been explained how and why input,
especially spoken input, plays a crucial role in
L2 acquisition, except for “only when input is
comprehended; it will be in-taken, and be incor-
porated in inner grammar or acquired. As shown
in Figure 1, the model has the parser situated be-
tween input and implicit mental grammar, whose
operation is done subconsciously. In HPLT, an
input sentence is correctly comprehended, which
means “an input sentence is successfully parsed.”
What needs to be learned in HPLT is parsing
algorithms/mechanisms for TL (Kang, 1993).
However, parsing algorithms--how to process
incoming sentences (input)--are not something to
be learned by teaching, but only spoken input can
117
 Teaching Online: What Does Blended Learning Require?
force the parser to operate, or to figure out/learn
how to process the input. Although it is unclear
how much input is required to attain the adult na-
tive speakers’ level, learners should be exposed
to a tremendous amount of input. Besides, the
learner’s parser needs to start to operate in real
time speed, or in NS’s speed to understand NS’s
utterances, when he/she has reached an advanced
level, although this chapter will not touch on this
aspect of input comprehension.
Input Comprehension, Prosodic
Phrases & Syntactic Acquisition
Spoken input carries amazingly various, useful
linguistic information for processing. More rel-
evant to this chapter’s discussion are the follow-
ing two phenomena: (1) Comprehension units,
and (2) Branching directions. HPLT assumes
that parser will decide branching direction, one
comprehension unit after another, in the manner
of “first come, first interpreted/ parsed.”
Comprehension Units
What indicates or marks a comprehension/pro-
cessing unit? Simply put, it is a prosodic phrase
(Kang, 2003), because prosodic phrasing consists
of “a sense unit” (Selkirk, 1984).
The following English examples are from Pier-
rehumbert (1980, p. 8). The English sentence in
(3) means Three mathematicians in ten derive a
lemma as (4b). However, when a prosodic phrase
is placed between mathematician and in, as in (3a),
the sentence is not interpreted as Three mathemati-
cians in ten derive a lemma, but as (3b).
(3) Three mathematicians in ten derive a
lemma.
a. [Three mathematicians] [in ten derive
a lemma].
b. Three mathematicians intend to rival
Emma.
118
(4) Three mathematicians in ten derive a
lemma.
a.* [Three mathematicians] [in ten derive
a lemma]
b. [Three mathematicians in ten] [derive
a lemma]
In Japanese as is the case of (5a), the intended
meaning is I will listen to the radio, whose prosodic
phrasing is either (5b-i) or (5b-ii). However, if a
prosodic boundary is placed between rajio and
o, the meaning will be Please make the (volume
of) radio louder.
(5) a. Rajio o kiku ‘I will listen to the radio.’
b. i) [Rajio o] [kiku] or ii) [Rajio o kiku]
radio-Acc listen-will ‘I will listen to the ra-
dio.’ (Acc = accusative)
c. *[Rajio] [o kiku] ‘Please make the (vol-
ume of) radio louder.’
radio bigger/louder
These cases show that a comprehension/pro-
cessing unit is indicated by a prosodic phrase.
Branching direction and “first (prosodic
phrase) come, first interpreted”
In HPLT, what need to be learned is how to
parse oral/spoken input in TL.
Input is parsed in the manner of “first (pro-
sodic phrase) come, first served.” The parsed tree
branching direction will be taken care of by the
following Branching Principle.
(6) Branching Principle
a. Right Association (RA): Terminal sym-
bols optimally associate to the lowest
nonterminal node. (Kimball 1974)
b. Left Association (LA): Terminal sym-
bols optimally associate to the highest
nonterminal node. (Kang 2007b)
RA is for a head-initial (syntactic) phrase,
while LA works for a head-final phrase.
Teaching Online: What Does Blended Learning Require?
As seen in the following case, head-final and
head-initial is determined in terms of whether the
head precedes or follow its complement; the SPEC
(ifier) is not involved in the heading parameter.
(See Figure 3)
Once the parser determines the branching di-
rection according to head direction, it is assumed
to follow either RA or LA depending on the head
direction in a prosodic phrase.
A prosodic phrase carries the information
regarding the branching, too. According to Kubo-
zono (1993), a prosodic phrase can include only
terminal symbols of which branching directions
are the same. In other words, spoken input seems
to be organized for highly efficient processing.
However, it is not clear how much input is
needed for the parser to operate automatically RA
or LA depending on the heading parameter.
In the case of a previous example (1), cited here
again, Japanese input with two prosodic phrases
in (8i) will be parsed in (9ii), but the English cor-
respondent will be processed in (9i).
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
(1) kono kuruma-o ka-oo to omou
this car-Acc. buy-will that think
‘I think that I will buy this car ’
(8) i) [kono kuruma-o ] [ka-oo to omou]
this car-Acc. buy-will that think
ii) [I think] [that I will buy this car]
However, under the traditional grammar-
translation approach, a Japanese learner whose
L1 is English will translate according to “first
comes, last interpreted/comprehended.”
(9) Parsing incoming prosodic phrase
a. First input/prosodic phrase (See Figure
4)
b. Second input/prosodic phrase (See
Figure 5)
This means that, as demonstrated in the fol-
lowing case, the learner uses their L1 processing/
branching algorithm, RA, but not LA. This is
because under the traditional grammar-translation
119
 Teaching Online: What Does Blended Learning Require?

Figure 5.

approach the learner is never exposed to the native Figure 6.

speakers’ spoken input.

(10)
i) 1st input: omou (I think) (See Figure 6)
ii) 2nd Input: to (that) (See Figure 7)
Figure 7.
iii) 3rd Input: kaoo (I will buy) (See Figure 8)
iv) 4th Input: kono kuruma-o (this car) (See
Figure 9)

Output Comprehension, Lexicon

and Memory Efficiency

The phenomenon of the lexicon/mental dictionary

is not the main concern of Generative Grammar, Figure 8.
but remains a concern of our HPLTs. Relevant to
this chapter are the following issues associated
with the lexicon: (1) learning of vocabulary; (2)
subcategorization; and (3) morphology (e.g.,
conjugation/inflection). In HPLT, vocabulary
learning is important, because unknown words
cannot be associated to the parsed tree and hence
cause extra burden to the short-term memory where
the syntactic parser operates to try to figure out
how to process incoming input. Ambiguity causes
extra burden, too. Therefore, it is desirable to

120
Teaching Online: What Does Blended Learning Require?

Figure 9.
(shizuka= adjective-na)
b i) Yen became expensive. ii) en-ga
taka-ku natta (takai = adjective-i)
yen-Nom. expensive became

Because noun and adjective-na both take

ending ni, the students assume it is applicable to
an adjective-i. The following fossilized case of
interlanguage due to overgeneralization (Selinker
1972) is common in beginners, but sometimes oc-
curs even among intermediate students. Compare
the following with (12b-ii). Takai ‘expensive’ is an
adjective-i, but it is treated as an adjective-na.

(13) en-ga takai-ni natta.

This exhibits the same pitfall of “input compre-

hension” method or approach as (2) above. Let us
provide our students memory keys to introduced
proceed to discuss this example in terms of output
vocabulary (Kang, 1993).
comprehension. Native speakers of Japanese can
Subcategorization of a verb or an adjective in
comprehend this utterance, as en-ga takaku natta,
L2 is not always the same as L1’s. In Japanese,
‘Yen became expensive,’ correcting the mistakes
adjectives have two classes (adjective-na and -i),
of the adjective’s lexical categorization and inflec-
and verbs have three major classes including the
tion; this development causes tremendous extra
irregulars. For example, English subcategorization
burden on the addressee’s short-term memory,
of the verb become is different from the Japanese
forcing the addressee to reanalyze/reprocess
counterparts. The verb become in English is
the ungrammatical utterance. The output can be
subcategorized as become [ __ NP/ADJ], but in
comprehended, but with more difficulty than in
Japanese naru [ __ NP-ni/ADV(erb)].
the case of (2) above.
To derive the adverb from from an adjective the
The teaching methodology or approach issuing
following morphological rules need to be learn.
from HPLT is MEA (Kang 1993), as mentioned
above, which recommends FL/L2 teachers “eclec-
(11)
tic” methods in the sense of Higgs (1984).
i) adjective-na: na ---> ni
Kang (1993) did not consider the addressee’s
ii) adjective-i: i ---> ku
short-term memory burden. However, the present
chapter does address this problem because the
The following are the examples of Japanese
learner’s generator and parser mutually influence
become-construction; compare them with English
each other--unless, that is, the learner strongly
counterparts:
refuses to speak TL for some kind of sociolin-
guistic reasons. One way to know whether the
(12) i) English ii) Japanese
parser is functioning well with its lexicon is to
a. i) He became quiet. ii) sono hito-wa
check whether the learner understands input in TL.
shizuka-ni natta.
Moreover, a method for determining whether the
That person-topic quiet became
generator is functioning well with a lexicon is to

121
 Teaching Online: What Does Blended Learning Require?
observe if the learner’s utterance is comprehended
without causing the addressee extra short-term
memory burden.
How Can Currently
Incomprehensible Input be
Comprehended, and Hard-to-
Comprehend Output Become More
Easily Comprehended by BLT?
This section raises the following issues: (1) repeti-
tion; (2) recasting; (3) negotiation of meaning and
linguistic form. With regard to the negotiation,
we refer to Gass (1997): “Negotiation refers to
communication in which participants’ attention is
focused on resolving a communication problem”
(p.107). In the literature (e.g., Pica et. al., 1987;
Swain, 1985), as mentioned above, interaction
is one of the ways to make incomprehensible
input/output comprehensible. According to Gass
(p.150), “interaction is a priming device, allowing
learners to focus attention on area that they are
working on.” In other words, through interaction
learners have opportunities to negotiate their
problems of form or/and meaning with their inter-
locutors, which encourages the students to make a
transition from the developmental stage n to n +
1. In our terms, interaction is one of the ways to
make not only currently incomprehensible input
comprehended, but also hard-to-be-comprehended
output easy-to-be-comprehended, as in typically
understood “interaction,” conversational or task-
oriented.
The following interesting conversation was
observed at a restaurant. The NNS was not sure
about her interpretation regarding chili (incompre-
hensible input for the NNS), and the NS repeated
the phrase, pronouncing of more clearly, putting
stress on it (which shows in bold in d of the fol-
lowing), to enable the NNS to understand what he
ordered (the NS made the incomprehensible input
comprehended as the result of negotiation).
122
(14)
a. Waitless: what would like to order?
b. NS: I’ll take a hot dog with [sku:bə]
chili.
c. NNS: SCUBA (diving/diver’s) chili?
(being surprised)
d. NS: Well, no, but a scoopof chili.
e. NNS: Oh.
The above case seems self-evident. However,
we need to look at this process of comprehension
more carefully. The NNS has a problem in compre-
hending the input by the NS. Then, by virtue of the
NS’s adjusted pronunciation, the NS realizes that
what is perceived originally was wrong. Parsed
in (i) of the following (treating the problematic
prosodic phrase like a compound noun), it should
be parsed as (ii) of the following, because of is
cliticized to scoop; [sku:bəv]. Here it is behaving
like an affix of scoop (see also Shelkirk, 1984,
about the cliticization of English function words).
When the NS re-pronounced the noun phrase into
three prosodic phrases--[a scoop] [of] [chili]--the
NNS’s parser processed it after negotiating the
form, as in (iii) of the following. But this is not
the case as in (ii), which poses another problem
involving the input comprehension approach. The
NNS’s parser probably will not be able to process
the cliticized of as in (ii) unless the NNS perceives
a cliticized of. The present chapter suggests that
English learners (like this NNS) be provided with
plenty of input with cliticized function words (I
like’ em, how’d you do it? etc.) including of (a
cup of [ək/\bəv] tea, a group of [əgru:bəv] people,
etc.), with explicit grammar instruction about the
cliticization. (See Figure 10)
According to Duff (2000), the term “repetition”
is not interpreted as behaviorist “habits,” but rather,
“…repetition is viewed as a way of providing
learners greater access to language forms” (p.
109). In other words, this is a way of providing
learners with more relevant input. Recast is a
mode of repetition for corrective feedback. The
Teaching Online: What Does Blended Learning Require?

Figure 10.

importance of having learners reproduce forms 2. Ss: Chiisakatta desu ne. = portion of
they have heard to help them notice gaps between special note to the current
their own and other’s production is understood in It was small, isn’t it analysis is
several current accounts of language acquisition underlined
(Duff, p.109). L2 researchers have not evaluated 3. T: Oishikatta desu ne. Demo
recast highly because their findings indicate that It was delicious, right. But
it is not so effective for the students learning TL 4. Ss: Chiisakatta [desu] = overlap with
as teachers expects. According to Ohta (2000), in similarly bracketed
learner-centered classroom settings, recast/cor- It was small ((correct from)) portion
rective feedback functions effectively because in in neighboring turn
learner-centered settings, private speech occurs; = transcriber’s comments
in such private speech, learners effectively realize →5. C: [Chiisai deshita] → =indicated
their own errors. line of excerpt
The following excerpts of classroom conversa- It was small ((wrong form))
tions evince adjective inflection: 6. T: [Chiisakatta desu. Ne? Chiisakatta
desu
(16) Excerpt 4, Candance, January 24 (Ohta p. It was small. Right? It was small ((right
61-62) form))→
1. T: Hai soshite (..) suteeki suteeki wa? 7. C: “ah” reduced volume—soft voice
(..)= longer pause 8. T: Ne. Chiisakatta desu ne? Ookiku ari-
Yes and (..) the staek staek was? masen deshita. Ne? Hai, ja rokubann

123
 Teaching Online: What Does Blended Learning Require?
Right. It was small, Right? I was not
big. Right? Ok, number six
Candance kept producing the wrong form
chiisai deshita for ‘it was small,’ even if she
heard several students correctly say chiisakatta.
But, finally due to the teacher’s repeated recast
of the correct form, she realized the discrepancy
“as evidenced by her utterance of the change-of-
state token…‘ah’ in Line 7” (Ohta, p. 62). This is
a case of recast, or teacher’s negotiation of forms.
In our terms, the teacher tried to help the student
make hard-to-be-comprehend output easy-to-
comprehend by negotiating the form.
There is another interesting case of recast re-
peated by a non-native speaker (NNS) to another
NNS in Gass and Varonis (1994, p. 288):
(17)
a. Ana: Can you tell me where is the train
station?
b. Keiko: Can you tell me where the train
station is?
c. Ana: Can you tell me where is the train
station?
d. Keiko: Can you tell me where the train
station is?
e. Ana: Can you tell me where is the train
station?
f. Keiko: Can you tell me where the train
station is?
g. Ana: Can you tell me where the train
station is?
h. Keiko: Can you tell me where the train
station is?
i. Ana: Can you tell me where the train
station is?
Here, Keiko helped Ana make hard-to-
comprehend output easy-to-comprehend due to a
syntactic over-generalization problem, by repeat-
edly providing her with the correct input. To put
it more simply, we can make this kind of recast
leading to self-correction, self-repair as online
124
learning, combined with FFLT. Moving forward,
the following subsection demonstrates collabora-
tive learning and self-study activities the present
author has designed and implemented for online
learning in the second and the third semester of
Japanese classes--JA102 and JA201, respectively-
-to make not only incomprehensible input com-
prehensible, but also hard-to-comprehend output
easy-to-comprehend.
Practice
Collaborative Learning for
Fully Online JA201 Class
In BLT, I designed collaborative learning for FFLT,
but self-learning for online learning.
However, in this context of total online learning
and teaching, I switched to both for online learning.
I implemented two collaborative works: (1) nazo
nazo (riddles) relay by email (asynchronous), and
(2) the task of describing the story of the pictures,
using 4-koma manga ‘Japanese 4 panel cartoons’
(synchronous).
Conducting Nazo nazo
(riddles) Relay by Email
Nazo nazo (nazo means ’mystery, puzzle, enigma,
etc,’ and is a Japanese language game) for this class
consists of two, or more than two, sentences, or
one sentence with a simple relative clause, or a
subordinate/coordinate clause and come up with
the correct answer. Some of the examples are in
the following:
(18) Examples of nazo nazo for the relay.
日本に行ったら、 見られます。 日本で一番(
ばん)高いです。 きれいです。
いつも一番(
ばん)上に雪があります。 夏になったら、 登
(のぼ)れます。
何ですか。
‘If you go to Japan, you can see it. It is the
highest in Japan. It is beautiful. It always has
Teaching Online: What Does Blended Learning Require?
snow on the top. When it becomes summer, we
can climb it. What is it?’ (Answer: Mt. Fuji)
Why nazo nazo or puzzles? To come up with the
right answer, one must correctly comprehend the
sentences describing things, people, or places. This
is one of the ways to check whether the students’
parsers are capable of processing the sentences
in one question, by observing whether they come
up with the right answer or not. In the case above,
when a student answered correctly, he/she has
successfully comprehended the input sentences
of a nazo nazo, which indicates that his/her parser
has processed input correctly, i.e., successfully.
However difficult, this is the way to measure input
comprehension or parser’s successful process-
ing. If a nazo nazo question is given with spoken
input, the students have to use “first come, first
interpreted/parsed’ in real time processing speed.
That is what I have been doing with students in
JA102, although the sentence structures are less
complicated than those in this class.
Narrative of Nazo Nazo (riddles) Relay
I sent ten questions of nazo nazo to the class
(twelve students) to find out how good they are
or not. I made the nazo nazo by using vocabulary,
Chinese characters (kanji), and sentence structures
they were supposed to know. Even so, they could
look up dictionaries whenever they required them.
First come, first served, so to speak, but the first
student had to answer my ten nazo nazo, and make
at least five his/her own nazo nazo to email to the
class. The rest of the runners should answer the
previous student’s nazo nazo and make at least
five his/her own nazo nazo and then email to all
of us. They had to answer in Japanese.
I sent them on Saturday of the first week of
my instruction, but surprisingly on the following
day I found that one of the students had already
emailed us her answers with her five nazo nazo.
And soon after that (on the same day), another
student emailed us the following message (the
student name is kept in blank).
hey, () your 5th riddle was kind of hard to un-
derstand. i dont think your second sentance is
correct. can you clarify it for me, so i can change
my answer if you made a mistake on your number
5? thanks! have fun, everyone!
Actually, the second runner’s 5th nazo nazo
(riddle) is not so bad, but this student had a hard
time comprehending it. Here we can see “nego-
tiation of form and meaning” of input sentences,
although the question was presented in English.
This student gave me another surprise; she made
10 questions of nazo nazo, and emailed us soon
after her email message above. My surprise did not
end with that. The following day, Monday, when
I stopped by the class between my two classes,
another student was upset because she had not
received my email message with 10 questions of
nazo nazo. I sensed her competitiveness. Indeed,
soon after that, the class received this student’s
answer to the 10 riddles by the previous student
with five her own riddles.
After that episode, four students participated
in the relay without any surprises. However, what
bothered the present author was that five students
did not participate in this activity. Those five stu-
dents did not submit homework on time, nor come
to see me in my office for oral interaction or oral
recitation of dialogues in the textbook, although all
of them took paper exams or quizzes administrated
by a part-time teacher or staff. I was sure that the
production of TL is harder than the reception of
TL, but no questions I was asked from those five
silent students. Every class day, I visited the class
about 5 minutes between my two regular classes
to try to connect them, and nicely remind them
the participation in the relay, and homework, but
nothing happened for a while until the last week
of my instruction. In that week, finally two of the
five students participate in this relay.
On the third week of my instruction of the
class, I gave the class another collaborative work,
“Tell us a story of your 4 panel cartoon” adopting
“Establishing the sequence of a picture story in
125
 Teaching Online: What Does Blended Learning Require?
four acts,” in Brandl (2005, p. 21). This activity
revealed that two of the five students were well
motivated to learn Japanese, but their Japanese
language knowledge was just not as high as the
seven students who participated in the relay much
earlier. One of these two students was able to
participate in the relay on the last week (the 4th
week) of my instruction. In FFLT, I could have
found out much earlier about these five silent
students’ problems or difficulties.
Tell Us a Story of 4-koma
Manga (4-panel cartoon)
Since the class has twelve students, this activity
worked well in terms of grouping; each group
has four students for four-panel cartoon. Each
student received an URL to see his/her panel of
cartoons by email. I used the Moodle’s “Forum”
with the technical assistance of my colleague,
Brian Millhoff. I scanned each panel of three
4-panel cartoons for three groups, and emailed
them to Brian, who in turn emailed each one of
the 12 students an URL where each student could
find a panel of cartoon. Each student individually
described his/her cartoon, and posted it in his/her
group’s forum. When everyone posted his/her
description, the team started to find the correct
sequence of four pictures.
In this collaborative work, more interaction
is observed than in the nazo nazo relay. There
are four types of problems which caused more
interaction, generating more input and output for
the participants: (1) unknown kanji; (2) unknown
vocabulary; (3) a incomprehensible sentence; and
(4) insufficient information for the completion of
the task. To collect enough information (due to
insufficient information for determining the order
of each cartoon) the students interacted with each
other most frequently.
The following is a case of unknown kanji,
while (15) involves negotiating the description
of the picture to determine the order of 4 panels/
pictures. To understand the interaction in the
126
following, the story of a 4-panel cartoon---being
adopted from a textbook Genki II; this class
employed another textbook called Yookoso---is
depicted as follows:
An 8-10 year-old boy walking along the street
to go to the bakery to buy bread. He has a shop-
ping bag in one hand and some bills in the other
hand. At the bakery, he bought bread, but forgot
to pay, and he still holding money in his hand.
The baker realized that he did not get paid from
the boy. Then, he ran to the boy’s house. Then,
Mother and the boy came out, and the boy’s mother
standing at the entrance of the house paid to the
baker. (p. 297)
(19) Incomprehensible kanji usage (because
wrong one was used)
J: パン家でこの男の子はパンを買い
ました。The boy bought bread at the
bakery
パンやのてん印はとてもうれし
いです。The bakery worker is very
happy.
L: Can you use kanji that we know please?
Sorry, I just don’t understand some
parts. Thanks! (The kanji she was talk-
ing about is underlined in the sentence
above.)
J: パン家でこの男の子はパンを買い
ました。The boy bought bread at the
bakery
パンやの店員はとてもうれしいで
す。The bakery worker is very happy
(The corrected kanji is marked with
underline.)
“note”
前の漢字は違いました。 I used a
wrong Chinese character.
でも、いま漢字がいいです。but now
my Chinese characters are correct.
(20) negotiation of description of a picture
N: 男の子は何かを持っていますか?
Does the boy have something?
Teaching Online: What Does Blended Learning Require?
J: 男の子の右の手に紙をも持ってい
ません。The boy does not have paper
in his でも店員はかばんを持ってい
ます。
right hand, but the bakery worker
has a bag.
In addition, it is worth noting, this kind of
activity promotes understanding of Japanese
culture because of the usage of Japanese 4-panel
cartoon. In the bakery cartoon, for example, the
bakery worker/owner wears Japanese traditional
wooden sandals called geta.
Online Self-Study Blended for
JA201 & JA102 Classes
“First (prosodic phrases) Come, First Inter-
preted”
In both of the classes, JA102 and JA201, the
textbooks used are titled Genki; Genki I is for
JA102, and Genki II for JA201. The textbooks
have good reading comprehension materials;
however, no audio files for the reading materials
are included. Be this as it may, as I argued above,
if one teaches a language in which the phrasal
head-position is different from the learner’s L1,
one does so to prevent them from processing in the
way “first come, last interpreted/comprehended.”
Remember that only spoken input tacitly force the
students to follow “first come, first interpreted/
comprehended.” The following contents have
been recorded in the audio files for “first come,
first interpreted/parsed”:
(21) Contents of audio files as spoken input
for JA102 and JA201
i) each reading material in the textbooks, by
reading it aloud.
ii) my own questions about the content of each
reading material.
iii) my own questions about the content of the
dialogs in each lesson.
It is important to set the number of trials to
“unlimited,” to let our students try until they can
find out the correct answer. In other words, let
them try and try again until incomprehensible sen-
tences are comprehended. I employed the grading
scale for these quizzes lower than the activities
involved other three skills (speaking, reading
and writing) to reduce my students’ anxiety, but
also to motivate them to challenge their listening
comprehension skills.
As for recording my own reading of the read-
ing material of the textbook, for JA102 students,
I recorded one batch of reading material in two
ways: one, by reading slower, and the other by
reading at my normal speed. In slower reading, I
do not change any prosodic boundaries, but try to
insert more prosodic phrase boundaries.
As for the questions for the reading comprehen-
sion materials, although textbooks have printed
questions, it is desirable the questions in audio
files are given, and that the questions are not the
same as those written ones in the textbooks.
The questions about the dialogs of each lesson
are created for the following two reasons: (1) I
want to check whether they have studied and
understand what they are talking about in each
dialog, although the dialogs have English transla-
tion; and (2) I want to provide my students with
more authentic spoken input.
Self-Negotiation of Form and Meaning
I made more audio files for JA102 than for JA201.
This is mainly due to the following: (1) JA102’s
the students in JA102 there are not so many lis-
tening comprehension materials, except for “real
world” Japanese http://www.ajalt.org/rwj/, and
(2) In the outcomes assessments, as mentioned
above, the students’ learning of both adjective
and verb inflections is as difficult as learning
of writing the correct kanji corresponding to a
given reading.
In (a- I-1) of the following “fill-in questions,”
I speak “before I was healthy, but,” and a student
127
 Teaching Online: What Does Blended Learning Require?
type in their answer in Japanese. In order to come
up with the correct answer, what I am speaking in
the audio file needs to be comprehended through
self-negotiating of meaning and forms.
(22) Fill-in questions
a. For JA102
i) To learn adjective inflection:
To fill an adjective in the blank, switch-
ing the tense and positive/negative of
the pre-noun adjective
1) 元気だったお母さん
が______!(answer: 元気じゃな
い)
Mother who was healthy is not
healthy (Surprise)!
2) 難しくないテスト
が______!(answer: 難しかっ
た)
The test that is usually not diffi-
cult was/has turned out difficult
(Surprise)!
ii) To learn “want-construction”
1) 帰りたくなかった。 でも、 ______
。(answer: 帰った)
I do not want to go back, but
went back.
2) 心配する。でも、______。 (an-
swer: 心配したくない)
I worry, but I do not want to
worry.
b. For JA201
To learn “give/receive-construction”
1) お金がなかったから、 父にお金
を貸して______。
Because I do not have money, I
loaned money from Dad.
2) 漢字が分からなかった。 でも、
友達が教えて______。
I did not understand the kanji,
but my friend kindly teaches it
to me.
128
In the case of the following “translation of
verbal expression” in only one prosodic phrase,
the students have to type in an English corre-
spondent, listening to my pronunciation of each
verbal expression; again, by self-negotiation of
form and meaning.
(23) Translation of complex verbal expressions
for JA102
1) つかれなかった (was not tired)
2) ならいたくない (do not want to
learn)
3) のぼった (climbed)
4) あかかった (was red)
5) やめたかった (wanted to quit)
The following is an example of teaching gram-
mar with songs. The following is not a quiz, but
encourages my students to listen and sing the
songs whose lyrics I made, inspired by one of my
colleagues, Yoko Morimoto. The idea here is to
use a melody of a song learned by our students in
L1, and put Japanese words in it. The following
one in (24) was made accordingly.
The decision was made that for learning a
“had-better” construction, it would be effective to
adopt a Christmas song, “Rudolf the Red-Nosed
Reindeer.” I made not only an audio file of my
singing, but a slide show to show the sentences
and English translation, and then put them in
Moodle. This song has three parts, so I made three
slides for it. Each slide was displayed during my
singing of each part; this is the third part (#3) of
the song. Songs are also good for latent learning
of “first come, first interpreted/parsed.” Japanese
characters in the songs persist in Moodle because
the lyrics are inserted as slides.
(24) Songs for learning the relevant structures
for JA102 (See Figure 11)
Teaching Online: What Does Blended Learning Require?
Figure 11.
CURRENT CHALLENGES FACING
TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION
There are two challenges regarding Moodle. As
mentioned above, one is that Japanese characters
are no longer readable, unless I use pdf format, or
picture (JPEG) format. Secondly, even if this prob-
lem is solved, instructors take note that Moodle
availability is subject to the financial conditions
of one’s home institution. Quia, unfortunately,
lacks two functions. First, it cannot replace “Fo-
rum” in Moodle. Second, it cannot present slide
shows like the song’s slide shows in (24) above.
Even if I use Moodle, Japanese characters typed
in are, as mentioned above, no longer readable.
Therefore, my students are no longer able to en-
gage in some meaningful collaborative tasks like
“Tell Us a Story with 4-panel cartoon”. Even if
I give up using Moodle for collaborative tasks, I
need to use both Quia and Moodle. That is, Quia
is used for quizzes and Moodle for the songs to
learn grammar and the strategy of “first come,
first interpreted”. I also found that it is quite a
challenge for the instructor to let the majority of
the students log into Moodle only for the song’s
slide shows.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the present chapter repeats its
endorsement of BLT because it significantly re-
duces psychological and social distance in FFLT.
Furthermore, instructors need to produce audio
files to provide students with spoken input so they
can self-negotiate form and meaning, and so that
students’ parsers process in the manner of first
(prosodic phrase) come, first served. The outcome
is important: incomprehensible input becomes
comprehensible, and hard-to-be-comprehended
output becomes easy-to-comprehend output. The
question in the title of this chapter, “Does More
Input Improve Comprehension?” can be answered
as follows: if input is relevant or effective for the
129
 Teaching Online: What Does Blended Learning Require?
students’ developmental stage to move up to one
step higher, the answer is “Yes.” “More input”
and its comprehension takes place as the result
of the students’ parsers invoking processing prin-
ciples like RA or LA, depending on TL’s phrasal
heading parameter. However, this chapter claims
that input comprehension is not good enough,
but output development also contributes L2 ac-
quisition. It needs to be said in all modesty that
this chapter has not conducted assessment of the
self-negotiation of form and meaning, and leaves
it for future work.
REFERENCES
Bonno, E., Ohno, Y., Sakane, Y., & Sinagawa, C.
(1999). Genki I: An Integrated course in elemen-
tary Japanese. Tokyo, Japan: The Japan Times.
Brandl, K. (2005). Are you ready to “Moodle”?
Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 16–23.
Chomsky, N. (1982). Government and biding
theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Colpaert, J. (2006). Pedagogy-driven design for
online language teaching and learning. Com-
puter Assisted Language Instruction COnsortium
(CALICO) . Journal, 23(3), 47–498.
Conger, J., & Lawler, E. (2005, August 26). People
skills still rule in the virtual company. [London.].
Financial Times (North American Edition), 10.
Duff, P. A. (2000). Repetition I: Foreign language
classroom interaction. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verp-
laetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learn-
ing through classroom interaction (pp. 108-138).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the sec-
ond language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
130
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. M. (1994). Input, interac-
tion, and second language production. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 16(3), 283–302.
doi:10.1017/S0272263100013097
Hauck, M., & Sticler, U. (2006). What does it take
to teach online? Computer Assisted Language
Instruction COnsortium (CALICO) . Journal,
23(3), 463–476.
Higgs, T. V. (1984). Introduction: Language teach-
ing and the quest for the holy grail. In T. V. Higgs
(Ed.), Teaching for Proficiency, the Organizing
Principle (pp. 1-9). Lincolnwood, Chicago: NTC
Publishing Group.
Kang, P. T. (1993). Parser strategies of adult
English speakers learning Japanese as a second
language: Theory and Application. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at
Austin.
Kang, P. T. (2000). A digital classroom for a
foreign language course; A case study of Japa-
nese language courses. PIALA 2000: Selected
Papers from the 10th Pacific Islands Association
of Libraries and Archives Conference Joint with
the 13th Annual Regional Language Arts Confer-
ence, 74-80.
Kang, P. T. (2003). Surface X-bar theory, prosodic
structure and first language acquisition. Paper
presented at the conference of UG Principles and
Input: How do we get Plato’s heaven into Skin-
ners box? the LSA Linguistic Summer Institute,
Michigan State University.
Kang, P. T. (2007a). Technology, lifelong learn-
ing, and effective foreign language instruction
under the memory efficient approach. In Y. Inoue
(Ed.), Online education for lifelong learning.
(pp. 73-98). Hershey, PA: Information Science
Publishing/ IGI Global.
Teaching Online: What Does Blended Learning Require?

Kang, P. T. (2007b). Left association for a head- Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). Phonology and phonetics
final phrase. Paper poster-presented at the Inter- of English intonation. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.
national Conference on Processing Head-final Reprinted Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
Structures at Rochester Technology Institute, Linguistic Club in 1987.
Rochester, NY.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, 10(3),
Kang, P. T. (2008). First come, first interpreted and 209–231.
a performance-based Assessment for advanced L2
Selkirk, E. O. (1984). Phonology and syntax: the
(Japanese) parser development. Paper presented
relation between sound and structure. Cambridge,
at the conference, The 20th Annual Meeting of
MA: MIT Press.
the Central Association of Teachers of Japanese
at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, May Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence:
31-June 1. Some roles of comprehensible input and com-
prehensible input in its development. In S. Gass
Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface
& C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language
structure parsing in natural language. Cognition,
Acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: New-
2, 15–47. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(72)90028-5
bury House.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). Input hypotheses. New
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and
York: Longman.
beyond: Mediating acquisition through collabora-
Kubozono, H. (1993). The organization of Japa- tive dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural
nese prosody. Tokyo: Kuroshio. theory and econd language learning (pp. 97-114).
Ocford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking recasts: A learner-
centered examination of corrective feedback in Tohsaku, Y. (1999). Yookoso! Continuing with
the Japanese language classroom. In J. K. Hall contemporary Japanese. New York: McGraw
& L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign Hill.
language learning through classroom interaction.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and gram-
(pp. 47-72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
mar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood,
Associates.
NJ: Alex publishing.
Omaggio, A. C. (1984). The proficiency-oriented
Wegmann, S. J., & McCauley, J. K. (2007). Can
classroom. In T. V. Higgs (Ed.), Teaching for
you hear us now?: Stance towards interaction
proficiency, the organizing principle (pp. 43-84).
and rapport. In Y. Inoue (Ed.), Online education
Chicago, IL: NTC Publishing Group.
for lifelong learning (pp. 29-50). Hershey, PA:
Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). Information Science Publishing/IGI Global.
The impact of interaction on comprehen-
sion . TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 737–756.
doi:10.2307/3586992

131
132

Chapter 8
The Perfect Blend?:
Online Blended Learning from
a Linguistic Perspective
Roberto Di Scala
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy

ABSTRACT
This chapter tackles the implementation of the way online courses of English language are structured
within the on-line degree courses of the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia in Italy. Moving from
a double theoretical framework grounded on the links between e-learning and communication and be-
tween e-learning and multimedia learning, The author will outline the basic features of the course the
author is currently teaching. Besides the standard tools provided by the university platform (the course
portal and forum and the course content slides), he has added some ‘external’ tools to offer students
further possibilities to interact and take an active role in the learning environment which thus becomes
actually ‘blended.’ By making practice of the language through posting comments on a dedicated blog
and by exchanging impressions and making queries at a number of Skype-mediated meetings, instructor
and students can further interact and create a stronger ‘studying community.’

INTRODUCTION A few years ago, the notion of “online universi-

This case deals with the online degree courses
of the Faculty of Communication Sciences and
Economics of the University of Modena and Reg-
gio Emilia where I am currently working as a
contracted professor in charge of two courses in
English Language.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-880-2.ch008
ties” (in Italian, università telematiche) began to
take shape and today there exist a number of such
institutions. Their main characteristic is the fact that
the courses are exclusively taught on line, while
exams are taken in the venue of the university.
These universities are extremely new and lack the
history of more ancient, traditional universities.
Nevertheless, they are official institutions providing
higher education.

Copyright © 2010, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
The Perfect Blend?
The same could be said for the so-called “tradi-
tional” universities which, due to a reformation of
the Italian university system of about a dozen years
ago, are now in the need of attracting students as
though they were private institutions rather than
state-owned places of culture.
Leaving aside any political and educational
comment on this aspect, it is now a fact that
most universities in Italy (not to say all of them)
are offering their students some form of online
learning. In most cases, it is not a whole substi-
tution of traditional, in praesentia courses for
e-learning programmes, as traditional teaching is
still practiced (and so far it is the dominant method
of teaching at universities). The novelty is that
many information and parts of the programmes
are published on the university’s platforms for e-
learning. The downside of this aspect is, though,
that often it is just a sort of “cut-and-paste” pro-
cedure which leads to the sharing of very simple
files to the community of students who can access
online material.
This technological, advanced form of “note
taking” cannot be considered as “real” e-learning.
Nonetheless, a growing number of faculties are
offering their students actual online courses
whose contents are devised for distance teach-
ing/learning.
BACKGROUND
The University of Modena and Reggio Emilia was
one of the first to opt for this kind of distance learn-
ing courses which it has been offering his students
through dedicated, Moodle-based platform and
portals (see http://www.laureaonline.unimore.it)
since 2002. Since then, it has been the policy of
the University to offer blended e-learning courses
for its distance learning programmes. The reason
behind this choice is the belief in the need to pro-
vide actual, physical links between teachers and
students so as to prevent the creation of learning
environments lacking the ‘human touch.’
The standard structure of online courses at
the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia
consist of (1) opening meeting where teachers
explain details of the programmes to the students
(before the academic year officially begins); (2)
first meeting between the teachers of each course
and their students (namely, the first lesson); (3)
a set of ten video-lessons (once a week, usually
from 7pm to 8pm); (4) closing meeting between
teacher and students; and (5) examinations.
Events (1), (2), (4), and (5) take place in the
rooms of the faculty in Reggio Emilia. All the
meetings, though, are broadcast live via the Web
and the corresponding files are published to the
portals so that students may download them for
their convenience.
In order to fully understand and appreciate the
importance attached to its e-learning programme
by the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia,
readers should be made aware of the existence
of a department dedicated to online teaching
which was set up thanks to the joint efforts of the
existing structures (i.e. the departments and the
faculties involved in the project). Their common
goal was to create a structure which could be
made responsible for everything concerning and
related to e-learning with a reference person (in this
case, the head of the department) and a dedicated
team of technicians and staff of secretary to cope
with the more and more demanding tasks of the
whole e-learning system of this university. The
department is called Centro e-Learning di Ateneo
(CEA) (the University’s e-learning centre) whose
Web site can be reached at the following address:
www.cea.unimore.it .
The aim of the work done every day by the
people involved in this and in similar projects at
universities scattered throughout Italy (and not
only Italy, of course) is to make clear that the lack
of classroom interaction in online education is basi-
cally a way of enriching and enhancing learning,
rather than being considered a limit to that.
Technology must be matched by the quality
of the information provided, the skill of teachers
133

and/or tutors in involving their students in the
teaching process, as well as by the creation of the
awareness of belonging to a reference structure
among the students.
Universities providing online education must
never cease being communities which are able to
offer their members (in particular, students) both
solutions to problems and the instruments through
which students can form their critical conscience
by learning how to learn in an autonomous, active,
and proactive way, where by ‘autonomous’ it is
meant learning through one’s personal initiative,
and through co-operation and confrontation with
the other students.
In such context, teachers must be able to: (1)
do team work along with tutors and the technical
staff; (2) offer their teaching in a non-traditional,
transmissive way; (3) manage multimedia con-
tents; and (4) manage the times and modes of the
teaching process (course planning, class teaching).
Therefore, teachers and researchers who wish
to contribute to the development of this kind of
teaching as well as to give added value to their
university’s educational offer in e-learning should
possess a fairly wide knowledge of state-of-the-
art technologies and theoretical references in the
field. Also, if they are used to more traditional
ways of teaching, they must be willing to ques-
tion such methods and to adapt their teaching
framework to the evolving teaching and learning
environments.
Blended Learning in
English Courses
From a more particular point of view, I will now
touch upon the course which serves as the practical
case for the following analysis, namely the course
of English which I teach.
I started working as a contracted professor of
English at the University of Modena and Reggio
Emilia in 2003, and have been in charge of two
of the three on-line English courses of the Faculty
of Communication Sciences and Economics. The
134
The Perfect Blend?
structure of on-line programs has undergone some
minor restructuring due to some changes at na-
tional level in the offering of Italian universities,
and as I will focus on my present-day courses
(which are somehow new in their structure and
names), I feel necessary to offer the reader a brief
but exhaustive overview of the contents and of the
structure of the courses of the previous years.
When I first started teaching on-line courses,
I chose to focus on grammar. The whole structure
of the course was centred on the rules of English
grammar, providing a traditional syllabus rang-
ing from present simple to the passive in order to
offer students the chance to reach a B2 level of
knowledge of the language. The course material
comprised descriptions of the main tenses and
grammar functions, and it was in no way different
from a traditional course which might be taught at
traditional university courses. The only difference
was the medium employed the channel through
which the information was conveyed: namely,
the blended learning environment, which was in
its second year of existence at the University of
Modena and Reggio Emilia. For the following year,
I chose not to change anything in the course content
and material, but I started to feel that something
should be done in order to implement the course
itself and to meet the students’ real needs in learn-
ing a foreign language in a semester.
Even though it is extremely hard to find out
what the ‘real needs’ of the students may be, I tried
to restrict myself to dealing with a limited set of
issues. So, for my third year, I taught a course on
how to write a resume in English together with the
corresponding covering letter. The grammar rules
(i.e., the content of the previous years’ courses)
were turned into a rather huge file of information
which students could find on the course portal. To
such material I added a number of files containing
the basic information on how to write a standard
business letter in English as well as some useful
terms and expressions of business English.
For the following year’s course I decided I
would change the contents once again, and I ap-
The Perfect Blend?
proached the world of e-mail English. In doing so,
I tackled for the first time the issue of non-native
speakers and their role within the communicative
exchange in English. Again, the tools I relied upon
were the traditional instruments available for on-
line teachers: the portal of the course (comprising
a forum between the teacher and the students), the
platform for virtual classes, and the occasional
exchange of e-mail messages with the students.
In 2007, I eventually proposed a course which
had nothing to do with learning a particular aspect
of the language. I decided it was time I offered
something different, both in terms of course con-
tents and in the way I delivered them.
The course for the 2007-2008 academic year
was therefore centred upon the use of English as
a ‘social language,’ something which draws upon
the concept of English as a lingua franca and which
tries to provide a set of practical suggestions for
non-native speakers who are absolute or false
beginners in dealing with English.
SETTING THE STAGE
The main feature of the ‘new’ course was the use
of two different sets of interactive tools which I
will term ‘internal’ and ‘external.’
‘Internal’ tools are the course portal and the
slides, which are the standard tools provided by
the university. Though slides are not a proper
interactive tool in themselves, it is their use and
the context in which they are used which make
them interactive. The portal, on the other hand,
offers a place for interaction between teacher and
students and among students, i.e. the forum. There,
teachers can post information about the course
and reply to their students’ queries and students
can make enquiries, make suggestions and post
comments on course material/topics.
The ‘external’ tools I decided to add are a dedi-
cated blog and a further meeting with the students
via Skype. Skype is a free program that everyone
can download and use to speak with other Skype
users through a computer and a Web cam.
The blog, which can be reached at unimoreng-
lish.splinder.com, is called UnimorEnglish (from
the acronym Unimore, which stands for University
of Modena and Reggio Emilia, plus English). It
is a place where students can practice the use of
written English in dealing with issues related to
the course. Generally, I post a brief text on the cur-
rent week’s topic of the virtual class, and I invite
students to post comments on the issue. I encour-
age them to take an active part in the discussion
without worrying too much about the mistakes
they can possibly make (especially if they are
beginners). I wish them to practice the language
and to be part of the studying community without
feeling compelled to pay too much attention to
the grammar. On a second moment, I will correct
their mistakes so that they may learn from them
and try not to make them a second time.
From last year’s experience, it emerged that not
all the students enrolled on the course were active
users of the blog, but those who were produced
very interesting discussions and also proposed
issues and produced relevant documents for the
course. Even though there are no official figures
about the evaluation on this part of the course by
the students yet, I feel the students appreciated this
implementation. Some of them, after taking their
exam, wrote me to say they found the possibility
of practicing the language very useful.
Though the blog does not provide an answer
to those students requesting oral interaction and
practice, I believe it is a first step towards offering
a more complete approach to language teaching
and transmission so much that for the current year
I have decided not to change the general structure
of the course and to re-open the blog to the stu-
dents who will be able to exchange opinions with
a mother-tongue supporting teacher as well.
The other ‘external’ tool was (and will be also
for this year) a weekly meeting with the students
made via my Skype account. Every week at a given
time, I opened my Skype account to the students
135

for about one hour during which time they could
pose me questions, made suggestions, ask for
further explanations on the course contents and/
or structure, or simply chat or talk in English to
practice the language.
Compared to the blog, the weekly Skype
meetings were less popular among the students.
Sometimes no-one called, or maybe I had one or
two persons on line. This was probably due to
the time I chose to hold the meeting, which were
sometimes from 6.30pm to 7.30pm and sometimes
from 7pm to 8pm. At that time, students were
probably engaged with other virtual classes, or
were busy with family life (8pm is or is nearly
dinner time in Italy). But, as many students are
workers, I envisaged that time might be the best
time for them to devote some extra time to the
subject. This is the major downside of the Skype
side of the course, but nonetheless I will keep the
meetings going on for this current year.
Due to their being ‘external’ tools, both the
blog and the Skype meetings need no technical
assistance from the staff working on the on-line
programs of the university, and therefore they
do not constitute a ‘burden’ for the organization.
They are something shared by the teacher and the
students alike, the occasion on which both the
instructor and the learners can actually ‘blend’ and
interact, thus adding further meaning to blended
e-learning.
CASE DESCRIPTION
Online Degree Courses
Before moving to the detailed description of the
case, I need to point out some major characteris-
tics of the course as they arise out of the above-
mentioned operational indications.
136
The Perfect Blend?
Course contents
The course is part of the educational offer con-
cerning the university degrees in ‘Marketing and
Business Organization’ and in ‘Communication
Sciences’. As I have already made clear, I chose
to focus the attention on the practical uses of the
language rather than let’s say on grammar or
syntax exclusively. The course, therefore, may be
said to be somehow more pragmatics-oriented. It
aims at providing the students with basic elements
on the use of the language in order to have them
communicate by using English as a lingua franca
(or ‘social language’, see Di Scala, 2008).
Reference Target
The course is designed for beginner students who
are non-native English speakers. Online students
are basically working adults who study in their
spare time in order to obtain either a better position/
job or to complete their studies, and are therefore
motivated and eager to learn.
Course Main Features
Characteristics
Interactivity. Classes are given through interac-
tive channels, and are devised so that students
can interact with the teacher and with other stu-
dents. Besides the ‘traditional’ video-classes, the
course features in fact a blog where students can
practice English writing and exchange ideas and
impressions on course topics. Skype is also used
as a further means of communication between the
teacher and the students (besides more ‘traditional’
email exchanges).
Dynamism. Class material can be easily up-
graded by the teacher (and made available to the
students), and added to by the students in the form
of further files/documents on course topics.
The Perfect Blend?
Modularity. Class material is divided up in
learning modules which, in their turn, comprise
different learning units (which somehow may be
regarded as Learning Objects). The content of
each ‘object’ is designed to meet the needs of the
typical student the course was devised for.
Learning Methods
Self-learning. Students download each lesson
and revise the teaching materials wherever and
whenever they feel like to.
Synchronous learning. Students participate in
live, real-time classes.
Collaborative learning. Students may co-
operate through the Web even though they live
in distant places.
Multimedia learning. The whole idea of e-
learning is based on multimedia learning, and the
English course is no difference.
Aspects Comprised
Learning how to use technologies and technology
mediated learning. Technology is obviously the
core feature of e-learning, and students should
be computer literate at least the very basic level
before starting the course (and most of them are
indeed computer skilled).
Net-Based
The Internet. The Internet is the means e-learning
mostly lives on. The Net is the physical channel
through which e-learning is provided. Course
material can be derived from Net searching. Also,
blogs and Skype-mediated contacts between the
teacher and the class are made possible only
through the Net.
Exchange of information. The students attend-
ing the course end up by creating a networked
community based on the exchange of information
as well as of experiences.
A Means of Social Cohesion
Even though online classes are actual moments of
social sharing, blended learning allows for further
social sharing when the students and the teacher
physically meet at the beginning and at the end of
the course, as well as during examinations.
All this can be better understood in the light
of the theoretical issues I have drawn upon in
structuring the course.
The Theoretical Framework:
E-Learning and Communication
In a previous paper (Di Scala, 2007), I wondered
whether it was possible to think of a non-traditional
way to devise e-learning programmes which could
then be used for teaching different subjects. Start-
ing from linguistic considerations, I tried to give
a first, tentative answer to the question.
In particular, I focused my attention on text
linguistics which, in my opinion, might serve as
the starting point from which to build a theoretical
layout in such direction. In so doing, I investigated
the way the theories of text linguistics could be
applied to e-learning programme structuring,
and I ended up with providing a sketchy frame
of reference for analysing e-learning from the
linguist’s perspective.
On the grounds of those assumptions (and
especially from a semiotic perspective), I regarded
e-learning as a “text” within the broader sign code
of educational systems and outlined its follow-
ing characteristics pertaining to communication:
e-learning as a “text” (1) is a communicative
occurrence, (2) has a communicative function,
(3) has a communicative goal, and (4) is a com-
municative exchange between the producer and the
receiver of the “text” (broadly speaking, between
the teacher and the student).
It is important to underline how many critics
point out that e-learning must be thought of as
closely linked to the communicative context and
that is can hardly be separated from the commu-
137

nicative exchange (e.g., Ardizzone & Rivoltella,
2003; Baracco, 2002; Calvani, 2001; Eletti, 2004;
Fata, 2004; Felix, 2004; La Noce, 2002; Mam-
marella, Comoldi & Pazzaglia, 2005; Porcelli &
Dolci, 1999).
As Thompson (1995) has it, communicating
is a social activity comprising the production,
transmission, and reception of symbolic forms.
Therefore, communication possesses two dimen-
sions, one which is symbolic (i.e. the production
of material bearing some meaning), and another
which is social (i.e. the production and circulation
of said material by human beings).
The Internet can be viewed as an immense
symbolic arena where meanings are produced,
circulated, and negotiated by the subjects involved
(Rivoltella, 2003). The basic feature characterising
these phenomena is interaction. On the Internet,
interaction is ‘strong’ as there exists a relation-
ship between active entities. This means that the
symbolic and the social dimensions overlap. This
makes sociality the message itself.
In this view, Slevin (2000) proposes a model
of interaction where people are involved as both
producers and receivers of the message, and are
part of a rather complex production activity as
the Internet is and where anybody can publish
contributions or create Web sites.
The Internet, therefore, must be considered
from a pragmatic point of view, i.e. as a system
of actions where the transmission of meanings is
devised more as an activity rather than as just a
transfer. As a consequence, the Net is more than
just a physical place, and it emerges as a social
place where people can interact (Meyerowitz,
1985).
The Theoretical Framework:
Multimedia Learning
Within the distance education programmes of
the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia,
online material is prepared by each teacher to fit
the structure of their course. There is a standard
138
The Perfect Blend?
template (.ppt format) for the slides, which can
be any number for each subject taught. Slides
are projected during online classes as well as in
praesentia lessons to support the explanation by
the teacher. In devising the slides and their con-
tent, the so-called ‘dual coding theory’ (Paivio,
1991) should be taken as the basis for constructing
materials. According to said theory, there exist
two different coding systems used to process
information. The human verbal system processes
verbal and linguistic information, whereas our non-
verbal system processes both visual information
and verbal images. In the process, verbal and/or
linguistic inputs are compared to logogens, i.e.
basic representation units making up the repre-
sentation of a word in a man’s long-term memory.
As for non-verbal inputs, the representation units
for images are called imagens.
This leads to a first, well-established truth
about multimedia presentations of course material,
namely that they are more easily remembered than
unimodal presentations (e.g., verbal presentations)
(see also Mammarella et al., 2005).
On the grounds of all this, Mayer (2000) for-
mulated his theory of multimedia learning which
is based on three basic principles:
1. Dual coding (Paivio, 1991): visual and
auditory information is processed through
two different channels;
2. Cognitive load (Chandler & Sweller, 1991):
the quantity of information which can be
processed through each channel is limited
(therefore, excessive loads result in defective
processing);
3. ‘Active’ processing: the students take active
part in the learning process.
Afterwards, Mayer’s further investigations in
the field led to his cognitive model for multimedia
learning (Mayer, 2001), as seen in Figure 1.
Note: (1) words and images are kept as faithful
visual and auditory images in the correspond-
ing sensory systems for about one second; (2)
The Perfect Blend?
Figure 1. Diagram for Multimedia Learning (Source: Adapted from Mayer, 2001)
it actively regulates the temporary storage of
short-term information and its processing; and
(3) it organises and integrates previously obtained
information.
Mayer’s model entails six standards of mul-
timedia learning:
1. Multimedia: learning is enhanced when the
presentation of material associates words and
images thus favouring an integrated mental
model;
2. Spatial and temporal closeness: learning is
favoured when words and the corresponding
images are disposed orderly and close to one
another on the screen;
3. Relevance and cohesion of material: learn-
ing is best performed when no irrelevant and
not cohesive words/chunks of information
are present;
4. Different modes: learning is at its best when
images are accompanied by oral explana-
tions as this contributes to engaging both
the auditory and the visual channels;
5. Redundancy: learning is affected when the
information is presented in too many formats
at the same time (e.g. figures, written text
and oral explanations);
6. Customization: learning is favoured by a
non-formal style of the presentation which
is likely to meet the learners’ needs and
expectations.
Lucchini (2005) offers further insights into
the way online course material should be written.
First and foremost, he thinks the contents and the
format of any online programmes must be of high
quality. He then moves on to recommend the use
of short, to-the-point, simple texts written using
a language which is both active and interactive,
and designed bearing in mind the actual receivers
of the text. He also claims particular attention for
beginners: the person(s) preparing the material
for a course should never take for granted that
anything they are assembling/writing is clear for
everybody.
Presentation of Course Material
On the basis of the theoretical implications de-
scribed so far, I have tried to present the content of
each slide accordingly. Figure 2 shows the number
of slides from the course of English Language for
the academic year 2007-2008.
A brief commentary on the slides presented
here is necessary.
The first slide has been created on the basis of
the standard template provided by the e-learning
staff of the University of Modena and Reggio
139
 The Perfect Blend?

Figure 2. Slide 2

140
The Perfect Blend?
Figure 3.
Emilia. Students will see more than just this por-
tion of the presentation. As can be seen in Figure
3, there is further information available in the
form of notes.
The standard template, in fact, comprises also
additional text which serves as explanation to the
information contained in the slide. This adds to the
oral explanation by the teacher, and is a reminder
to the students of what has been said during the
virtual class. (Also, it serves as a kind of textbook
for those students who cannot listen to/view the
recording of on-line meetings.)
(For clarity’s sake, I will provide non-Italian
readers with the translation of the sole content
of slide 1):
ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE
• English as the global language of the 21st
century
• English as a global language: creation of
communities
• Social networking)
While slide 1 is consistent with the standard,
basic template common to all on-line courses at
the Faculty of Communication Sciences and Eco-
nomics of the University of Modena and Reggio
Emilia, the last two have been devised without
taking into account such layout.
As a matter of fact, they reflect more directly the
informal spirit which permeates the way the con-
tents of the course are offered to the students.
Slides 2 and 3 do not have notes. Therefore,
the only additional explanation provided is the
oral presentation by the teacher. Furthermore, the
very aspect of the slides, the way the information
provided is presented and distributed on the screen
is aimed at making the students feel at ease and
somewhat relaxed. The (hopefully) balanced mix
between text and images, the short and strictly-
to-the-point quantity of information contained
by each slide, and the use of unusual images (at
least, unusual for an academic, standard course
in English) add to the meaning conveyed and will
(hopefully, again) linger in the students’ minds
141

longer than more greyish, ‘standard’ information
which can be found in traditional textbooks.
The lack of notes and detailed explanation,
though making the slides ‘slimmer’ and ‘easier
to use,’ has a downside as well. In fact, students
cannot print them out in the hope of finding more
details than the bare text in the slide. Therefore,
if they do not have the possibility of listening to
the recordings of the video lessons, their study
might be affected. This fault, though, ceases be-
ing a problem if one considers that, in this way,
students are ‘obliged’ to strengthen up the rela-
tions with the other participants in the course, thus
reinforcing the very idea of networked community
and adding to the social aspects and functions of
on-line courses.
Again, for clarity’s sake, I feel now obliged
to provide the English translation of slides 2 and
3 as well. Slide 2 reads as follows:
ENGLISH 2.0
The Web as a ‘social place’
English as the language of the Web
English as a ‘social language’?
While slide 3 reads as follows: English =
Latin? The bitten slipper makes reference to the
practical uses and misuses of English by people
across the world: the language, in this way, ends
up by being chewed up as an old slipper in the
mouth of a playing beagle.
The non-formal character of the slides is
matched by a non-formal approach to both the
subject and course contents. The adoption of
‘colloquial style’ in presenting the topics as well
as problem-solving methodologies are intended
to favour empathy in distance education (Holm-
berg, 2003) along with multimedia interaction
(e.g., forums, blogs) characterized by informal,
non-bureaucratic exchanges between teacher and
students and among the students.
142
The Perfect Blend?
Concluding Remarks on the Case
There is a final point which needs to be taken
into consideration as well, and which plays an
important role in deciding whether the structur-
ing of the course has been successful, namely, the
students’ feedback.
As far as my course is concerned, students’
outcomes at exams have been more than satis-
factory, with a fairly large percentage of people
getting from high to very high marks. (Readers are
informed that, in Italy’s universities, a student has
passed her or his exam if she or he has obtained a
mark from 18 to 30, the top mark being 30 e lode
[i.e. 30 cum laude]. Marks lower than 18 mean
that a student has failed her or his exam and can
take the same exam again at a later time.) From
this point of view, then, the feedback can be said
to be extremely positive.
From the point of view of the students’ satis-
faction with the course, it must be noted that not
every student is willing to provide a comment on
the subjects taught and the way the course has
been devised. Those who do, though, express
their appreciation and/or discontent both during
the period classes are being given and after they
have taken their exam. In most cases, they provide
the teacher with their opinion on the experience
as well as with suggestions on how the course
might be improved in the future.
They are likely to underline both the things they
have liked more and the things they would have
liked to find in the course. Also, they express their
opinion on how they would have liked the course
to be taught, and many times this has proven to
be an extremely helpful piece of advice on the
students’ part. In fact, each year I try to implement
my course contents and teaching methodologies
by taking into account suggestions and indications
by students of the previous year.
The Perfect Blend?
Unfortunately, figures and facts on the course
evaluation on the part of the students for the
academic year 2007-2008 are not available yet;
therefore, any comment on the effectiveness of my
course is grounded on purely empiric estimates
based on the students’ unofficial feedbacks. It is
true that the changes in the basic organization of
the English language course seem to have been
appreciated. While, according to the figure for the
academic year 2002-2003, the English language
course scored 46% in terms of students’ overall
positive evaluation, as of the academic year 2003-
2004 (when I started working at the university)
the same course ranked among the most popular
with overall positive evaluation of 85% and
81% in 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 respectively
(figures and data for the following years are not
available yet).
Lastly, it must be stressed that informal and non
conventional presentation of course material and
contents is made possible mainly by virtue of the
familiar atmosphere which the persons working
at the CEA have been able to create. In this way,
teaching expertise, research, and innovation are
matched by a warm, welcoming atmosphere so
that the university can offer effective and rigorous
teaching to distant-learning students without lack-
ing the ‘human factor’. And, according to figures,
students seem to enjoy and appreciate it all, as their
perception of the usefulness and effectiveness of
virtual classes of the entire on-line courses is very
high: 50% of the students say that virtual classes
are an ‘extremely effective’ teaching tool (while
46% say it is ‘rather effective’, 3% say it is ‘little
effective’ and 1% say it is ‘ineffective’).
CURRENT CHALLENGES
FACING THE ORGANIZATION
In closing this chapter, I feel like mentioning some
of the challenges that the University of Modena
and Reggio Emilia, along with the rest of Italian
universities, is about to face in the near future.
Thanks to the know-how and state-of-the-art
technologies of the University of Modena and
Reggio Emilia (which is in part funded by the
higher fees students pay for this kind of educa-
tion), besides getting value for money, students
can profit from an extremely advanced, hi-tech
environment. Nonetheless, problems may be posed
by outer factors such as obsolete phone-line con-
nections the students may have at home which
sometimes affect the quality of data transmission
during live broadcasting.
Also, the entire educational system in Italy
is about to undergo further reformation, and this
holds true for universities in particular. Therefore,
at the time of writing, it is not possible to predict
what the future will hold for the whole university
system in Italy. A reduction in the number of degree
courses seems most likely, which in part is meant
to avoid spending public money on courses where
only a few students are enrolled. This should not
be the case for online courses at the University of
Modena and Reggio Emilia, which are constantly
attracting people from all the country. Again,
though, at present no one can predict what the
figures will be for the next academic year.
CONCLUSION
Nonetheless, even though the problem just hinted
at is actual and dramatically important, the ten-
dency at the CEA – and therefore at the whole of
the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia – is
not to give in to pessimistic views and to continue
to promote e-learning as one of the innovative
teaching solutions which are likely to get over any
present difficulties. The case I have just described
is not an isolated experiment which can be con-
sidered as concluded and completed. It is part of a
larger system of online, blended learning in higher
education which needs to continue and to live on
dedicated research and experimentation.
143

REFERENCES
Ardizzone, P., & Rivoltella, P. C. (2003). Didat-
tiche per l’e-learning. Metodi e strumenti per
l’innovazione dell’insegnamento universitario.
Roma: Carocci.
Baracco, A. (2002). La comunicazione mediata
dal computer. In C. Bazzanella (Ed.), Sul dialogo:
Contesti e forme di interazione verbale (pp. 253-
267). Milano: Guerini Associati
Calvani, A. (2001). Educazione, comunicazione
e nuovi media. Sfide pedagogiche e cyberspazio.
Torino: UTET Libreria.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive
load theory and the format of instruction. Cog-
nition and Instruction, 8, 293–332. doi:10.1207/
s1532690xci0804_2
Di Scala, R. (2007). Where linguistics meets
e-learning: Towards a linguistic approach to e-
Learning. In A. Colorni, M. Pegoraro, & P. G.
Rossi (Eds.), eLearning tra formale e informale,
Atti del IV congresso della Società Italiana di
e-Learning (pp. 168-169). Macerata: EUM –
Edizioni Università di Macerata.
Di Scala, R. (2008, October). E-nglish 2.0.
L’inglese come ‘lingua sociale.’ Paper presented
at the 5th congress of the Italian e-Learning So-
ciety, Trento, Italy.
Eletti, V. (Ed.). (2004). Che cos’è l’e-learning.
Roma: Carocci.
Fata, A. (2004). Gli aspetti psicologici della for-
mazione a distanza. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Felix, U. (2004). Orchestrated vision. Language
Magazine, 4(2), 24–29.
Holmberg, B. (2003). A theory of distance educa-
tion based on empathy. In M. G. Moore & W. G.
Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of Distance Education
(pp. 79-86). Mahwah, NJ: Erlabum.
144
The Perfect Blend?
La Noce, F. (2002). E-learning, La nuova frontiera
della formazione. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Lucchini, A. (2005). Efficacia e calore nei
contenuti scritti per l’e-learning. In S. Panini,
& R. Padroni (Eds.), E-learning nella scuola,
nell’università, nel lavoro (pp. 132-148). Milano:
Franco Angeli.
Mammarella, N., Cornoldi, C., & Pazzaglia, F.
(2005). Psicologia dell’apprendimento multime-
diale. E-learning e nuove tecnologie. Bologna:
il Mulino.
Mayer, R. (2000). Intelligence and education. In
R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence
(pp. 519-533). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Mayer, R. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cam-
bridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Meyerowitz, J. (1985). No sense of place. The
impact of electronic media on social behaviour.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect
and current studies. Canadian Journal of Psychol-
ogy, 45, 255–287. doi:10.1037/h0084295
Porcelli, G., & Dolci, R. (1999). Multimedialità e
insegnamenti linguistici. Modelli informatici per
la scuola. Torino: UTET.
Rivoltella, P. C. (2003). Costruttivismo e prag-
matica della comunicazione on line: Socialità
e- didattica in Internet. Trento: Erickson.
Slevin, J. (2000). The Internet and society. New
York: Routledge.
Thompson, J. B. (1995). The media and moder-
nity: A social theory of the media. Cambridge,
MA: Polity Press.
 145

Chapter 9
Reflections:
Two Years after Implementing a
Blended Educational Research Course
Yukiko Inoue
University of Guam, Guam

ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses the case of a pilot course implementing blended learning at an American Pacific
island university. This case provides a detailed overview of how the instructor applied blending learning
design to an introductory educational research course. The author compares her goals for the course
with the concept of blended learning, and discusses reasons why the two complemented one another.
Analysis of student self-ratings (quantitative data on achievement) and student self-reflection narratives
(qualitative data on satisfaction) revealed that, overall, student blended learning experiences were posi-
tive. Students liked the course and indicated that they had achieved their learning objectives, although
they clearly indicated dissatisfaction with some aspects of blended learning. The case further confirmed
the prediction drawn from the literature that pedagogical and technological difficulties present major
challenges to providing quality blended courses. Surmounting these challenges enhances both the ef-
fectiveness and efficiency of learning experiences in blended courses.

INTRODUCTION have infiltrated our lives so thoroughly in such a

short time. (Beekman, 2005, p. 33)
In Such a Short Time

Computers are everywhere, and our lives are af-
fected in all kinds of ways by their operation—and
non-operation. It is truly amazing that computers
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-880-2.ch009
In 1993, there was no World Wide Web; but now it
seems as if it is everywhere (Ko & Rossen, 2004).
“There was a time, not many years ago, when word
processing was the most popular computer activity
among students….Today, a PC can be a window
into the global system of interconnected networks

Copyright © 2010, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

known as the Internet” (Beekman, 2005, p. 16).
Indeed, the change came with the development of
the Internet and Web-based communication.
University faculty increasingly rely on the
Internet to support the activities of teaching and
to supplement face-to-face class time: for ex-
ample, by disseminating course information and
resources, providing space for students to upload
assignments, and providing students with an online
discussion forum.
Certainly the future looks increasingly digital,
wireless, and networked (Koohang, Briz, & Sey-
mour, 2006). Rudestam and Schoenholtz-Read
(2002) note: “From stepchild to wunderkind,
technology that spawned the Internet has moved
online distance learning to the forefront of edu-
cational innovation…. Sensing an opportunity
to reach more students and supplement flagging
tuition revenues, major educational institutions
have expanded their mission to include activities
in online education” (p. 3). A. W. (Tony) Bates
(2000), project leader for a study on cost-benefit
analysis of online teaching for the Canadian Na-
tional Center of Excellence in Tele-learning, has
identified six rationales for the use of technology
in higher education:
(1) improving the quality of teaching (using
technology is seen as one way of alleviating
problems such as increased student-to-teach-
er ratios and increased teaching loads);
(2) providing students with information technol-
ogy (IT) skills they will need in their work
and life (integrating technology into the
learning environment is a way to develop
such skills);
(3) widening access to education and training
(the trend toward lifelong learning and the
need for reeducation and retraining are lead-
ing to a changing student population);
(4) responding to the technological imperative
(those who believe that technology can play a
valuable role in teaching and learning see ar-
146
Reflections
guments against the technological imperative
as valid but insufficient to deny it);
(5) reducing the costs of education (using tech-
nology, however, is more likely to lead to
increased rather than reduced costs, at least,
in the short term); and
(6) improving the cost-effectiveness of education
(technology is unlikely to reduce absolute
costs but can improve the cost-effectiveness
of operations in higher education by freeing
faculty members for more productive use of
their time). (pp. 16-20)
Educational technologies definitely play in-
creased roles, “partly driven by students’ expecta-
tions, but also because they demonstrably improve
the quality of teaching and learning and represent
an efficient use of resources” (Ryan, Scott, Free-
man, & Patel, 2001, p. 169). Furthermore, “stu-
dents are now not only more diverse following the
massification of higher education but also more
consumer-minded….Students increasingly seek
choice—in the subjects to be studied, in delivery
modes, in assessment, and in the time spent on
campus” (James & Beckett, n. d., p. 2).
Kim and Bonk (2006) conducted a survey in
both higher education and corporate training to
explore the future trends of online learning. Most
of the respondents (N = 562) expected huge growth
in online programs and predicted that ‘monetary
support’ and ‘pedagogical competency’ of online
instructors would most significantly affect the
success of the online programs. The respondents
further predicted that emphasis would be placed
less on fully online learning, and more on blended
learning: a balanced mix of traditional face-to-
face instruction with adequately designed online
activities. Why blended learning? According to
Lorenzo (2004):
Because blended learning is an important topic
related to where educational technology, in
general, is heading. It aims to please all higher
education stakeholders—students, faculty, and
Reflections
institutional administrations—by offering the best
of online and face-to-face teaching and learning
environment. Institutions that learn how to provide
blended learning courses and programs sensibly
and effectively will save dollars, use their physi-
cal space intelligently, generate better student
learning outcomes, and satisfy more faculty and
students. (p. 1)
From ‘Instruction’ to ‘Production’
Institutions of higher education now must ad-
dress “changing expectations associated with
the quality of the learning experience and the
wave of technological innovation. Those who
have grown up with interactive technology are
not always comfortable with large lectures as
an approach to transmitting information. Stu-
dents expect a relevant and engaging learning
experience” (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008, p. ix).
Technological innovations have provided a new
option of learning to a class of learners and it is
imperative to strike a balance between student
expectations and instructor perceptions of higher
learning (Bedi, 2006). To maintain the quality of
online programs, as Badi argues, the instructor
has to perform a multi-faceted role, providing
the ‘human’ touch to the whole process of on-
line learning. To the extent that intimate process
produces quality instruction, many academics
believe that online learning places the instructor
at an inherent disadvantage. Basically, Bedi’s ar-
gument is that in partially or fully online courses,
‘instruction’ becomes a ‘production’ in which the
instructor plays the roles of producer, director,
and leading actor.
Blended learning technologies and environ-
ments, realistically speaking, are still in their
early stages. Few published cases provide insights
into exactly how blended learning should be
implemented to optimize learning in higher edu-
cation courses—both undergraduate and graduate
courses. There is also extensive confusion and
much optimism about blended learning due to
multiple definitions of and approaches to blended
learning (Bonk & Shi, 2005): “Some instructors
might blend in order to address different learning
styles. Others might blend to take advantage of
face-to-face and virtual learning opportunities.
Still others might blend to combine synchronous
and asynchronous technologies to best meet stu-
dent needs” (p. 1). And yet, it is true that some
disciplines are more difficult to convert to online
formats than others; for example, chemistry, biol-
ogy, and statistics are all inherently difficult to
teach online (Lorenzo, 2004).
BACKGROUND
As the largest of some 2,000 islands that make
up Micronesia, the island of Guam is about three
hours flying time from Tokyo, Manila, Taipei,
Hong Kong, and Seoul and occupies a major
strategic location for the United States, which
operates large Navy and Air Force bases. The
University of Guam (UOG), the major institution
of higher education in the western Pacific, is a U.S.
land grant institution accredited by the Western
Association of Schools and Colleges. UOG has
students from the U.S. mainland, the various Mi-
cronesian islands, the Philippines, India, Korea,
Japan, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Malaysia,
though approximately one-half of UOG’s students
are from Guam and are of indigenous Chamorro
or Filipino descent.
The Faculty Survey of 2006
Historically, UOG has lagged in its implementa-
tion of online and distance education. However,
its recently revised IT policy emphasizes the use
of new and emerging technologies to enhance
teaching and learning. A 2006 survey of UOG
faculty, for instance, identified nine cases illus-
trating frequent uses of IT in teaching (Inoue &
Bell, 2006):
147

(1) PowerPoint slides for images in psychology:
striking images illustrating the concepts keep
students engaged in the classroom lecture,
and help them to remember the concepts.
(2) Digital classroom for Japanese language
courses: language instructors with basic
knowledge of computer literacy can establish
a digital classroom with minimal funding.
(3) Multimedia instruction and course design:
the best ways for students to learn is to create
presentations that can be shared, evaluated,
and integrated into their own learning.
(4) Course Web site in biology: Web pages for
chatting are excellent because they chal-
lenge foreign students, requiring students
to develop both spontaneous writing skills
in a target language, and the skills required
to read and quickly comprehend what the
other participants have written.
(5) Library bibliographic instruction: this
orientation covers online catalog, OCEAN
(Online Catalog Easy Access Network), as
well as articles in online full text subscrip-
tion databases and Internet search engines
through a physical tour of the library
building.
(6) CD-ROMs for distributing information in
courses: a typical CD contains the course
syllabus, meeting calendar, assignments,
reading requirements, term projects, and
exam information.
(7) Original online newsletters in economics:
posting interactive study guides is important
for the study of economics, which requires
students to interpret graphs and data.
(8) Computers and music education: maintain-
ing computers for students to use for ear
training and for listening to examples of
performance material.
(9) E-mail communication: student teachers
have found the e-mail daily conversation a
very positive and effective means of com-
munication with their master teachers. (pp.
99-118)
148
Reflections
In follow-up interviews, many UOG faculty
admitted that a lack of familiarity with IT made
them unsure of what new technologies might
benefit their teaching: illustrating the necessity
of faculty training in and technical supports for
the use of instructional technology. Such faculty
training related to teaching with technology, how-
ever, should emphasize good pedagogy rather than
good technology (The Center for Teaching and
Technology, 2006).
Online Edition of English Course
A report by Jackson and Lubuag (2008) describes
an online English course (EN110) that was first
offered at UOG in 2008. Students enrolled in the
course are complete assignments at their own pace
but, before each deadline, are required to post their
work to an online blog called LiVEJOURNAL.
The online EN110 course provides the same
knowledge and skills as the regular EN110 course,
except that students in the former never sit in a
classroom. As the report highlights, (1) online
courses allow students to develop their Internet
and computer skills, providing individualized
attention from instructors through personalized
electronic communication, and (2) the asynchro-
nous communication can eliminate the barriers
that inhibit students from expressing themselves
in the face-to-face classroom settings.
According to the report, the instructor believes
that online learning is not an easier way to get
through a course, but instead, requires that stu-
dents have or develop organizational skills. The
instructor makes it clear that this course provides
an additional option for students. The instruc-
tor’s online course readiness questionnaire (see
Appendix A for 15 questions) helps students to
determine whether the online EN110 online course
is the right option for.
In a personal communication with the author
of the present chapter, the instructor summarized
the online course readiness questionnaire as fol-
lows:
Reflections
“My EN110 online setup Web site (where those
interested could follow the proposal/approval pro-
cess) is http://www.geocities.com/merissa_brown/
en110online. The original online course readiness
questionnaire was the 48 question survey and I
gave to 10% of UOG students prior to developing
the online version of EN110 course to determine
whether online course options were really some-
thing that UOG students wanted and were capable
of taking (i.e. Was the needed technology available
to them?). The registration questionnaire was a
mini 15-question version I developed from the
larger survey to help students when registering
to determine whether online learning was really
a classroom environment where they could expect
success” (M. Brown, personal communication,
December 23, 2008).
Hope for Developing an
Effective ‘Blended’ Course
The School of Education (SOE) at UOG is accred-
ited by the National Council for the Accreditation
of Teacher Education (NCATE). Its mission is
the provision of teacher education to meet the
multicultural and educational demands of the
island’s school system as well as providing for
education systems in the region as a whole. Higher
education instructors today must describe how the
virtual and real worlds intersect in the process as
teaching online (Ko & Rossen, 2004): “Is it any
wonder that so many instructors are both anxious
and apprehensive as they try to make sense of this
new phenomenon?” (p. xv). SOE is committed to
encouraging faculty to model positive technology
usage by seamlessly infusing these tools into their
curriculum and instruction.
After discussions among faculty and adminis-
tration, SOE decided to experiment with blended
learning. Blended learning “is not a novel nicety
but, as blended learning becomes more popular
among higher education settings, it is imperative
to draw attention to cases of online learning in
higher education based on its advantages, its chal-
lenges, and its designs, and its future directions”
(Koohang et al., 2006, p. 156). According to the
MU News Bureau (2008):
In today’s online era, the concept of a classroom
extends beyond a walled room with desks and
chairs and into the realm of cyber space. Computer
screens are replacing the blackboard and keypads
are replacing chalk. To provide learners with the
best experience, many educators are opting for a
blended approach: a traditional classroom with
face-to-face interaction supplemented by online
resources. One University of Missouri researcher
has found that while this approach is currently
not necessarily more effective, there is hope for
developing an effective hybrid approach to learn-
ing. (¶ 1)
In the above research conducted at the Univer-
sity of Missouri, two respiratory therapies courses
—one using a traditional approach, the other,
a blended approach—were taught by the same
professor. Students who completed the course in
a traditional classroom with face-face instruction
were more pleased with the course outcomes than
the students who completed the blended course.
Yet the final examination and course grades for
both approaches were almost identical, indicat-
ing that there is hope for developing an effective
‘blended’ approach to learning.
Can blended learning continue the trend com-
menced by online learning? According to Vignare
(2006), “the answer is a guarded yes but certain
conditions need to be fostered, mainly because
reviewing current blended learning course ac-
tivities as written by faculty researchers indicates
they chose online learning because they felt it
will improve student communication” (p. 6) and,
indeed, online learning environments:
• offer new pedagogical approaches for
learning content;
149

• offer students with different learning styles
more approaches to meet their needs, be
more flexible for students;
• offer students more practice through online
assessments; and
• offer more active student participation than
a lecture and provide a better “real” world
experience for students. (pp. 6-7)
Pointing out that none of the above is particu-
larly groundbreaking, Vignare continues:
…but they are recognized as learner centered
and good instructional practices…. The learning
innovations are allowing higher education to get
better at teaching and thus more productive. It
remains to be seen whether blended learning is
better but clearly it is spurring innovation that
is sustainable. Bringing online learning into the
classroom through blended learning gives higher
education a very easy way to adapt, innovate and
become more productive. (¶ 7-8)
THE BLENDED LEARNING COURSE
UOG’s School of Education has been an early
adopter of the Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic
Learning Environment (Moodle) for blended
learning. Moodle training has been offered with
small-groups assistance to provide faculty, includ-
ing the author of this chapter, the skills needed to
prepare course materials for online activities. The
case reported in this chapter was SOE’s first blend
of online activities with face-to-face classroom
instruction in a graduate research course. Important
factors affecting blended learning are related to
technical constraints of the delivery platform, net-
work, and software; cultural factors in institutions
such as the acceptance of and routine familiarity
with technology, and pragmatic constraints are
related to budget, time, and management expec-
tations (Clark & Mayer, 2008). Moodle has been
150
Reflections
selected for this course, primarily because of its
flexibility, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness.
Briefly, Moodle was developed by Martin
Dougiamas of Curtin University as an education-
ally sound alternative to Blackboard, so that it can
be used to implement, modify, and experiment
with an interactive Internet-based course as eas-
ily and as flexibly as possible (Corich, 2005).
Moodle, an open source Course Management
System (CMS), is a server-based software pack-
age designed to allow the instructor to provide
collaborative activities, critical reflection, and
learning resources to online students as well as
supplementing face-to-face instruction. The rising
cost of education is demanding a change from the
traditional, space-and-time bound institutions to
ones that offer increasingly cost-effective, tech-
nologically enhanced programs; as institutions
of higher education turn to the Internet-based
technology to address these challenges, the use
of open source CMS is increasing (Minielli &
Ferris, 2005).
Case Description
Using a Moodle-based blended format, a graduate
course entitled “Introduction to research methods”
has been offered since Spring 2007, incorporating
classroom instruction (35%) and online instruction
(65%), and thus, reducing face-to-face classroom
lectures and tutorial time. The three main tasks
of online instruction are: (1) to provide students
with guidance for their weekly online exercises,
reading, discussion, and assignment submission;
(2) to provide feedback on student online assign-
ments; and (3) to provide answers to students’
daily online questions.
Moodle is introduced to students during the
first stage of the course in each semester. The in-
troductory research course provides an overview
of the concepts and applications of educational
research, with a focus on knowledge of research
methods necessary to obtain valid and reliable
Reflections

outcomes as solutions to educational problems. rience as a foundation for new knowledge—the

The learning objectives are:
• understanding of the nature and character-
istics of educational research;
• summarizing and critiquing applied re-
search or evaluation studies;
• gaining an in-depth knowledge of research
designs and methodologies;
• understanding of research problems, re-
search questions, and research hypotheses;
• understanding of basic statistical analy-
sis and interpretation with the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
program;
• understanding of the American
Psychological Association (APA) writing
style and rules for the preparation of manu-
scripts; and
• developing the quantitative or qualitative
research proposal based upon the APA
style.
The course syllabus provides details of the in-
structor’s learning objectives and student practice,
as well as how mastery is assessed. By incorporat-
ing an active learner model and a constructivist
approach—demonstrating new knowledge to the
learner and revisiting prior knowledge and expe-
instructor hopes to convey the material effectively,
so that students feel satisfied with their in-class
and online activities.
Three instructional methods are emphasized in
the course: (1) active demonstrations of skills; (2)
student-centered teaching based on participatory
classroom and online activities, active learning,
and cooperative interaction; and (3) encouraging
students’ progressive mastery of skills by provid-
ing them with many opportunities to practice and
to apply what they learn. The instructor provides
timely feedback, especially in the hopes of increas-
ing faculty-student interaction.
At the beginning of the course, students com-
plete the student information form (see Appendix
B), which includes questions such as: Why do
you think some teachers are better in teaching?
Typical answers include the following: “because
they are open to change and try to adapt through
their own professional development”; “because
they update themselves by utilizing all available
resources that might be of help”; “because they
have organized systems to deliver the informa-
tion”; and “because they are great planners and
can hold the students’ attention.”
Regarding the question, What are your expecta-
tions for the course?, typical answers include: “to
learn about the process of conducting a scientific

Table 1. Moodle Features and learning activities (Source: adapted from Ko & Rossen, 2004)

Categories Learning Activities Moodle ‘Building Blocks’

Instructor presenta- This includes lectures, simulations, charts, and graphs, as well
tion as computer assisted presentations using tools like PowerPoint
slides.
Discussion Guided discussion is common format for discussion. In seminars,
instructor presentation and discussion are often combined.
Group-oriented and Collaborative activities are included here, in addition to group
individual projects and individual projects presented to the entire class.
Research Research may be conducted either by individuals or in groups
(e.g., practical applications, fieldwork, and interviews).
Assessment This involves exams, essays, and projects; portfolios that combine
different types of work; and evaluation for participation.
News Forum-- Instructor’s welcome message
Resources -- PowerPoint slides for each week’s
lecture
Forum -- Students participate in a weekly online
discussion as well as a weekly online exercise
Assignment: Students work on weekly assignments
and submit online
Students develop and submit their individual
research proposal online
Scoring guidelines and rubrics are used; all as-
signments are submitted online and are graded
via Moodle

151

investigation”; “to gain research skills and knowl-
edge that will support a master’s thesis”; and “to
become a better researcher.”
Most activities in college courses can be
divided into the following categories: instructor
presentation, discussion, group and individual
projects, research, and assessment (Ko & Ros-
sen, 2004). Moodle–supported components of
the course are based on these categories (see
Table 1).
Smith (2003), for instance, observes that
traditional methods of assessing student learn-
ing outcomes have typically employed multiple
choice exams which measure recognition memory
but do not measure the way students learn in the
course. Authentic assessment, which includes
both unstructured (e.g., student work samples,
and journals) and structured informal assessments
(e.g., checklists, and observations), is considered
a more valid approach to assessment. Although
unstructured methods are not as easy to evaluate,
they provide valuable information concerning
the student’s skill level and learning process as
well.
Writing a research proposal was one of the
major assignments in the course. The assessment
rubric for this assignment was developed by the
instructor based on the NCATE standards (see Ap-
pendix C for the entire rubric). At the end of the
course, students submitted their self-ratings (quan-
titative data on achievement) and self-reflection
narratives (qualitative data on satisfaction).
Student Self-Ratings
This assessment, addressing 12 areas derived from
the course learning objectives, was conducted both
at the beginning of the course (pre-assessment)
and at the end (post-assessment). Students anony-
mously rated the degree to which they agreed
with each statement (5 = very much, 4 = much,
3 = some, 2 = little, and 1 = very little). The data
from Fall 2007 indicated significant improvements
during the semester (for the detailed results, see
152
Reflections
Appendix D). The mean differences between pre-
assessment (N = 29) and post-assessment (N = 27,
because two students dropped) were statistically
significant in the following five areas:
• Q3: know primary and secondary resourc-
es (Mpre = 2.93; Mpost = 4.13)
• Q8: know the steps in conducting research
(Mpre = 3.00; Mpost = 3.87)
• Q9: know a variety of research designs and
methods (Mpre = 2.87; Mpost = 3.93)
• Q11: know the human subject application
procedure (Mpre = 2.33; Mpost = 3.67)
• Q12: know the APA style (Mpre = 2.60;
Mpost = 4.27)
Similarly, data in Fall 2008 indicated signifi-
cant improvements (for the detailed results, see
Appendix E). Mean differences between pre-
assessment (N = 29) and post-assessment (N =
29) were statistically significant in the following
nine categories:
• Q2: have a sense of self-efficacy in writing
a proposal (Mpre = 2.66; Mpost = 4.00)
• Q3: know primary and secondary resourc-
es (Mpre = 2.83; Mpost = 4.21)
• Q4: know qualitative and quantitative stud-
ies (Mpre = 2.41; Mpost = 4.03)
• Q6: know the purpose and process of re-
viewing literatures (Mpre = 3.31; Mpost =
4.59)
• Q7: know how to get research materials
through the Internet (Mpre = 3.69; Mpost
= 4.72)
• Q9: know a variety of research designs and
methods (Mpre = 3.49; Mpost = 4.21)
• Q10: identify intrinsic/extrinsic rewards
conducting research (Mpre = 2.76; Mpost
= 4.07)
• Q11: know the human subject application
procedure (Mpre = 2.28; Mpost = 4.21)
• Q12: know the APA style (Mpre = 3.07;
Mpost = 4.28)
Reflections
In fact, students felt that they had achieved in
most of the areas in Fall 2008. Yet one explanation
for the consistencies in improvements (especially
on Criteria Q3, Q11, and Q12) observed in Fall
2007 and Fall 2008 might derive from the fact
that students participated in three learning events
during each semester: (1) the UOG library infor-
mation literacy tour; (2) the Institutional Research
Board (IRB) seminar; and (3) the APA style writ-
ing workshop.
Apparently the library tour helped students to
maximize their skills in using library resources,
both print and electronic, including primary and
secondary resources. The IRB seminar conducted
by the UOG’s IRB committee chair also helped stu-
dents, since a research plan (including objectives,
methodology, and data collection and analysis)
involving human subjects has to be reviewed and
approved by the IRB examiner prior to data collec-
tion. Finally, the APA style workshop conducted
by the instructor of this course helped students,
as one student precisely indicated: “This course
has particularly strengthened my knowledge and
skills in the APA style writing to the extent that I
am much more confident in referencing various
citations for my research paper.”
The above results confirm Frank, Lavy, and
Elata’s (2003) observation: human beings are
active learners who construct their knowledge
on experience and on their efforts to give mean-
ing to that experience, and that doing (such as
hands-on practice, and interactive workshops) is
important to constructing learning. Therefore, the
results are reasonable as well as understandable,
supporting the well known Chinese proverb: “I
hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I
understand.” This proverb can be exactly applied
to learning in the Internet age as follows:
What I hear, I forget; What I see, I remember;
But what I do, I understand” (Learning Quotes,
2007)
Therefore, even in a graduate course (and even
in a blended course), it may be that the instruc-
tor’s approach, incorporating active teaching and
active learning enhances active listening (students
fully attend to a message) which, in turn, enhances
students’ professional demeanor. In this course,
professional demeanor includes being prepared
for class meetings, engaging in discussions and
activities, listening attentively to other students
(and expecting that others will listen attentively to
the instructor and to one another), and demonstrat-
ing respect for differing points of view.
Student Self-Reflection Narratives
Throughout the course, students submitted all as-
signments to the Moodle Web site, creating files
and participating in weekly online discussions. At
the end of the course, students submitted a one-
page narrative evaluation of their experiences,
including their opinions of the future trends in
online learning. Representative student reflections
are summarized below.
Learning Experiences in
a Blended Course
• I was reluctant to take this course, but
blended learning gave me the opportunity
to experience online learning. The assign-
ments were communicated and adminis-
tered through the Internet using Moodle,
which helped creating effective online
learning communities.
• Blended learning worked well for me. I
studied at my own pace and submitted
online assignments. Feedback from the
professor was always prompt for each
assignment.
• The only thing that I had trouble with was
Internet connectivity and occasionally
the submission files did not go through.
Sometimes the e-mail system was still not
reliable.
153

• If I had questions, I could e-mail the pro-
fessor. But I need the structure and strict
demands that regular courses usually en-
tail. It is difficult to find the motivation for
studying.
• Blended learning provides an opportunity.
It gives us a chance to experience a class-
room way of learning and online learning.
That is, it gives us the best of both worlds.
Future Trends of Online Learning
• I think universities will offer a more diverse
and wide-ranging scope of educational op-
portunities to meet the growing need for
higher education. Its flexibility and acces-
sibility help to make learning more effec-
tive, meaningful, and practical.
• The world is driven by convenience be-
cause everything that surrounds us is cen-
tered on getting what we need in the short-
est amount of time (thus we are living in a
fast paced society). It seems the next con-
ceivable step is to apply that same mental-
ity in education.
• Through the experience of this blended
course, I can say that blended learning
might be the solution for future higher ed-
ucation. I think there are many benefits in
blended learning incorporating traditional
classroom environments with distance
learning strategies.
• Online learning is a fresh welcome to
many graduate students, even undergradu-
ate students. It will continue to grow in
the future for one particular reason—its
convenience.
• Future online learning will be cost effec-
tive and time efficient, and supplies an op-
portunity for higher education for many
low income people, especially in less de-
veloped countries.
154
Reflections
Based upon the reflection papers, satisfying
aspects of blended learning include: (1) learning
that can be done any time of the day; (2) oppor-
tunities for students to interact with the professor
and classmates in class and through online; (3)
a format that makes the learning process more
helpful for individual students with different
learning styles; (4) submitting and storing as-
signments electronically, using any computer
that can connect to the Internet; and (5) online
communication with classmates that enriches the
process of learning by collaboration. (Note that
one goal of this course is to develop of a climate
of cooperation and not competition.)
Challenging aspects of blended learning
include: (1) accessing the Internet; (2) the fact
that students must be motivated and disciplined
to complete all the assignments; (3) reduced op-
portunities for in-person social interaction; (4) the
fact that students must be technologically literate
enough to use the computer and its applications;
and (5) the fact that instructors must have tech-
nological skills.
It should be emphasized that this course
maintained faculty-student interactions through
timely feedback, as a student wrote: “I am grateful
that my professor demonstrated such efficiency
through timely grading and immediate construc-
tive feedback.”
CURRENT CHALLENGES
Blended courses may represent the future of on-
line higher education. But the nature of blended
learning—an integration of formal (lecture-based
classroom) learning and informal (self-based
online) learning—presents many difficulties and
challenges. The pedagogical challenges are so
closely intertwined with the technological chal-
lenges that it is almost impossible to discuss one
without discussing the other.
Reflections
Pedagogical Challenges
The term ‘pedagogy’ refers to strategies or styles
of instruction: addressing the processes and skills
used in teaching content knowledge. In terms of
pedagogy, as Garrison and Kanuka (2004) main-
tain, blended learning should be consistent with the
values of traditional higher education institutions,
and has the proven potential to enhance both the
effectiveness and efficiency of meaningful learn-
ing experiences. With this in mind, it is useful to
compare the instructional strategies used in this
blended course with the course learning objectives,
as summarized in Table 2.
In addition to mini-lectures on specific topics,
as recommended by Regan (n. d.), the instructor
used face-to-face meetings times for activities,
such as technology overview (including com-
puter lab work), collaborative small-group work,
advanced discussions, project presentations,
Table 2. Instructional strategies to help students accomplish learning objectives
Learning Objectives
Understanding of the nature and characteristics of educational
research
Summarizing and critiquing applied research or evaluation stud-
ies
Gaining an in-depth knowledge of research designs and method-
ologies
Understanding of research problems, research questions, and
research hypotheses
Understanding of basic statistical analysis and interpretation with
the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) program
Understanding of the American Psychological Association (APA)
writing style and rules for the preparation of manuscripts
Developing quantitative or qualitative research proposals based
upon the APA style
guest speakers, question and answer sessions,
and demonstrations. Moreover, during class
meetings, the instructor worked to maximize her
direct interactions with students, and to support
on-task interactions between students, with the
goal of enhancing a sense of community in the
class. To support the reduced number of class-
room lectures, PowerPoint slides (summaries of
the text chapters), along with chapter exercises
developed by the instructor, were posted on the
Moodle site. The course tried to make best use
of the following Moodle components noted by
Baskerville and Robb (2005):
• Submission and retrieval system: there is
a common area for students to submit files
(‘To Teacher’) in the administration block,
and to retrieve files from the teacher (‘From
Teacher’).
Learning Supports and Resources via Moodle
• PowerPoint slides (text chapter summary)
• online activity (text chapter exercise)
• suggested readings (PDF and Web site)
• library services and resources
• the detailed critique guidelines
• samples of research summary and critique
• suggested readings (PDF and Web site)
• PowerPoint slides (text chapter summary)
• online activity (text chapter exercise)
• suggested readings (PDF and Web site)
• mini-lecture materials on the text topic
• PowerPoint slides (text chapter summary)
• online activity (text chapter exercise)
• suggested readings (PDF and Web site)
• mini-lecture materials on the text topic
• introduction to SPSS (student work at the computer lab with a
combination of lecture and hands-on activities using actual data)
• mini-lecture materials on the text topic
• the APA style writing workshop
• PowerPoint slides (examples of in-text and reference citation)
• library services and resources (including the APA writing publica-
tion manual)
• PowerPoint slides (detailed writing guidelines including the as-
sessment rubric)
• research proposal guidelines and examples
155

• Attendance: this feature logs the time of
initial access to a course area. The instruc-
tor can view a student’s record of atten-
dance for the entire semester.
• Class resources: this feature provides
data that students need to complete an
assignment.
• Class activities: activities are to reinforce
what students have been learning and to
help them with current assignments.
• Calendar: notes can be posted to the calen-
dar to remind students of assignment due
dates.
• Participants: students and teachers in the
course are shown on this page along with
how much time has elapsed since they last
accessed the site.
• Forums: this area allows communication
among students or between students and
teachers.
• Logs: the feature is flexible enough to re-
port the results of all activities for all stu-
dents down to checking one particular ac-
tivity of an individual student.
Implementing blended learning in proactive
way creates real changes in the teaching-learning
process. A blended course “must constantly de-
termine the balance between face-to-face and
technological components in using blended learn-
ing as a didactical method. The use of technol-
ogy, however, does not automatically make any
teaching process pedagogically better, the teachers
have to take care that the process is pedagogically
sound” (Tiirmaa-Oras, Pilt, & Villems, n. d., p.
2). The ultimate challenge is to make sure that the
blended format-based learning is pedagogically
sound, so that students can “benefit from the
advantages of both traditional and modern ways
of learning in higher education” (Tiirmaa-Oras
et al., n. d., p. 2).
156
Reflections
Technological Challenges
A constructivist perspective views learners as
actively engaged in making meaning, and teach-
ing with that approach looks for what students
can analyze, investigate, collaborate, share, build,
and generate based upon what they already know,
rather than what facts, skills, and processes they
can parrot (Dougiamas, 1998). In this regard,
Moodle is grounded in situated cognitive theory:
providing the opportunity for an instructor to create
a constructivist and constructionist environment
to enhance teaching and learning. Resources for
designing student-centered learning are embedded
in Moodle and its modules (Antonenko, Toy, &
Niederhauser, 2004).
‘Student-centered’ learning associated with
self-directed learning is a beautiful concept,
but this becomes a challenge or a dilemma for
students when the course makes extensive use
of technology. Most of the students in the course
were full-time schoolteachers or administrators.
It is true that graduate students are responsible
enough to study on their own; perhaps in part
for this reason, blended learning worked well for
the students in this course: they felt that Moodle
easy to use and appreciated the way that Moodle
presented materials week by week, and how they
could upload their assignments to the server,
which were then date-stamped. Surprisingly, or
not surprisingly, however, finishing assignments
in a timely manner was a real challenge for these
students and at no time during the semester did
all the students submit their assignments on time,
even though SOE provided them with technical
supports and extended its computer libratory hours
to help students who had no computer at home or
no Internet connectivity.
Compromised infrastructure presents par-
ticular challenges to a blended course. Students
in Guam have to cope with frequent inabilities
Reflections
to access the Internet, the occasional power out-
age, and network downtime. The power surges,
brownouts, and blackouts people experience in
this Pacific tropical island promote more than the
usual amount of wear and tear than equipment
normally receives, even with proper protection.
In addition, lack of adequate air conditioning can
allow damage due to moisture, heat, mold, and
even insects. Maintenance and replacement parts
can be difficult to come by and are expensive.
Eventually this blended course will implement
various strategies to enhance content interaction:
including animations, short video segments, and
interactive activities embedded in the lecture
material. In order to do that, the instructor has
to be technologically trained in computer-based
multimedia programs for the development of pre-
sentation, instructional design, media production,
and message design, for instance. This is another
challenge.
Design Research for
Empirical Evidence
One major concern in blended or online learning
is the lack of empirical evidence for learning
enhancement (Macdonald, 2008). To effectively
utilize open-source CMSs (Moodle in this case),
design research is very important (Reeves, Heri-
ngton, & Oliver, 2005). Design really means the
shape and direction the instructor wants the course
to take, and the instructor has to keep in mind two
design principles: to make sure that course objec-
tives are defined in terms of the desired learning
outcomes, and that all activities, assignments, and
assessments must be aligned with those expected
learning outcomes (Ko & Rossen, 2004). Accord-
ing to Reeves et al. (2005),
Design research requires that instructors should
define pedagogical outcomes and create learning
environments that address them; emphasize con-
tent and pedagogy rather than technology; give
special attention to supporting human interactions
and nurturing learning communities; modify the
learning environments until the pedagogical
outcomes are reached; and reflect on the process
to reveal design principles that can inform other
instructors and researchers, and future develop-
ment projects. (pp. 109-110)
It is clear that the above requirements are
necessary to enhance teaching effectiveness and
learning quality in the use of the CMS for blended
learning. The real challenge is to examine the core
‘values’ of blended higher education courses in
order to improve the design, the facilitation, and
the direction of meaningful learning experiences.
To enhance and maintain high quality blended in-
structional practices, it is essential for instructors to
develop and implement assessments that evaluate
the effectiveness of the teaching-learning process.
Future studies of this blended course should ex-
amine actual student performance with concrete
learning tasks—not perceptions or preferences—
in order to see whether these are consistent with
teaching and learning effectiveness in the use of
course management tools such as Moodle.
CONCLUSION
The notion that a traditional classroom with
face-to-face instruction is no longer sufficient
for higher education teaching and learning is one
that has considerable face validity. Online learn-
ing is becoming an important long term strategy
for institutions of higher education, and blended
learning is considered to be a more significant
growth area than fully online learning. Blended
learning is “the organic integration of thoughtfully
selected and complementary face-to-face and
online approaches and technologies” (Garrison
& Vaughan, 2008, p. 148).
As discussed in the present chapter, now is a
time of unparalleled promise for higher education
in general. It does appear that blended approaches
to online learning can enrich classroom-based
157

education, and that there is no longer any reason
to use lectures simply to transmit information.
Students should engage in the critical and creative
process of making sense of the information, and
then explore its implications and applications
(“The Future,” 2008). In today’s Internet age,
“new ways of thinking about course design are
required to reconcile traditional values and prac-
tices with evolving expectations and technologi-
cal possibilities” (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008, p.
3). Garrison and Vaughan continue as follows:
“The primary measure of the impact of blended
learning will be the qualitative shift in the process
and outcomes of learning itself. The results will
be most readily determined by the satisfaction of
our students and the success of our graduates” (p.
148). Thus, although student reflections cannot
be the only measure of success, they are among
the most useful indices of success.
NOTE
The author is grateful to Kyle Smith, professor of
psychology, and Mark Goniwiecha, professor of
library science (both of the University of Guam)
for their thoughtful and critical suggestions on an
earlier draft of this chapter.
REFERENCES
Antonenko, P., Toy, S., & Niederhauser, D. (2004).
Modular object-oriented dynamic learning envi-
ronment. (ERIC Database #ED485088)
Baskerville, B., & Robb, T. (2005). Using Moodle
for teaching business English in a CALL environ-
ment. PacCALL Journal, 1(1), 138–151.
Bates, A. W. (2000). Managing technological
change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
158
Reflections
Bedi, K. (2006). Balancing learner expectations
and educator perceptions in online MBA course
for exemplary learning. Retrieved November 8,
2008, from http://www.u21global.edu.sg/Part-
nerAdmin/ViewContent?module=DOCUMEN
TLIBRARY&oid=157354
Beekman, G. (2005). Computer confluence explor-
ing tomorrow’s technology. Upper-Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bonk, C. J., & Shi, S. (2005, August). A galaxy of
blended learning examples, models, and implica-
tions. Paper presented at the preconference work-
shop of the 21st Annual Conference on Distance
Teaching and Leaning, Madison, WI.
Center for Teaching and Technology. The. (2006).
Technology trends in higher education. Retrieved
November 20, 2008, from http://oms.educ.msu.
edu/ctt/index.php?title=Technology_Trends_in_
Higher_Education
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-learning
and the science of instruction. San Francisco, CA:
John Wiley & Sons.
Corich, S. (2005). Is it time to Moodle? Re-
trieved January 8, 2009, from http://www.naccq.
ac.nz/conference05/proceedings_05/concise/
corich_moodle.pdf
Dougiamas, M. (1998). A journey into construc-
tivism. Retrieved January 7, 2009, from http://
dougiamas.com/writing/constructivism.html
Frank, M., Lavy, I., & Elata, D. (2003). Imple-
menting the project-based learning approach in
an academic engineering course. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13,
273–288. doi:10.1023/A:1026192113732
Future, The. (2008). Tommorrow’s profes-
sors plog. Retrieved November 15, 2008,
from http://amps-tools.mit.edu/tomprofblog/
archives/2008/11/904_the_future.html
Reflections
Garrison, D. R., & Hanuka, H. (2004). Blended
learning: Uncovering its transformative potential
in higher education. The Internet and Higher
Education, 7(2), 95–105. doi:10.1016/j.ihe-
duc.2004.02.001
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended
learning in higher education. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Inoue, Y., & Bell, S. (2006). Teaching with technol-
ogy in higher education: The case of the Asian-
Pacific region. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Jackson, S., & Lubuag, E. (2008, December).
EN-110 offered online. Triton’s Call (UOG
student newspaper), p. 2. James, R., & Beckett,
D. (n. d.). The changing expectations of univer-
sity students and the implications for learning.
Retrieved November 8, 2008, from http://www.
cshe.unimelb.edu.au/people/staff_pages/James/
James&Beckett=Singapore.pdf
Kim, K. J., & Bonk, C. J. (2006). The future
of online teaching and learning in higher
education: The survey says…EDUCAUSE
Quarterly Magazine, 29(4). Retrieved January
23, 2009, from http://connect.educause.edu/
Library/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/TheFutureo-
fOnlineTeaching/40000
Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2004). Teaching online:
A practical guide. Boston, MA: Houghton Mif-
flin.
Koohang, A., Briz, J., & Seymour, T. (2006).
Hybrid/blended learning: Advantages, challenges,
design, and future directions. Proceedings of the
2006 Informing Science and IT Education Joint
Conference (Salford, UK, June 25-28). Retrieved
August 8, 2008, from http://informingscience.org/
proceedings/InSITE2006/ProcKooh121.pdf
Learning Quotes. (2007). Big dog’s learning
quotes. Retrieved March 5, 2009, from http://www.
skagitwatershed.org/~donclark/hrd/learnqt.html
Lorenzo, G. (2004). Revisiting blended learn-
ing. Educational Pathways, 3(11). Retrieved
November 11, 2008, from http://www.edpath.
com/2004/1204/12040.htm
Macdonald, J. (2008). Blended learning and on-
line tutoring. Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing
Company.
Minielli, M. C., & Ferris, S. P. (2005). Electronic
courseware in higher education. First Monday,
10(9). Retrieved January 9, 2009, from http://
firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_9/minielli/index.
html
MU News Bureau. The. (2008). MU researcher
studies effectiveness of traditional and blended
learning environments. Retrieved October 13,
2008, from http://munews.missouri.edu/news-
releases/2008/0916-strickland-blended-learning.
php
Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2005).
Design research: A socially responsible approach
to instructional technology research in higher edu-
cation. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,
16(2), 97–116. doi:10.1007/BF02961476
Regan, L. (n. d.). Best practices in online teaching:
Pulling it all together - teaching blended learning
courses. Retrieved January 4, 2009, from http://
cnx.org/content/m15048/latest
Rudestam, K. E., & Schoenholtz-Read, J. (Eds.).
(2002). Handbook of online learning: Innova-
tions in higher education and corporate training.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ryan, S., Scott, B., Freeman, H., & Patel, D.
(2001). The virtual university: The Internet and
resource-based learning. London: Kogan Page.
Smith, C. B. (2003). Alternative forms of assess-
ment. (ERIC Database #ED482404)
159

Tiirmaa-Oras, S., Pilt, L., & Villems, A. (n.d.).
Easy blending: Performance support system
for blended learning in higher education. Re-
trieved November 11, 2008, from http://www.
ut.ee/blearn/orb.aw/class=file/action=preview/
id=358631/EPSS+workshop_+Stockholm.pdf
160
Reflections
Vignare, K. (2006). Blended learning: Education
innovation and productivity. Retrieved Novem-
ber 9, 2008, from http://connect.educause.edu/
term_view/Hybrid+or+Blended+Learning?time
=1218671208
Reflections

APPENDIX A

Online Course Readiness Questionnaire

Are you ready for an online course? Honestly answer the questions below. If you cannot answer YES
to at least 12 of the 15 questions, taking EN110 online is not the right option for you.

I often get things done ahead of time. Yes No

When an instructor hands out the directions for an assignment, I prefer figuring out the instructions Yes No
on my own.
I am willing to commit 6-12 hours per week to a traditional full semester length course and 12-18 hours Yes No
per week to a summer or intersession course.
I am comfortable and competent sending e-mail and using the Internet. Yes No
I am self-motivated and self-disciplined. Yes No
I enjoy working independently. Yes No
I could benefit from direct, personal written instructor feedback. Yes No
I have touch typing skills to produce at least 25-30 words per minute. Yes No
I know how to create, send, forward, and attach documents to e-mails. Yes No
I can use a search engine to find information on the Internet. Yes No
I know how to instant message using the Internet. Yes No
I currently post to or have read an online weblog or online journal. Yes No
I can configure my browser to accept cookies. Yes No
I can download software upgrade and install them. Yes No
I have reliable access to the Internet and Microsoft Word software. Yes No

Source: Jackson & Lubuag, 2008, p. 2. Used with permission from Merissa Brown.

APPENDIX B

Student Information

Course Title: Introduction to Research Methods

1. Name:
2. Phone:
3. E-mail:
4. Native language:
5. Major:
6. Other courses you are currently taking:
7. Is this a required course for you? [ ] Yes [ ] No
8. Why do you think some teachers are better in teaching?
9. What does education mean to you?
10. Have you conducted research? If so, what methods were used in your research?
11. What are you expectations for this course?
12. What are your future goals (professionally or personally)?
Thank you… Enjoy the course!

161
 Reflections

APPENDIX C

Assessment Rubric for the Research Proposal Writing

Component Target Acceptable Unacceptable

Introduction • title is clearly stated • title is clearly stated • title is missing or ambiguous
A. Problem • the rationale for the importance of • the rationale is presented but one • rationale is missing or one or
B. Review of the the research focus is clearly stated or more elements may be ambigu- more elements may be missing
Literature • research problems and questions ous • research problems and questions
C. Research Ques- are clearly defined • research problems and questions are unclear
tions • at least 8-10 readings from jour- are of marginal • fewer than 3-4 readings from
D. Significance of nals/Web are cited • at least 5-7 readings from jour- journals/Web are cited
the Study • review is well-organized with nals/Web are cited • review is disorganized, shows no
subheadings • review is organized, but has no logical order
• sources are correctly cited in text subtopic structure • citations are confusing
based on the APA style • all sources are cited, but style • some or all references are miss-
• reference list is in correct form and problems may exist ing: many format errors
complete • reference list is complete but • the significance of the study is
• the significance of the study is shows problems with format either not present or very poorly
clear and well written • the significance of the study is described
reasonably well written
Points Available 40 40-30 29-11 10-0
Method • participants and sampling are • participants and sampling are • participants are not clearly
A. Participants clearly described reasonably described described
B. Data Collection • data collection methods specifical- • data collection methods are • data collection methods are
C. Data Analysis ly described and related to research related to research questions, but unclear or unconnected to research
D. Limitation questions description needs more specificity questions
• methods are appropriate for • methods are appropriate for • methods are dubious for research
research questions research questions questions
• time line is reasonable • time line is reasonable • time line is not reasonable
• analysis procedures described and • analysis procedures are described, • analysis procedures are missing
clearly linked with the research but not fully linked to research or confusing
questions questions • little or no connection is made
• appropriateness of data analyses is • connection is made between data between data collection and data
discussed collection and data analysis but not analysis
• strong connection is made between fully developed • limitations are not described
data collection and data analysis • limitations for undertaking the
• limitations for undertaking the study are described but lack clarity
study are clearly described
Points Available 20 20-16 15-8 7-0
Format and style • proposal is clearly written • proposal is clearly written • writing unclear
References • it is well-organized • well-organized but contains some • poor organization
• no distracting spelling or gram- clarity problems • distracting spelling or grammati-
matical errors • few distracting spelling or gram- cal errors
• all elements of research questions matical errors • some elements of research ques-
are addressed • most elements of research ques- tion are addressed
• paper contains only few errors in tions addressed • paper contains many errors in
using the APA style • paper contains several errors in using the APA style
using the APA style
Points Available 40 40-30 29-11 10-0
TOTAL 100

162
Reflections

APPENDIX D

Pre-Assessment and Post-Assessment Comparison of

Student Self-Ratings for Achievement (Fall 2007)

Pre-Assessment Post-Assessment
Assessment categories M SD M SD
1 I understand what makes an effective researcher in educa- 3.3333 1.04654 3.7333 .70373
tion
2 I feel I have established a sense of self-efficacy in writing 2.9333 1.03280 3.6667 .89974
a research proposal
3 I know the differences between primary and secondary 2.9333** 1.22280 4.1333** .83381
resources
4 I know the characteristics of both qualitative and quantita- 3.4000 1.18322 4.2000 1.01419
tive studies
5 I know how to identify the research problem and to establish 3.1333 .99043 3.8667 .74322
research questions and/or hypotheses
6 I know the purpose and process of reviewing literatures 3.7333 1.16292 4.3333 .81650
7 I know how to get research materials and references through 4.0000 .84515 4.3333 .72375
the Internet.
8 I know all the necessary steps in conducting research 3.0000* 1.13389 3.8667* .91548
studies
9 I am prepared to use a variety of research designs and 2.8667** 1.18723 3.9333** .79881
methods
10 I have identified which intrinsic and extrinsic rewards have 3.0667 .96115 3.6667 .89974
attracted me to conduct research
11 I know how to get research instrument (involving human 2.3333** 1.29099 3.6667** .81650
subjects) approved
12 I know the APA style writing and how to cite in-text and 2.6000*** .91026 4.2667*** .59362
references

APPENDIX E

Pre-Assessment and Post-Assessment Comparison of

Student Self-Ratings for Achievement (Fall 2008)

Pre-Assessment Post-Assessment
N=29 N=29
Assessment categories M SD M SD
1 I understand what makes an effective researcher in educa- 3.2759 .75103 3.5862 .68229
tion
2 I feel I have established a sense of self-efficacy in writing 2.6552*** 1.00980 4.0000*** .59761
a research proposal
3 I know the differences between primary and secondary 2.8276*** 1.22675 4.2069*** .77364
resources
4 I know the characteristics of both qualitative and quantita- 2.4138*** 1.01831 4.0345*** .65841
tive studies

163
 Reflections

5 I know how to identify the research problem and to establish 3.0345 1.01710 3.4828 .57450
research questions and/or hypotheses
6 I know the purpose and process of reviewing literatures 3.3103*** 1.10529 4.5862*** .68229
7 I know how to get research materials and references through 3.6897*** 1.00369 4.7241*** .45486
the Internet.
8 I know all the necessary steps in conducting research 3.0690 .70361 3.3448 .48373
studies
9 I am prepared to use a variety of research designs and 3.4828* 1.27113 4.2069* .77364
methods
10 I have identified which intrinsic and extrinsic rewards have 2.7586*** 1.15434 4.0690*** .75266
attracted me to conduct research
11 I know how to get research instrument (involving human 2.2759*** .92182 4.2069*** .81851
subjects) approved
12 I know the APA style writing and how to cite in-text and 3.0690*** 1.27982 4.2759*** .64899
references

164
 Section 2
Integrating Online Learning
Technologies
A: Programs/Environments
 167

Chapter 10
A Case of Using Wikis to Foster
Collaborative Learning:
Pedagogical Potential and
Recommendations
Hong Lin
Oklahoma State University, USA

Kathleen D. Kelsey
Oklahoma State University, USA

ABSTRACT
In recent years, Wikis, an open Web-based editing tool, have increasingly been used for collaborative
writing projects in classrooms. Hailed as a collaborative learning and writing tool that is more powerful
than blogs and e-mail, the pedagogical impact of using Wikis in the classroom is underrepresented in the
literature. This case reviews the design and implementation of a Wikibook project for graduate students
at a major land-grant university in the mid-South United States. Our findings challenge idealistic hy-
potheses that work using Wikis, without careful design and implementation, is naturally beneficial. The
case also provides design recommendations for educators who are interested in using Wikis to enhance
collaborative writing.

BACKGROUND perspectives of collaborative learning in a Wiki

Wiki, as one of the Web 2.0 tools, provides Web-
based features to co-write and edit. As such, Wi-
kis have increasingly been used in classrooms to
foster collaborative writing and learning in recent
years. Emerging literature also documents studies
on pedagogical effectiveness of using Wikis for
collaborative learning. This case summarizes the
design and development, students’ adjustment, and
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-880-2.ch010
environment. It also shares recommendations for
educators who are interested in adopting Wikis in
their classrooms.
This case was conducted at a major public land-
grant university in the mid-South United States. The
university is a research extensive institution that
offers degrees through the Doctor of Philosophy.
The university is considered a traditional university,
offering the majority of coursework face-to-face at
five campuses. Distance education technologies and

Copyright © 2010, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 A Case of Using Wikis to Foster Collaborative Learning
innovative technological teaching methods are a
recent addition to traditional course offerings and
constitute less than five percent of courses taught.
By November 2008, the university offered over
650 online courses via its course management
system Desire2Learn®. In addition to online
courses, many distance education courses are
enhanced by videoconference. CDs and DVDs are
available to distant students as well. The university
highly values teaching as a central mission of the
land-grant university. University administration
encourages faculty to adopt technology integra-
tion across the curricula and provides continuing
support for pedagogical training and technological
assistance as a result of the demand of online and
blended instruction in recent years.
At the course level, more faculty members are
using emerging technologies such as Podcasts,
Wikis, Camtasia, Google Apps, and Voicethread
in their teaching and learning. Among these tools,
Wikis have received increasing attention for col-
laborative writing, which often poses particular
challenges for instructors and students alike in
traditional writing classes or courses that aspire
to improve collaborative learning. Prior to the
initiation of this case study, Wikis were lauded
in the literature as an emerging instructional
technology tool that could be used to enhance
collaborative writing in the classroom. This case
study concludes with implications for design and
implementation of technological tools to facilitate
writing and collaborative learning.
Overall, university administration and fac-
ulty see the need to reach both traditional and
non-traditional students by providing quality
educational experiences using a variety of media.
To this end, instructional technology is used as
a tool for increasing the reach of the university
and improving instructional design and delivery.
This case is a snapshot of how a faculty member
used innovative technology to add value to the
curriculum by using Wikis for collaborative learn-
ing in a graduate level course.
168
SETTING THE STAGE
Collaborative Learning
Collaborative learning is defined as “an instruc-
tional method in which students at various perfor-
mance levels work together in small groups toward
a common goal” (Coutinho & Bottentuit, 2007,
p. 1787). Collaborative learning asks students
not only to be responsible for their own learning,
but also to be responsible for working with other
students to co-create knowledge. In collaborative
learning, knowledge transfer and creating is not
a one-way transmission in which the instructor is
the only source of knowledge. Instead, instruction
is student-centered and knowledge is viewed as
a social construct which is enhanced by both the
instructor and peers (Harasim, 2000).
As such, the concept of learning shifts from
instructor-oriented instruction to student-oriented
collaboration. Collaborative learning emphasizes
that students and teachers are not simply engaged
in developing their own information but actively
involved in creating knowledge that will benefit
others, hence, constructing knowledge for the
community, not just the self, a concept presented
by Holmes et al. (2001) and referred to as com-
munal constructivism.
There is a growing body of literature that
discusses using new technologies, for example,
blogs, Wikis, social networks, tagging, mash
ups, and cloud computing, to foster collaborative
learning. Some researchers note the advantages
of using these technologies to create social and
educational experiences beyond the classroom.
Reigeluth (1994) and Romiszowski and Ravitz
(1997) indicated that computer technology had
changed the traditional instructional model to an
information-age conversational model of learning
where the learner is actively engaged in co-creating
meaning and knowledge with peers. Jonassen,
Peck, and Willson (1999) stated that new technolo-
gies make individualized learning more powerful
A Case of Using Wikis to Foster Collaborative Learning
and more important in that students participate in
conversation and collaboration, forming learning
communities. Similarly, Fishman and Pea (1994)
noted that “the network’s true power comes from
the synergy of many dispersed minds working
together to solve problems and discuss issues” (p.
26). Pea (2004) argued that computer technolo-
gies can scaffold complex learning that enables
more advanced performances through interactive
features that allow the learner to manipulate and
participate in knowledge construction Gone are
the days of teacher directed instruction where
only the instructor can lay claim to new knowl-
edge and control its dissemination. In this remix
world, learners are now empowered to create, edit,
collaborate, and construct new knowledge inde-
pendent of the traditional instructional boundaries
of the classroom.
This case study elaborates on the theory of
communal constructivism as the conceptual
framework and explains how students come to a
point of productive knowledge construction within
a Wiki environment. In line with Holms et al.’s
discussion, Wikis can be used to move learners
toward a state of conversation and collaboration,
where they are able to write, edit, version, and
discuss next to the content in Wikis. The theo-
retical underpinnings and pedagogical promise
of using Wikis as collaborative writing tools was
the motive for asking students to create an online
textbook using a Wiki interface and how the case
was developed.
Communal Constructivism
Communal constructivism is built upon the notion
of social constructivism or social construction,
which became prominent in the U.S. with Peter
Berger and Thomas Luckmann’s book, The Social
Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociol-
ogy of Knowledge, in 1966. Social constructivism
considers how individuals and groups construct
and develop their social reality as the theory argues
that social phenomena developed within social
contexts. In particular, individuals and groups
engage in an ongoing and dynamic process and
therefore, reproduce reality as their interpretations
and knowledge of reality are redefined constantly
(Berger & Luckmann, 1966).
Communal constructivism is also situated
within the theory base of knowledge building
and was well-documented from 1990 to 2000.
Scardamalia and Bereiter (2003) noted that
knowledge building in collaborative learning
is seen as creating or modifying individual and
public knowledge, thus inhibiting continual idea
improvement. Woodruff and Meyer (1997) indi-
cated that community dynamics help foster and
encourage knowledge advancement. Similarly,
Bandura (1997) argued that people learn through
observing others’ behavior, attitudes, and the
outcomes of those behaviors, known as vicarious
interaction. Vicarious interaction is a powerful
learning tool in social contexts such as university
courses, especially when Web 2.0 tools are in use
as students can observe a variety of interactions
between teacher and student and student-to-
student, in a face-to-face setting, and by reading
discussion board, blogs, and Wikis.
In particular, Holmes and Gardner (2006)
stated that the role of learners and the process
of learning in a communal learning environment
give people as follows:
The opportunity to reinvest in learning environ-
ment as a form of communal construction, a
process in which learners put their learning back
into the community to benefit others, which will
promote an evolution of learning and teaching…
Everyone is constantly called upon to learn and
create new knowledge, learn new ways of doing
things and, at a deeper level, new ways of learn-
ing itself. (p. 17)
While Holmes and his colleagues (2001; 2006)
did not specify postulates for their theory, they
made several assertions that if teachers create a
communal constructivist learning environment,
169
 A Case of Using Wikis to Foster Collaborative Learning
then students will demonstrate enhanced learning
outcomes. They further suggested that the advent
of new educational technologies warrants a new
kind of educational theory, communal construc-
tivism, to guide technology enhanced learning
environments. In the following section, we take a
closer look at Holmes et al. assertions and briefly
examine how Wikis have the potential to situate
themselves in the following assertions. In this case
study, we tested whether these assertions situate
in a Wiki environment.
1. “If the student learning processes and their
work could be captured, then courses might
instead build on knowledge rather than
simply repeat it” (Holmes, et al., 2001, p.
4). Student work in Wikis can be published
in an open Web environment where future
students continue to build knowledge. By
asking students to write articles in an online
textbook, that knowledge is archived and re-
usable. By asking students to edit each other’s
work from semester to semester, students are
constructing new knowledge collaboratively
regardless of time or place.
2. “To create an environment where students
leave their imprint on the course, and the
field, as an integral part of their learning not
only benefits their own learning, the learning
of their colleagues in their classes and those
that will come after them but more impor-
tantly … provides a teaching apprenticeship
for all those who come through the school
system” (p. 4). Apprenticeships can be cre-
ated by assigning groups to co-create articles
and chapters in a Wikibook, also leaving an
imprint of their work for future generations
to use and edit for improvement, contributing
to the discipline. Presenting students’ work
on the Internet creates an expectation that
their work is valued, reusable, and dynamic.
Consistent with the apprenticeship model, an
article created one year should be improved
upon the following year by the next cohort.
170
Students learn that their work is more than
just another assignment, only read once by
the teacher for a grade. It is part of a larger
creation that exists to teach others.
3. “The communal constructivist approach
requires that the course be dynamic and
adaptive… the method of delivery must be
capable of adapting to new information and
new techniques as they emerge from within
the course itself and from the discipline at
large” (p. 4). The course syllabus and struc-
ture in a Wiki environment must be open-
ended and flexible to allow for changing
conditions. Students must believe that they
have the ability to impact the curriculum
through their intellectual contributions.
By allowing students to create a rubric for
grading the Wiki articles, students are able
to determine quality expectations for peer’s
work, giving ownership to the process as
well as the product.
4. Students must be allowed to “see themselves
as producers and not just consumers of infor-
mation” (p. 5) and to “become publishers…
of information through the use of information
and communication technology (ICT)” (p.
4). Wikis provide an open environment for
co-creating content which is automatically
published to the Internet when saved and is
accessible (and editable) to future genera-
tions of learners, putting student produced
work front and center in the curriculum
5. Students must be “involved in the process of
constructing knowledge and that construc-
tion is a communal affair” (p. 5). Group work
in this case study required students to create
a project-based Wikibook, a process which
necessitated class discussions, peer-tutoring,
mentoring, co-authoring and co-learning, all
contributing to a communal constructivist
course. Students were actively engaged in
knowledge construction as authors.
6. “Communal constructivism is about empow-
ering the learner to allow them to reclaim
A Case of Using Wikis to Foster Collaborative Learning
a role in their own education. The advan-
tage to the learner is in taking part in deep
meaningful (activities) and allowing them
to have a role in society throughout their
formative years and not just after graduation”
(p. 6). The Wikibook project in this case
study constantly infused students with the
responsibility to co-author and co-learn by
creating original content for the Wikibook,
resulting in civically engaged, lifelong
learners. Learners challenged each other to
put their articles in Wikipedia and monitor
the number of hits received as a measure of
quality.
7. “Communal constructivism stresses that
learners should be listened to and be im-
portant to others…They must be included
and their work should be valued by others.
Their learning tasks should be useful and
recognized as such. They have a right to be
needed” (p. 6). Using Wikis to create online
books and other learning materials that
are accessible by anyone with an Internet
connection provides an opportunity for
students to be seen and recognized by oth-
ers. Reflective journals echoed the theme of
realizing the importance of this assignment as
student work was shared with the world, not
just the teacher. Students reporting working
more diligently on the Wiki articles knowing
that they would become a part of the course
knowledge base.
Overall, communal constructivism provides
a framework for adopting Wikis in courses.
Our educational goal was not only to provide a
medium in which to store and make available
the knowledge created by the learners, but also
to promote one-to-one, one-to-many and many-
to-many interactions within a Wiki environment
that would tremendously magnify learning op-
portunities for learners themselves and for others
in the community (Holms & Gardner, 2006). As
such, the following section takes a closer look at
literature concerning computer-supported learning
environments in Wikis, pedagogical claims and
applications of Wikis in classrooms.
Wikis for Collaborative Writing
Wiki is a collection of interlinked Web pages (or
articles) that allows users to create and present
content collaboratively in a hypertext system us-
ing open source software. EDUCAUSE Learning
Initiative (2005) notes as follows:
Wikis permits asynchronous communication and
group collaboration across the Internet. Variously
described as a composition system, a discussion
medium, a repository, a mail system, and a tool
for collaboration, Wikis provide users with both
author and editor privileges; the overall organi-
zation of contributions can be edited as well as
the content itself. Wikis are able to incorporate
sounds, movies, and pictures; they may prove to
be a simple tool to create multimedia presenta-
tions and simple digital stories. (p. 1)
In particular, because of its browser-based
access in Wikis, passwords, permissions, special
client software, and Web masters are unnecessary.
For this reason, the learners can quickly create a
Web-based page in Wikis, start to write on it and
publish it to the Internet. In the Wiki environment,
shared responsibility for the quality and accuracy
of the content and building a reusable repository of
knowledge are the goals of Wikis (Godwin-Jones,
2003). Since Wikis document page history, the
learners can work collaboratively without worry-
ing about losing documents and correspondence
history. Lamb (2004) summarized the function-
alities of Wikis that make collaborative writing
and editing possible and easy:
• Anyone can change anything. Authoring
software, permissions, or passwords are
typically not required.
171
 A Case of Using Wikis to Foster Collaborative Learning
• Wikis use simplified hypertext markup.
New users need to learn a few formatting
tags, but only a few. Most Wiki tags signif-
icantly streamline and simplify their tasks.
• WikiPageTitlesAreMashedTogether. Wiki
page titles often eschew spaces to allow for
quick page creation and automatic, mark-
up-free links between pages within (and
sometimes across) Wiki systems. Linking
to related pages is easy, which promotes
promiscuous interlinking among Wiki
pages.
• Content is ego-less, time-less, and never
finished. Anonymity is not required but is
common. With open editing, a page can
have multiple contributors, and notions of
page “authorship” and “ownership” can be
radically altered.
In practice, there are emerging studies in-
vestigating the use of Wikis for supporting col-
laborative and inquiry-based learning. Engstrom
and Jewett (2005) studied 400 students with 11
teachers who used Wikis for an inquiry-based
project in a professional development teacher-
preparation program. They found that students
posted and edited insufficiently in their small
research groups, which primarily reflected surface-
level learning in the inquiry process and that the
teachers did not model or facilitate an exchange of
ideas, questions, or provide feedback to students
required to build Wiki articles. Wang et al. (2005)
investigated students’ editing behavior and their
performance in Wiki. They explored the effects
of students’ frequency of editing usage in Wikis
on their final exam performance and found that
students with low usage on the Wiki performed
better than those with high Wiki usage on the
final exam. Bold (2006) incorporated Wikis in a
Masters online course to support collaboration.
The study reported that Wiki allowed students to
be in charge of joint posting, editing, reporting,
and maintained work without burdening a single
individual to serve as the project coordinator.
172
Chong and Yamamote (2006) investigated a
group of 20 people who had not met prior to the
study, yet felt comfortable in exchanging ideas
in a Wiki writing project. Their study suggested
that anonymous writing gave students a private
space; therefore, collaboration between strangers
could facilitate independent thinking, clear under-
standing of the team members and contributed to
high quality outputs. Similarly, Hewitt and Peters
(2006) asked their 15 students to construct Wiki
articles on an array of topics in a graduate-level
distance education course. They found that the
students considered building a knowledge base
in a Wiki project was not only an authentic task
for themselves but also a value-added activity for
future classes.
These studies laid the groundwork for this case
study. However, literature about how students
interact and collaborate in a Wiki is still under-
represented. Instead, speculative discussions focus
on the functionality of a Wiki and its pedagogi-
cal promises. This case study addressed the gap
in the literature regarding whether students can
co-write using Wikis and whether the potential
of Wikis – effective collaborative learning – can
be realized.
CASE DESCRIPTION
Context of the Study
The case study represents two years of data collec-
tion from two student cohorts who were involved in
creating an online textbook using a Wiki interface.
The course was Adult Education Planning and
Evaluation and the Wiki project was All Things
Adult Education Wikibook. Cohort one had five
graduate students in the course face-to-face and
cohort two had 13 graduate students online. Both
cohorts were given the same directions and support
for developing several Wiki articles in an online
Wiki-based textbook called All Things Adult Edu-
cation (http://adulteducation.Wikibook.us).
A Case of Using Wikis to Foster Collaborative Learning
The case was situated in a graduate level course
about adult education, offered at a major land-grant
university in the mid-south. The instructor built
the shell for a Wikibook using MediaWiki® soft-
ware (www.mediaWiki.org) and posted it online,
purposefully public and accessible.
Students from cohort one (a traditional, on-
campus course) were required to write five articles
using Wiki as the writing and presentation tool.
Students were to work individually to create two
original articles, collaboratively to create two
original articles, and were asked to edit another
student’s article for the fifth assignment. In ad-
dition, students were given a detailed rubric for
completing the assignments along with face-to-
face instruction about the project. Students could
create an article under the instructor-defined
headings or create a new topic. The teams were
assigned by the instructor to increase heterogene-
ity in regard to culture, age, and discipline. The
instructor met with students weekly to provide
feedback on the article content and to monitor
and support the cohesiveness of teams.
In addition to creating Wiki chapters, students
were required to submit their weekly reflective
journals when working on the projects. The jour-
nals were graded by the instructor and provided
immediate feedback for the improvement of the
next Wiki article.
After gathering feedback from the students in
cohort one, the Wiki assignment was adjusted to
better address the goal of collaborative writing
for the second cohort. Students from cohort two
Table 1. Summarized the efforts of two cohorts
Participants Wiki Articles Required Wiki
Practice Page
Cohort 1 5 No
(N=5, face-to-face) (2 collaborative; 2 individual;
1 edited)
Cohort 2 3 Yes
(N= 13, online) (1 collaborative; 1 individual;
1 edited)
(an online course) were required to write three
articles using Wikis. Students were to create one
original article solo, one with a partner, and to edit
another student’s article. The instructor provided a
handout containing the directions and coached the
students via the discussion board on the assign-
ment. In cohort two the students chose partners,
they were not assigned as with cohort one. Table
1 summarized details of two cohorts.
Design and Implementation
of Wikibook
Since the deliverables in the two cohorts were the
same – Wiki articles, we will take cohort one as an
example to demonstrate how students developed
their Wiki articles.
First, the instructor worked with the students
to design a content menu as indicated in Figure
1, which serves as the Wiki-based textbook front
page. On this page, the instructor provided 20
chapter topics to students. These topics were based
on the goals of the course and the textbooks for
the course.
After the class designed a content menu indi-
cated in Figure 1, students were asked to choose
four topics in the menu and develop four Wiki
chapters (two collaboratively and two individu-
ally) for the Wiki textbook consequently. Figure
2 is an example of an article co-created by two
students.
After two collaborative Wiki chapters and two
individual Wiki chapters, students were asked
Weekly Students’ Students’
Reflective Prior Wiki Prior Internet
Journals Experience Experience
Yes No Yes
Yes No Yes
173
 A Case of Using Wikis to Foster Collaborative Learning
Figure 1. Image of the All Things Adult Education wikibook interface
to edit another student’s article. Wikis, as an
open editing tool, not only keep an updated end
product online, but also document the history of
editing so that the student author of the article can
reverse back to the original text. Figure 3 shows
the editing history from a student on another
student’s article.
As seen from the figures, Wikis, when com-
pared with first generation Web tools such as
e-mail and discussion boards, are considered
superior to second generation Web-based social
tools because of the increased capacity for col-
laborative work.
Collaboration, however, did not automati-
cally occur in this project for either cohort. After
analyzing the data from four sources: the content
of the Wiki articles, student interviews, students’
reflective journals, and meeting notes taken
by the researchers in the classroom, it is clear
that students moved through three phases when
learning to write collaboratively. The phases are
described as series predicaments that eventually
174
lead to comfort with true collaborative writing.
This transition was not without challenges.
Student Use of Wikis
Phase One: In the first phase of the project where
students were asked to co-write an article in Wiki,
the majority of the students decided to divide
the assignment into smaller parts, complete their
part, then cut and paste the article together after
it was written individually. The Wiki was used as
a presentation tool rather than as a writing tool
and the results were awkward at best. Participant
1 said (Excerpt 1), “At first, I didn’t really want
to use the Wiki. It really intimidated me, and so I
did everything outside of it and just cut and paste
[my finished article into Wiki].” Participant 6
noted that (Excerpt 2), “You can feel the rough
transition between each part because it was created
as separate pieces and merged at the end. There’s
not a good flow in the chapter.”
A Case of Using Wikis to Foster Collaborative Learning

Figure 2. Example of a team article in All Things Adult Education wikibook

Figure 3. Example of editing history for peer work in a wiki chapter

175
 A Case of Using Wikis to Foster Collaborative Learning
In this phase, the participants did not use the
discussion feature in the Wiki (see Figure 3, notice
tab labeled discussion, which is a white space for
writers to discuss their ideas before they are in-
cluded in the article). Students indicated that they
used e-mail and phone calls to communicate, and
they had difficulty communicating with each other
in a timely manner. In addition, the participants
felt territorial about their work and were not com-
fortable rewriting others’ work when presenting
their content in the Wiki. In other words, Wiki was
not used as a collaborative writing tool, rather a
presentation tool. These findings do not support
the literature that Wiki naturally encourages team
writing and editing.
Phase Two: When working on the second
article, participants continued to test and adjust
their relationship with their peers. In this man-
ner, they became more familiar with using Wiki
as a software tool and the collaborative writing
process. As a result, they reported an improved
experience with communication, writing, and
collaboration. Participant 1 said (Excerpt 3),
“Not understanding the Wiki, we wanted to get
everything situated before we posted it. I guess it’s
just the mentality that when you post it on there
and that’s the final product, you get it done. As
we’ve learned more about Wikis, we’re able to do
everything in Wikis.” Participant 6 indicated that
(Excerpt 4), “I do feel that working with a partner
in Wiki allows for group collaboration on a more
efficient level, and that I am able to brainstorm
ideas more efficiently this way.” These comments
indicate that when communication channels were
open, writing was less stressful as collaboration
was improved by knowing how to use Wiki more
effectively and understanding the shared value of
co-editing, improving each other’s writing for the
sake of the article.
Phase Three: After completing two articles,
students were asked to edit another student’s
article. In this phase, given the promise of Wikis
for open editing and collaborative learning, the
participants were asked whether they took full
176
advantage of the Wiki to learn personally and
collaboratively. Participant 3 said (Excerpt 5), “I
think that it’s really better than in class because
it actually forces you to choose a research topic. I
think I learned a lot better because you are actually
forced to go out there and search for materials and
then by letting your classmates know via Wikis.”
Participant 6 compared the unique collaborat-
ing experience in Wiki with other tools such as
encyclopedias. She said (Excerpt 6), “The idea
of cooperation in Wiki allows everybody else to
read it online, and they are welcome to edit it.
No other encyclopedias have this feature.” Two
other participants pointed out that group collabo-
ration helped generate ideas and enhance creativ-
ity. In addition, it was mentioned that different
viewpoints and backgrounds were beneficial for
learning. Participant 1 said (Excerpt 7), “In the
group you’re going to have more ideas because
you have more people, different viewpoints, and
different backgrounds. I think I tend to be less
creative working on a project individually. I don’t
spend as much time generating ideas. I just go with
what I know.” Participant 5 said (Excerpt 8), “I
thought it was great to see people from different
backgrounds. It added new ideas.”
Unlike the first and second phases, the par-
ticipants used the discussion board feature in
the Wiki to communicate in the third phase, as
indicated in Figure 4.
The findings suggest that using Wiki for col-
laborative learning became more productive and
constructive for the participants over time as they
learned how to use Wiki and the elements of a high
quality article. The findings support discussions
in the literature that networked learning fosters
conversation and collaborative learning (Fishman
& Pea, 1994; Reigeluth, 1994; Romiszowski &
Ravitz, 1997).
In this case, we certainly found that students
moved toward a state of conversation and collabo-
ration gradually as students practiced and gained
confidence using Wiki as an open editing tool as
well as a space for collaborative writing. If the
A Case of Using Wikis to Foster Collaborative Learning
Figure 4. Example of discussions among students working in wikis
initial phases of using Wiki as a collaborative tool
were underrepresented in the literature, the last
phase began to unearth the promise of writing in
an open environment constructively. The promise
demonstrated in this case is in line with Holmes et
al. (2001) communal learning environment, where
students were not simply engaged in developing
their own information but actively involved in
creating knowledge that will benefit others.
Students’ Perspectives of
Collaborative Writing in Wikis
As indicated in the previous section, students
adjusted communications, writing, and collabora-
tion in the Wikibook project. Regardless of the
adjustment, of 18 students in two cohorts, the
majority of them had positive experience with
collaboration in the Wikibook project. The follow-
ing quotes, which were from students’ interviews
and reflective journals, provided evidence that
students had not only positive feedback but also
challenges in collaborative learning in Wikis.
Students’ perspectives were framed under the
assertions of communal constructivism (Holmes
et al., 2001).
1. If the student learning processes and their
work could be captured, then courses might
instead build on knowledge rather than
simply repeat it.
◦ Positive Feedback: “There is a wealth
of knowledge available in our Wiki
chapters and that will only continue
to grow for future students when they
take this course” (Excerpt 9).
◦ Challenge: “I had a problem with sub-
mitting anything to Wiki that I do not
see as perfect, and when I work on an
assignment over several sessions, I do
not want the world to see anything till
I am finished with it” (Excerpt 10).
2. To create an environment where students
leave their imprint on the course, and the
field, as an integral part of their learning not
only benefits their own learning, the learning
of their colleagues in their classes and those
that will come after them but more impor-
tantly … provides a teaching apprenticeship
for all those who come through the school
system.
◦ Positive Feedback: “I found it very
motivating mainly because other
people were going to have the oppor-
tunity to see and edit my work. With
traditional assignments you feel like
you are just doing the work for the
teacher; however, Wiki projects let
me do the work for my peers, which
in my case was very motivating”
(Excerpt 11).
177
 A Case of Using Wikis to Foster Collaborative Learning
◦ Challenge: “I felt like I was one of
those adult learners who were being
subjected to a process that wasn’t ap-
plicable to what I am doing right now
in my career, so it made the project
more frustrating” (Excerpt 12).
3. The communal constructivist approach
requires that the course be dynamic and
adaptive, the method of delivery must be
capable of adapting to new information and
new techniques as they emerge from within
the course itself and from the discipline at
large.
◦ Positive Feedback: “I like that this
is a work in progress and that it can
be added to as more information is
reported. New research is being com-
pleted all the time. The flexibility
with the Wikibook is really amazing”
(Excerpt 13).
◦ Challenge: “Although I really en-
joyed working with a partner in Wikis,
my schedule is very random at some
times, and it is easier for me to work
on my projects at my own pace be-
cause there are some days when I can
sit down and have my project done,
while my partner may or may not be
on the same page as me” (Excerpt
14).
4. Students must be allowed to see themselves
as producers and not just consumers of
information and become publishers… of
information through the use of ICT.
◦ Positive Feedback: “I like working
on Wikis. It is a break from the tradi-
tional term paper or project that most
classes push. You can go in, change
and edit as you want” (Excerpt 15).
◦ Challenge: “I still find it amazing that
anyone can assess the information in
our Wiki project. Maybe that is why
I never feel the project is complete.
And I am concerned someone will
178
read it and think that it does not make
sense” (Excerpt 16).
5. Students must be involved in the process of
constructing knowledge and that construc-
tion is a communal affair.
◦ Positive Feedback: “Doing a Wiki
project is probably one of the best
ways to help students to learn to-
gether and add up that knowledge to
future students” (Excerpt 17).
◦ Challenge: “Collaboration was not
easy. I think if I hadn’t had a reliable
partner what was interested in the
same subject or maybe assigned to
do the work together, I’d like to work
alone” (Excerpt 18).
6. Communal constructivism is about empow-
ering the learner to allow them to reclaim a
role in their own education. The advantage
to the learner is in taking part in deep mean-
ingful (activities) and allowing them to have
a role in society throughout their formative
years and not just after graduation.
◦ Positive Feedback: “I hope that my
Wiki chapters will help others. I think
this is a great project and one that I
would like to add to my online classes
that I teach” (Except 19).
◦ Challenge: “I have some reservations
about Wikipedia and the use of it for
education. Although most is docu-
mented information, there is still the
chance that the information is just bo-
gus” (Except 20).
7. Communal constructivism stresses that
learners should be listened to and be im-
portant to others…They must be included
and their work should be valued by others.
Their learning tasks should be useful and
recognized as such. They have a right to be
needed.
◦ Positive Feedback: “I think using the
Wiki chapters are above and beyond
any conventional teaching methods
A Case of Using Wikis to Foster Collaborative Learning
I have experienced. I enjoyed being
able to relay my own thoughts and
knowledge on a subject while com-
bining peer-reviewed information
into the document. I believe my peers
thought the same about their projects”
(Excerpt 21).
◦ Challenge: “What complicated the
process for me was the fact that is was
going to be considered a ‘working
textbook.’ I put my name there and
my fear is that it is open to the public,
and they will be able to view it with
my name on it. It is intimidating to
offer my work up for criticism (even
constructive criticism)” (Excerpt 22).
CURRENT CHALLENGES
Wikis are a new computer-mediated communica-
tion tool that holds much promise for collaborative
writing projects in the educational setting. Even
though students may have been exposed to other
tools such as email, blog, course management
system, and e-portfolio, we found that students ex-
perienced a steep learning curve and did not work
effectively on the first Wiki article assignment.
The learning curve included technical operation
of the software as well as knowing how to truly
write collaboratively (Brandon & Hollingshead,
1999). The students were anxious and uncertain
about editing others’ writing initially, and required
a paradigm shift in regard to working alone to
working collaboratively to overcome their reserva-
tions about changing another author’s work.
The instructor coached the students in Wiki
ways of working, including open editing behaviors
and striving for a high quality product regardless
of individual authorship. Through coaching and
rewarding open editing behaviors the students
learned to trust that editing other’s work was
desirable for producing a high quality article.
Consistent with the literature on using Wikis
(McKay & Headley, 2007; Qian, 2007), we sug-
gest that instructors design a practice article at the
beginning of the course to teach students how to
use the software and to encourage re-writing oth-
ers’ text in an ungraded assignment. Many Wikis
contain a sandbox, but further coaching may be
necessary to resolve the student apprehension
regarding editing other’s work as they have been
long taught to not interfere with other’s words.
A practice article will allow students to become
familiar with Wiki functionality and will model
the practice of interacting with peers within the
Wiki.
Instructors are also encouraged to model
collaborate writing to prompt students’ critical
thinking and decision-making skills (Engstrom
& Jewett, 2005). During the writing process the
instructor posted comments to the students in the
Wiki discussion page to demonstrate a pluralistic
presence in Wiki. The instructor occasionally ed-
ited the student’s work while in progress to role
model the desired behavior and commented on the
work in progress to encourage collaborative and
interdependent writing versus the cut and paste
practice of many team projects.
Repeated Wiki article assignments were also
necessary to obtain the benefits of collaborative
writing in Wiki. Cohort one was required to write
five articles, four original (two solo, two in teams),
and one edited. The benefits of using Wiki as a
collaborative writing tool were not realized until
the third article assignment when the quality of
the articles improved and students felt more secure
about co-writing versus the traditional cut and
paste style of working. Cohort two was asked
to create three articles, and the benefits of Wiki
work were noted in as few as three articles. It is
recommended that instructors use several Wiki
assignments to reinforce the skills of collaborative
writing infused with feedback on quality expecta-
tions of the articles.
While this case represents the first attempt
with creating an online textbook using Wiki as
179
 A Case of Using Wikis to Foster Collaborative Learning
the interface, future cohorts will be required to go
back and edit previously created articles to teach
the skill of re-writing and co-writing, and quality
control. The instructor has also adopted Turnitin.
com® and requires students to submit the final
version of their Wiki article to check for correct
use and citation of other’s work. Students are re-
quired to edit another complete article and check
for plagiarism and correct any found errors as part
of teaching students about collaborative work and
responsibility for a group project that is neither
time nor place bound. Students are taught that All
Things Adult Education Wikibook is a community
construction that was created before they joined
the class, will include their creations, and will
continue to grow with future cohort creations and
will serve as a resource for the public.
The instructor practiced a pluralistic approach
to creating the Wiki and framed it as a student-
created project for other learners. Data are being
collected from cohort three to strengthen the find-
ings from the first two cohorts. Our initial findings
for cohort three indicate a continued theme of
pleasure in creating work that is shared publicly
and reusable. The students reported being proud
of their Wiki articles.
Cohort three has adopted new criteria for mea-
suring the quality of their articles. To enhance the
notion of co-creating the learning environment,
students in cohort three created a rubric for grad-
ing the Wiki articles. The rubric was used by the
instructor to grade completed articles, and was
found to be more rigorous than the instructor-
created rubric. In this case, peers held each other
to greater account when evaluating their work
than the instructor.
In cohort three, one student suggested that after
posting their article in All Things Adult Educa-
tion Wikibook, they are to post the same article
in Wikipedia.com and monitor the article to see
how it fairs in that environment. The students re-
port weekly on the status of their Wikipedia.com
articles, if it was deleted or edited. This approach
allowed students to experience an authentic as-
180
sessment of their writing skills. Throughout the
semester students would comment on the number
of hits their articles received as a source of pride.
Several months after the course was over, a student
told the instructor his article had received over
1,000 hits on Wikipedia.com and he continued
to edit his article.
CONCLUSION
The case study investigated students’ experience
of collaborative learning, working, and writing in
a Wiki environment. Using communal constructiv-
ism as a framework, this case identified students’
adjustment and adoption of Wikis for collaborative
learning. The data, which were collected from
two cohorts of 18 students in a graduate course,
indicated that Wiki work, without careful design
and implementation, is not naturally beneficial
for collaborative learning. In particular, before
students adjust to a computer-mediated environ-
ment like Wikis, collaborative learning does not
happen naturally even though Wikis provide
tools for it.
The case also presents some recommendations
for teacher educators who would like to explore
or adopt Wikis. As more educators explore and
adopt the use of Wikis, we hope that this case lays
the groundwork for further study on team editing
behavior to advance the artifact evaluation of
human interactions within a Wiki environment,
other than its technical interaction. As Fishman
and Pea (1994) noted: “Whatever the medium,
learning must remain fundamentally personal,
genuinely interactive, and indelibly humane” (p.
21). We believe that the Wiki work presented in this
case study has met Fishman and Pea’s statement
for enhancing learner’s networked learning and
has encouraged learners to become self-directed
lifelong learners through collaborative writing
and public presentation of their work.
Future empirical studies are needed to inves-
tigate whether the effectiveness of collaborative
A Case of Using Wikis to Foster Collaborative Learning
learning in Wikis is dependent on course level
(introductory or advanced), nature of the learn-
ing content (experimental or conceptual), nature
of disciplines (social science or life science), or
the role of instructor (instructor-led or instructor-
facilitated).
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1997). Social learning theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social
construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology
of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Bold, M. (2006). Use of Wikis in graduate course
work. Journal of Interactive Learning Research,
17(1), 5–14.
Brandon, D., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1999).
Collaborative learning and computer-supported
groups. Communication Education, 48(2), 109–
126. doi:10.1080/03634529909379159
Chong, N., & Yamamoto, M. (2006). Using many
Wikis for collaborative writing. In Proceedings
of World Conference on Educational Multimedia,
Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2006 (pp.
2188-2191). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Coutinho, C. M. P., & Bottentuit, J. B., Jr. (2007).
Collaborative learning using Wiki: A pilot study
with master students in educational technology in
Portugal. In Proceedings of World Conference on
Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia e Telecom-
munications (ED-MEDIA), pp. 1786-1791.
EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. (2005, July). 7
things you should know about Wikis. Retrieved
January 8, 2009, from: http://net.educause.edu/
ir/library/pdf/ELI7004.pdf
Engstrom, M. E., & Jewett, D. (2005). Collabora-
tive learning the Wiki way. TechTrends, 49(6),
12–68. doi:10.1007/BF02763725
Fishman, B., & Pea, R. D. (1994). The internet-
worked school: A policy for the future. Technos:
Quarterly of Education and Technology, 3(1),
22-26. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from
http://telearn.noe-kaleidoscope.org/warehouse/
A77_Fishman_Pea_94.pdf
Godwin-Jones, B. (2003). Blogs and Wikis: En-
vironments for on-line collaboration [electronic
version]. Language, Learning and Technology, 7,
12-16. Retrieved June 27, 2006, from http://llt.
msu.edu/vol9num1/emerging/default.html
Harasim, L. (2000). Shift happens: Online educa-
tion as a new paradigm in learning. The Internet
and Higher Education, 3, 41–61. doi:10.1016/
S1096-7516(00)00032-4
Hewitt, J., & Peters, V. (2006). Using Wikis to
support knowledge building in a graduate edu-
cation course. In Proceedings of World Confer-
ence on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia
and Telecommunications 2006 (pp. 2200-2204).
Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Holmes, B., & Gardner, J. (2006). E-learning:
Concepts and practice. London: Sage.
Holmes, B., Tangney, B., FitzGibbonn, A., Sav-
age, T., & Mehan, S. (2001, March). Communal
constructivism: Students constructing learning
for as well as with others. Paper presented at the
12th International Conference of the Society for
Information Technology & Teacher Education
(pp. 3114-3119). Charlottesville, VA.
Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Willson, B. G.
(1999). Learning with technology: A constructiv-
ist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Merrill/Prentice.
Lamb, B. (2004). Wide open spaces: Wikis,
ready or not. EDUCAUSE Review, 39(5), 36-48.
Retrieved January 4, 2009, from http://connect.
educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/
WideOpenSpacesWikisReadyo/40498
181
 A Case of Using Wikis to Foster Collaborative Learning

McKay, S., & Headley, S. (2007). Best practices Romiszowski, A., & Ravitz, J. (1997). Computer
for the use of Wikis in teacher education programs. mediated communications. In A. Romiszowski &
In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of So- C. Dills (Eds.), Instructional Development: State
ciety for Information Technology and Teacher of the Art (pp. 347-379). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Education International Conference 2007 (pp. Educational Technology Publications.
2409-2412). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowl-
Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological edge Building. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclo-
dimensions of scaffolding and related theoreti- pedia of education (pp. 1370-1373). New York:
cal concepts for learning, education, and human Macmillan Reference.
activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3),
Wang, Y., et al. (2005). Advanced Technologies
423–451. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6
(ICALT 2005), 155-157.
Qian, Y. (2007). Meaningful learning with Wi-
Woodruff, E., & Meyer, K. (1997). Explanations
kis: Making a connection. In C. Crawford et al.
from intra and inter group discourse: Children
(Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information
building knowledge in the science classroom.
Technology and Teacher Education International
Research in Science Education, 27(1), 25–39.
Conference 2007 (pp. 2093-2097). Chesapeake,
doi:10.1007/BF02463030
VA: AACE.
Reigeluth, C. (1994). Learning communities
through computer networking. In J. Greeno & S.
Goldman (Eds.). Thinking practices: Math and
science learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

182
 183

Chapter 11
Virtual Organizing Professional
Learning Communities through
a Servant-Leader Model of
Appreciative Coaching
Kam Hou Vat
University of Macau, Macau

ABSTRACT
This case investigates a set of empowerment concerns in the context of transforming classes of student
and teacher learners (considered as department-wide learning units in higher education) into profes-
sional learning communities (PLCs). In particular, we are interested in enhancing student learning
through designing a collaborative learning environment in support of problem-based learning, based
on the concept of virtual organizing the various PLCs distributed throughout a higher educational
institute. Of specific interest in our exploration is the generative potential of a servant-leader model of
student-centered education in support of the PLCs nurtured by the development practice of appreciative
coaching adapted from the established positive change paradigm of appreciative inquiry.

ORGANIZATION BACKGROUND about 20 graduate and 40 undergraduate courses.

The department of computer and information science
(CIS), as a constituent unit of education under the
Faculty of Science and Technology at the author’s
affiliated university, is installed to offer degree
programs in both the undergraduate and graduate
levels in software engineering. The department has
a current population of about 150 undergraduates
and 30 graduate students (mostly part-time). It has
to coordinate per academic year, the enactment of
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-880-2.ch011
There are currently five laboratories installed for the
information technology (IT) education of our stu-
dents: software engineering laboratory, e-commerce
technology laboratory, distributed systems labora-
tory, computer graphics and multimedia laboratory,
and the motion capture laboratory. Besides, there
are over two hundred PC’s distributed on campus,
to offer 24-hour computer service to our students,
including Internet access. To help manage course
delivery, the university also provides course man-
agement systems, such as WebCT (since 1998) and
MOODLE (since 2008) to teaching staff for their

Copyright © 2010, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 Virtual Organizing Professional Learning Communities
course enactment. Currently, the means of educa-
tion delivery in our department has largely been
didactic; yet, we are quite willing to blend the
best of our old values of good teaching through
the instructivist approach with the modern-day
constructivist way of thinking such as problem-
based learning (PBL) (Amador, Miles, & Peters,
2006).We are also interested in the continuing
efforts to extend our curriculum and instructional
practice over the Internet, through some con-
tinually renewed electronic (mostly Web-based)
course support, both for the teaching staff and
for the students.
SETTING THE STAGE
The following case description recounts the
action research experience of some bottom-up
course-support initiative sustained by individual
staff members from the Department of CIS over
the years in reshaping our undergraduate learn-
ing landscape through the integration of some
ICT-enabled (information and communication
technologies) environments to enhance student
learning. In particular, this report is based on the
experience acquired through the experimentation
of a Web-enabled course support environment
called REAL (Rich Environment for Active Learn-
ing) initiated in 1999, and reactivated in 2008
with a renewed title as REALSpace (Vat, 2009b)
to nurture an emergent interest of professional
learning community (PLC) (Dufour & Eaker,
1998) to be properly described as follows. It is
our lessons learned that if student learning is to
improve, staff should be well informed of the PLC
potential and develop the capacity to function as
PLC. If students are to benefit from the PLC, they
must develop a collaborative culture. If students
are to develop a collaborative culture, we must
overcome the tradition of teacher-centered educa-
tion (teacher as sage on the stage). If schools are
to overcome their tradition of teacher-centered
education, teachers must learn to work in collab-
184
orative teams (as coaches by the side). If schools
are to support effective teamwork to enhance
student learning, there must be some technology-
enhanced environment to enable learning among
teachers and students. And the concept of virtual
organizing fits right in to provide the mechanism
of a learner-centered appreciative knowledge
environment (AKE) to stimulate and facilitate a
learning-centered culture of knowledge sharing
to enhance student achievements. The impact of
a servant-leader model of education (Greenleaf,
1977) should serve as a transformative path to
enable the learning cycle of appreciative coach-
ing (AC) (Orem, Binkert, & Clancy, 2007) on the
part of teachers to enable students to tap into or
rediscover their own sense of wonder about their
present and future possibilities.
The Context of PLC
The premise in our discussion of PLC (Dufour,
Dufour, & Eaker, 2008) lies in the assumptions
of the meaning behind the three words: profes-
sional, learning, and community. It is believed
that a professional is someone with expertise in
a specialized field, an individual who has not
only pursued advanced training to enter the field,
but who is also expected to remain current in its
evolving knowledge base. The term learning
suggests ongoing action and perpetual curiosity.
It is expected that if students are to learn, those
who educate them must engage in the ongoing
study and constant practice of their field. The term
community suggests a group linked by common
interests that provide members with a sense of
identity, belonging, and involvement that result
in a Web of meaningful relationships with moral
overtones (Sergiovanni, 2005, p55). Communities
(or communities of practice) form around com-
mon characteristics, experiences, practices, or
beliefs that are important enough to bind members
to one another in a kind of fellowship (Wenger,
1998). Successful communities should provide
members with broadly shared opportunities to
Virtual Organizing Professional Learning Communities
participate, promote collective responsibility,
and foster a strong sense of belonging (Clinton,
2007). In a PLC, all of the above characteristics
are evident. Educators create an environment that
fosters shared understanding, a sense of identity,
high levels of involvement, mutual cooperation,
collective responsibility, emotional support, and a
strong sense of belonging as they work together to
achieve what they cannot accomplish alone. The
essence of the PLC is a focus on and a commitment
to the learning of each student (Dufour & Eaker,
1998). To achieve this shared purpose, members
of a PLC are expected to create and are guided by
a clear and compelling vision of what their school
(or teaching) must become to help all students
learn. This often requires of the PLC members
to make collective commitments that clarify what
each member will do to contribute to creating a
PLC, and to use results-oriented goals to mark their
progress. Still, one of the major challenges in the
implementation of the PLC concept is convincing
educators to move beyond the question, “Was it
taught?” to the far more relevant question, “Was
it learned?” This case description advocates for
a new culture of learning that addresses how
educators will work to improve their teaching,
and subsequently student learning.
The Servant-Leader
Model of Education
The term servant-leadership was first coined in a
1970 essay by Robert K. Greenleaf entitled The
Servant as Leader (Greenleaf, 1977; http://www.
greenleaf. org). As a lifelong student of how things
get done in organizations, Greenleaf distilled his
observations in a series of essays and books on
the theme of servant leadership – the objective
of which was to stimulate thought and action
for building a better, more caring society. The
idea of the servant as leader came partly out of
Greenleaf’s half century of experience in working
to shape large institutions. The central meaning of
servant leadership was interpreted by Greenleaf
as follows: The great leader is first experienced
as a servant to others, and that this simple fact is
central to his or her greatness. True leadership
emerges from those whose primary motivation is
a deep desire to help others. In all of his works,
Greenleaf discusses the need for a better kind of
leadership model, a model that puts serving others
– including students, employees, customers, and
community – as the number one priority. Servant
leadership emphasizes increased service to others,
a holistic approach to work, promoting a sense of
community, and the sharing of power in decision
making. In The Servant as Leader, Greenleaf wrote
(Beazley, Beggs, & Spears, 2003):
It begins with the natural feelings that one wants
to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice
brings one to aspire to lead. The difference
manifests itself in the care taken by the servant
– first to make sure that other people’s highest
priority needs are being served. The best test is:
do those served grow as persons; do they, while
being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more
autonomous, more likely themselves to become
servants? (p. 16)
Thereby, at its core, servant leadership is a
long-term, transformational approach to life and
work – in essence, a way of being – that has the
potential for creating positive change throughout
our society. In the setting of education, the context
of servant leadership brings forth the concept
of teacher as servant, carrying the connotation
that student-centered education serves to shift
from a focus on teaching to a focus on student
learning.
The Potential of
Appreciative Coaching
The practice of AC attributed to (Orem, Binkert,
& Clancy, 2007) is developed from the established
change management paradigm of appreciative
inquiry (AI) whose philosophy is based on the
185
 Virtual Organizing Professional Learning Communities
assumption that inquiry into and dialogue about
strengths, successes, hopes and dreams is itself a
transformational process (Cooperrider & Whitney,
2005). AC describes an approach to coaching that
shows individuals how to tap into or rediscover
their own sense of wonder and excitement about
their present life and future possibilities. Rather
than focusing on individuals in limited or problem-
oriented ways, AC is meant to guide individuals
through different stages of appreciative develop-
ment: discovery, dream, design and destiny – that
inspire them to an empowering view of themselves
and their future. The core process of AC begins
with the selection of a topic. In the context of our
discussion, the topic chosen for student-centered
education has been “enhancing student learning
through implementing a PLC of problem-based
learning.” At the outset of the coaching relation-
ship such as in the discovery stage, core questions
serve to explore the client’s strengths, past suc-
cesses, work and personal values, and the one or
two things he or she longs to have more of or to
have being different in life. From the answers to
these questions come the tools for learning and
change. In practice, trust should begin to build in
the coaching relationship when clients can experi-
ence some positive feelings about themselves and
their situation. In the dream stage, client and coach
come together to make sense of the answers to
the core questions so that they may apply these
answers to the topic. In this stage, we are using the
client’s proudest accomplishments, core skills and
strengths, and deepest values to create something
with which we can explore and experiment. Once
the client could bring his or her dream into clear
view, it is time to design a plan for the dream. The
design stage relates to the ongoing dance between
coach and client of defining, performing, and as-
sessing experiments. Design implies a plan or an
impression or a mock-up of some future reality.
There is no assumption that an initial design is
the final design. Experimentation is the order of
the day. The ultimate design should incorporate
as many of the skills and strengths of the client
186
as is possible or appropriate. Typically, clients
step into the destiny stage once they have begun
to implement the concrete actions and practices
they identified and designed in the design stage
for realizing their desired future. The destiny stage
is a time for clients to acknowledge and celebrate
the accomplishments they are making in either
moving toward or actually realizing their dream.
At the conclusion of this stage, clients may choose
to move to a second cycle of AC by expanding
on other elements of their dream or creating a
new dream. This is an excellent opportunity for
coaches to help client reflect on the work they
have done and appreciate the result they have
achieved. This AC process of emphasizing the
positive seems in most cases to generate positive
feelings, increased energy, and a deeper connection
to oneself. It is nonetheless true that exploring
one’s innermost desires should turn out to be a
pleasurable experience.
The Flexibility of Virtual Organizing
The idea of virtual organizing, attributed to Venka-
traman and Henderson (1998), can be considered
as a method of operationalizing a PLC, dynami-
cally assembling and disassembling nodes on a
network of people or groups of people, to meet
the demands of a particular learning context.
This term emerged in response to the concept of
virtual organization, which appeared in the lit-
erature around the late twentieth century (Byrne,
Brandt, & Port 1993; Davidow & Malone 1992;
Hedberg, Dahlgren, Hansson, & Olve 1997). There
are two main assertions associated with virtual
organizing. First, virtual organization should not
be considered as a distinct structure such as a net-
work organization in an extreme and far-reaching
form (Jagers, Jansen, & Steenbakkers 1998), but
virtuality is a strategic characteristic applicable
to every organization. Second, IT is a powerful
enabler of the critical requirements for effective
virtual organizing. In practice, virtual organiz-
ing helps emphasize the ongoing process nature
Virtual Organizing Professional Learning Communities
of the organization, and it presents a framework
of achieving virtuality in terms of three distinct
yet interdependent vectors: virtual encounter for
organization-wide interactions, virtual sourcing
for asset configuration, and virtual expertise for
knowledge leverage. The challenge of virtual or-
ganizing is to integrate the three hitherto separate
vectors into an interoperable IT platform that sup-
ports and shapes the new organizational initiative,
paying attention to the internal consistency across
the three vectors.
CASE DESCRIPTION
The teaching of SFTW 300 Software Psychology,
a junior core course more properly renamed as
human-computer interactions (HCI) (Vat, 2001)
in the undergraduate curriculum of Software En-
gineering offered by the Department of Computer
and Information Science, has always been a chal-
lenge as it is composed of such a mix of elements
as human factors, user expectations, man-machine
interfaces construction, cognitive psychology,
computer science, and those latest developments
on contextual design in interactive systems (IS).
In the case of the author’s teaching experience,
since 1998, the pedagogy adopted to deliver such
a course has been shifted from a conventional in-
structivist approach to the constructivist method of
problem-based learning (PBL) (Greening, 2000).
Besides, with the increasingly accumulated course
materials to cover in a single semester, the idea
of scenario-based design (Carroll, 2000) has also
been incorporated starting from 2000 with an at-
tempt to help undergraduate Software Engineering
students deepen the idea that HCI is concerned
with understanding, designing, evaluating and
implementing interactive computer systems to
match the needs of people. It is our experience
that the constructivist’s ideas of PBL (Barrows,
1986) revolving around a focal problem, group
work, feedback, skill development and iterative
reporting, with the instructor playing the coach
by the side, guiding, probing, and supporting
student-groups’ initiatives along the way, could
help students develop a unified team-based ap-
proach to better manage the underlying software
requirements. Methodically, we still need some
working scenarios to try out the iterative learn-
ing process involving researchers (instructor)
and practitioners (students) acting together on a
particular cycle of activities, including problem
diagnosis, action intervention, and reflective learn-
ing. In particular, our action research approach
should involve evaluating how well the students
playing the role of practitioners, could function
as self-directed work teams (SDWTs) of software
professionals, following the constructivist’s tenets
of PBL, in performing group-based software de-
velopment for specific user scenarios. Against this
backdrop, the use of AC has demonstrated quite
a promise in enhancing the student-practitioners’
learning to deal with the design difficulties typi-
fied in the complex domain of ill-defined problem
situations.
Recognizing the PBL Potential
of Student Collaboration
PBL, (Greening, 2000; Ryan, 1993; Barrows,
1986), as a pedagogy, is designed to actively
engage our students, divided in groups, in op-
portunities for knowledge seeking, for problem
solving, and for the collaborating necessary for
effective practice. At the heart of PBL are some
complex real-world problems used to motivate
students to identify and research the issues and
principles they need to know to work through those
problems (Boud & Feletti, 1997). The design of a
PBL-based curriculum addresses directly many of
the recommended and desirable outcomes of an
undergraduate education; specifically, the ability
to do the following (Boyer, 1998):
• think critically and be able to analyze and
solve complex, real-world problems;
187
 Virtual Organizing Professional Learning Communities
• find, evaluate, and use appropriate learning
resources;
• work cooperatively in teams and small
groups;
• demonstrate versatile and effective com-
munication skills, both verbal and written;
and
• use content knowledge and intellectual
skills acquired at the university to become
continual learners.
Since PBL is often designed to enable group-
based project work among small teams of students
around a set of teamwork activities, including
climate setting, starting a problem, following
up the problem, and reflecting on the problem, a
brief description of the PBL cycle of collaboration
is thereby helpful to understand its potential for
student collaboration:
The Climate Setting Phase
At the outset, before the PBL group work begins,
students must get to know one another, establish
ground rules, and help create a comfortable climate
for collaborative learning. Meeting in a small
group for the first time, students typically introduce
themselves, stressing their academic backgrounds
to allow the facilitator (instructor) and each other
to understand what expertise might potentially be
distributed in the group. The most important task
is to establish a non-judgmental climate in which
students recognize and articulate what they know
and what they do not know.
The Problem Initiation Phase
The actual PBL episode begins by presenting
a group of students with minimal information
about a particular problem. Students then query
the given materials to determine what informa-
tion is available and what they still need to know
and to learn to solve the problem. During this
phase, students typically take on specific roles.
188
An example is the scribe, who records the group’s
problem solving, including listing the facts known
about the problem, students’ ideas, additional
questions about the problem, and the learning
issues generated throughout ensuing discussion.
Such written record helps the students keep track
of their problem solving and provides a focus
for negotiation and reflection. Throughout the
problem-solving process, students are encour-
aged to pause to reflect on the data collected,
generating additional questions about that data,
and hypothesizing about the problem and about
possible solutions. Early in the PBL process, the
facilitator may question students to help them
realize what they do not understand. As students
become more experienced with the PBL method
and take on more of the responsibility for iden-
tifying learning issues, the facilitator is able to
fade this type of support, or scaffolding. After
the group has developed its initial understanding
of the problem, the students divide up and inde-
pendently research the learning issues they have
identified. The learning issues define the group’s
learning goals and help group-members work
toward a set of shared objectives. These objec-
tives can also help the facilitator to monitor the
group’s progress and to remind members when
they are getting off course, or alternately, to ask
if they need to revise their goals.
The Problem Follow-up Phase
In the problem follow-up phase, students re-
convene to share what they have learned, to
re-consider their hypotheses, or to generate new
hypotheses in light of their new learning. These
further analyses, and accompanying ideas about
solutions, allow students to apply their newly ac-
quired knowledge to the problem. Students share
what they have learned with the group as they in-
terpret the problem through the lens of their newly
accessed information. At this point, it is important
for the students to evaluate their own information
and that of the others in their group. In the PBL
Virtual Organizing Professional Learning Communities
group, information is not often accepted at face
value. Students must discuss how they acquired
their information and critique their resources.
This process is an important means of helping the
students become self-directed learners.
The Problem Reflection Phase
During post-problem reflection, students deliber-
ately reflect on the problem to abstract the lessons
learned. They consider the connections between
the current problem and previous problems, con-
sidering how this problem is similar to and different
from other problems. This reflection allows them
to make generalizations and to understand when
this knowledge can be applied. Finally, as the
students evaluate their own performance and that
of their peers, they reflect on the effectiveness of
their self-directed learning and their collaborative
problem solving.
Consequently, PBL acknowledges the possibil-
ity of prior knowledge held by the learner. Further
knowledge is acquired on a need-to-know basis,
enabling the learner to diagnose his or her own
learning needs. Knowledge gained is fed back
into the problem in an iterative loop (Margetson,
1994). PBL allows the synthesis of topics and
subjects. According to Woods (1994), one specific
advantage of this approach is increased motivation;
namely, learners learn because they are interested.
More importantly, Woods maintains that because
of the way in which knowledge is acquired in PBL,
links are provided with experience which help in
future recall. This is invaluable for students’ future
professional life (Barrows, 1986).
Supporting PBL Online
In the context of our PBL learning design elabo-
rated in the following course scenario, the basic
online support comes mainly from the MOODLE
environment (www.moodle.org) which is an
ongoing open-source development project to
support a social constructionist framework of
education. Simply stated, this style of learning
and teaching from MOODLE, short for modular
object-oriented dynamic learning environment, is
based on four main concepts (http://docs.moodle.
org/en/Philosophy):
Constructivism: The constructivist believes
that students actively construct new knowledge
as they interact with their environments, including
their course activities and other students.
Constructionism: The constructionist asserts
that students learn more when they construct learn-
ing experiences for others. We might be familiar
with the learning pyramid (http://homepages.
gold.ac.uk/polovina/learnpyramid/index.html)
which states that students remember 10% of what
they read, 20% of what they hear, 30% of what is
demonstrated to them, 50% of what they discuss,
and 75% of what they practice. That same pyramid
also states that students retain 90% of what they
teach others.
Social Constructionism: This extends con-
structionism into social settings where groups
construct knowledge for one another, collabora-
tively creating a small culture of shared artifacts
with shared meanings. When students become
part of a culture, they are constantly learning.
For example, in the context of ballroom dancing,
there is a large difference between watching a
video showing people dancing, and practicing in
a class with other students and possibly a variety
of teachers. The latter would enrich and accelerate
our learning process.
Separate and connected behavior: The context
of connected and separate behaviors come from
the study of human motivations: separate behavior
occurs when people try to remain objective and
factual, tending to defend their ideas by pinpoint-
ing holes in their opponents’ ideas. Connected
behavior is the empathic approach that accepts
subjectivity, trying to listen and ask questions in
an effort to understand others’ point of view. It
is convinced that a healthy amount of connected
behavior within a learning community is a very
powerful stimulant for learning, because it not
189
 Virtual Organizing Professional Learning Communities
only brings people closer together but promotes
deeper reflection and re-examination of their
existing beliefs.
Defining the Course Scenario of
Student-Centered Education
At each semester when SFTW 300 Software
Psychology is offered, our course scenario begins
when the instructor helps the class evolve into
its team-based organization. Typically, students
embark on the PBL cycle of learning through
organized groups of 4-6 members (one being
the team leader). Each PBL group will be given
a dual role to explore as client and as developer
within a specified period of time. Namely, each
team, acting as the developer, is to complete an
interactive systems (IS) design and prototype for
another team acting as the client. Yet, the same
team is the client of another group, responsible for
clarifying the project, and resolving ambiguities
as they arise, but in any pair of PBL teams (say,
A and B), they cannot be the client and the devel-
oper of each other at the same time. It should be
noted that an even number of teams is desirable
to facilitate pair-wise client-developer interaction.
Meanwhile, the instructor, more appropriately
called the facilitator, acts as project sponsor for
each client team, and as project supervisor for
each developer team. Each client team is handed
a design project by the sponsor. It is then given
some inception time to elaborate on the specifics
of the project. At the end of the inception period,
each client team is assigned a developer team
from among the remaining client teams. After a
developer team has been identified, the working
and performance of the developer team is guided
and monitored by the project supervisor played by
the instructor. In a typical semester, there might
easily be six to ten PBL teams of students, with each
team composed of four to six members each.
Essentially, each design project invites our PBL
student-groups to embark on a journey to develop
some IS that meets customers’ real needs in Web-
190
based development. The general requirement is
for each PBL team to create and maintain a review
Web-site to keep all team members up-to-date on
all possible aspects of the project. It is also where
the PBL team will work (report) collaboratively on
the project. Through the review Web-site, our PBL
teams can conduct reviews with their clients, who
can view their project in progress, give feedback
on a design, get in touch with the developer PBL
team, and check the project schedule. The review
Web-site contains numerous information such as:
the roles and responsibilities of the project team,
contact information for all team members, the
project mission, the vision document, the project
schedule, and all design reviews. It is designed
that the first thing our PBL teams have to learn
is a systematic approach to eliciting, organizing,
and documenting the requirements of the system
to be built for the client team. Also important is a
process that establishes and maintains continuous
agreement between the client and the developer
teams (Curtis, Krasner, & Iscoe, 1988) on the
changing requirements of the system. Individual
PBL teams have to understand users’ problems
in their culture and their language and to build
systems that meet their needs. Practically, the HCI
context for the course is designed around four
core development processes to be experienced
by our PBL student-groups within the semester’s
duration constraint.
Analyzing the Problem. This involves a set
of skills to understand the problem to be solved
before application development begins. It is the
process of understanding real-world problems and
user needs and proposing solutions to meet those
needs. We consider a problem as the difference
between things as perceived and things as derived
(Gause & Weinberg, 1989). Accordingly, if the
user perceives something as a problem, it is a real
problem, and it is worthy of addressing.
Understanding User Needs. Software teams are
rarely given effective requirements specifications
for the systems they are going to build. Often
they have to go out and get the information they
Virtual Organizing Professional Learning Communities
need to be successful. Typical methods include
interviewing and questionnaires, requirements
workshop, brainstorming and idea reduction,
storyboarding, role playing, and prototyping.
Each represents a proactive means of pushing
knowledge of user needs forward and thereby
converting fuzzy requirements to those that are
better recognized.
Defining the System. This describes the process
by which the team converts an understanding of
the problem and the users’ needs to the initial
definition of a system or application that will
address those needs. Our PBL teams should learn
that complex systems require adaptive strategies
to organize information for requirements. This
information could be expressed in terms of a
hierarchy, starting with user needs, transitioning
through feature sets, then into the more detailed
software requirements.
Managing the Project Scope. Project scope is
presented as a combination of the functionality to
be delivered to meet users’ needs, the resources
available for the project, and the time allowed in
which to achieve the implementation. The purpose
of scope management is to establish a high-level
requirements baseline for the project. The team
has to establish the rough level of effort required
for each feature of the baseline, including risk
estimation on whether implementing it will cause
an adverse impact on the schedule.
Throughout the course delivery, each PBL team
is required to present their work in progress, and
lead class forums to elicit students’ discussions.
The team leader, equivalent to project manager,
has to coordinate the team activities, and ensure
effective team communications. And team mem-
bers have to help set the project goals, accomplish
tasks assigned, meet deadlines, attend team meet-
ings and participate in editing project documents
and integrating work-products to be combined as
the final project report. At the end of each project
milestones, each member of the respective PBL
teams is required to make a presentation of his
or her project involvement, with a question and
answer session for the client team and the whole
class. The instructor, acting as the project sponsor
for each client team, and as the project supervisor
for each developer team, designs the necessary
scenario details to guide, motivate and provide
feedback to the PBL groups. Also, the instructor
has to evaluate how well students perform in the
PBL groups and how well such groups behave
as SDWTs in managing software requirements
(Conklin & Burgess-Yakemovic, 1991), and pro-
vide the necessary adjustments for the scenarios.
Typically, there are a number of milestones set for
project teams throughout the semester. In particu-
lar, there will be a milestone for all client teams to
present their systems of interest, followed by the
milestones for all developer teams to fulfill the
system design, prototyping, and final delivery. At
the completion of each milestone, each PBL team
will be assessed according to their performance,
in terms of the necessary deliverables produced,
and the presentation made by the whole team.
Records of the team’s work should also be avail-
able from the team’s review Web site for evalua-
tion purpose. There will be a group grade and an
individual grade for each member of the team.
The group grade is the same for all members,
but the individual grade is different. The group
grade is given by the instructor and by the whole
class, except for the group being evaluated. The
individual grade is given through peer evaluation
among members of the PBL team. Specifically,
a peer evaluation form is created by the group,
which is used by each member of the team to
rate every other member in the same team. The
rating is often divided into three aspects: qualita-
tive comments of the member’s work throughout
the milestone, the ranking of the member in the
group including the evaluator-member, using
the scale of 1-to-5 (5: highest performance; 1:
lowest performance), and the bonus distribution
among all the members, of a specific amount,
say, how much each member gets allocated out of
1000 dollars of bonus. In the specific instance of
client-developer pair, each developer-team should
191
 Virtual Organizing Professional Learning Communities
also be evaluated by the client-team using a more
detailed format because of the direct relationship
between the two PBL teams.
Tackling the Issues of Team-
Based Collaboration
Students engaged in the attempt to build Web-based
support for specific user situation, are reminded of
the delicate business of creating a conglomeration
of various human activity systems. This endeavor
requires the effort and commitment on the part of
everyone (client and developer) involved, as well
as a good imagination in the mind of those charged
with directing its implementation (Fisher, 2000;
Ginac, 2000). In the instance of a project team
charged with the mission of creating IS support
for group-based project work, what makes the
team work is people’s mutual understanding of
their own and others’ interests and purposes, and
the recognition that their interests are somehow
bound up in doing something to which they all
contribute. In a strict sense, it is in the course of
interaction that people’s sense of purpose and
even their contributions, come to be defined.
As collaborators in an IS team, PBL teams face
the tremendous challenge of how team members
move from being individual spokespeople to a
unified, collaborative body. In his book on group
decision-making, Kaner (1996) calls the transition
from the divergent zone of the individual to the
convergent zone of the team member the “groan
zone.” In a team, even though every member
wants to contribute to success and to get the
project going, each has a different perspective,
a different experience, or a different context to
bring to the project. Each person’s thinking is
divergent, bringing diversity to the process, but
not much agreement. Convergence occurs as the
group’s individual ideas are integrated into a
whole solution. This process of integration does
not entail compromise (Fisher, Ury, & Patton,
1991), in which every one gives up something
192
and no one is happy with the result, nor does it
mean that everyone is in complete agreement.
What convergence means is that everyone has
participated and will support the final decision.
Kaner calls this period between divergence and
convergence the groan zone because it is the time
during which team members groan and complain.
In the divergent zone, most group members voice
their opinions to make sure their ideas being heard
by the group. In the groan zone, however, an in-
dividual digs behind other people’s ideas to try
to uncover their reasons, assumptions and mental
models. Difficult problems and wrenching deci-
sions cause teams to spend time in the groan zone
because of the required interchange, sharing, and
resolution of ideas, and viewpoints. Likewise, the
groan zone is also used to describe the transition
zone in which innovative, emergent (or unexpect-
edly desirable) results are generated. Indeed, col-
laborative groups, especially those in fast-paced
environments, groan a lot. They struggle to create
the services that converge on the mission profile.
They struggle to integrate their own, and others’
diverse perspectives. Rather than focusing on
individuals in limited or problem-oriented ways,
it is here that AC should guide students through
different stages of development, including dis-
covery, dream, design, and destiny – that inspire
them to an appreciative and empowering view
of themselves and the team’s future. By an AC
model of student (or team) empowerment, the
underlying belief is the experiencing of the situ-
ation by beginning with a grounded observation
of the best of what is, articulating what might be,
ensuring the consent of those in the system to
what should be, and collectively experimenting
with what can be. This formulation, in terms of
enhancing student learning in group-based project
work, could be considered as the open source phi-
losophy behind a school’s collaborative core with
her constituents – teachers and students; namely,
the PLC seconded by the teacher-as-servant state
of mentality and practice.
Virtual Organizing Professional Learning Communities
Soothing the Growing
Pains of Team Buildup
It certainly takes time and discipline to transform
a PBL team of student members into a SDWT of
professional software practitioners. In the short
span of each SFTW300 Software Psychology
semester of about three and a half months, there
are many soft skills a PBL team needs to acquire.
The following represents a useful set of selected
concerns worthy of attention in the team buildup
process:
Process Focus: The average student has little
background in actually accomplishing process
steps within a project schedule and more often no
background in doing so in a team with the added
requirements of several milestones of prototyping
and an inflexible delivery date, as well as being
a client expected to be process-aware. During
the early stages of the class, each PBL team is
given upfront lectures on typical software devel-
opment processes, such as the dynamic systems
development method process, the open unified
process, and the extreme programming process.
The students are invited to try out a process of
their own for their development scenario and the
team coordinator is encouraged to keep the team
focused on the selected process during subsequent
project milestones. Students’ feedbacks often
indicate that their experience with the pressure
of the delivery schedule, client involvement, and
prototypes development, has taught them that the
chosen process must be flexible enough to accept
change but the balance between consistent applica-
tion of a process and responsiveness to the client
is not easy to maintain and this know-how is not
likely to be acquired through mere lectures alone.
The client experience during the semester also
demonstrates to each team the expected learning
a new college graduate in the field of software
development should encounter after graduation,
and the lessons learned through the project should
remain with them far longer than their conventional
individual examinations.
Team Dynamics: Students embarking on
SFTW300 have had one semester’s PBL style of
collaboration in SFTW241 Programming Lan-
guages Architecture (I). However, the grouping
arrangements of SFTW300 invite each newly
formed PBL group to discover whom they can
rely on, capitalizing on individual skill sets, and
finding a way to work together. Students often
tend to be mistrusting at first (still very comfort-
able with individual efforts) and become leery of
having to rely on others. The beginning lectures
then become essential occasions to conduct what
will be the first of many activities that should
promote positive group interactions. Examples of
such activities include: writing a group portfolio
expressing the profiles of individual team members
in terms of their individual technical expertise;
engaging in mental games that require the skill-
ful use of teamwork to complete or that make a
point about the distinction between individual and
group-centered learning (or working) styles. This
understanding acquired becomes instrumental
when different roles are being taken by members
of the group: one role taken up by one member,
or one role shared by two or three members, or
roles being taken by members through rotating
turns. The idea is to achieve coordination to get
the project work done through a suitable mix of
individual work, cooperating work (different tasks
done by different members so as to integrate the
pieces), and collaborating work (same portions of
work done jointly by different members).
Planning Concerns: Throughout the semester’s
work, there are several essential milestones (es-
sential due dates) that have to be met by each PBL
group. Yet, the only hard and fast date that must be
rigorously met is the final delivery. Deliverables
required of each PBL team include a concept of
operations document, a design document, a test
plan, and the final prototype comprising site ar-
chitecture, schematics, and navigation guide in the
specific context of a collaborative Web project. In
the client-developer relationship established by the
instructor, each team coordinator is permitted to
193
 Virtual Organizing Professional Learning Communities
make arguments for extension of any deliverable
due date (except for final delivery) knowing that
each extension granted added additional difficul-
ties later in the course for an on time delivery of
other documents. This procedure forced each
team to evaluate their scheduling philosophy and
to perform an informal risk assessment for the
entire project. The policy of assigning the same
project (group) grade to each member of the team
is seen as a strong motivator for each student to
take seriously the project activities. Following
the industrial model of shared responsibility (the
team fails or the team succeeds) seems to provide
a far more memorable learning experience in the
context of planning a process and maintaining a
schedule. Rigorous discussions have often been
observed over issues of planning milestones and
still leaving enough time to produce the remain-
ing deliverables with reasonable quality and
timeliness.
Establishing the Collaborative
Context of Project Support
It has been our experience in conducting SFTW
300 Software Psychology that some electronic
project-based support such as a Web portal is
needed to manage collaborative project devel-
opment. This portal should lead to a Web-based
organizational space for each project, OSProject,
which renders a number of peculiar services to
client and developers, in the form of distributed
applications customizable to their project-related
activities. In a specific project context, there must
also be a number of Web-based collaborative
spaces, CSGroup, to enable group-based project
work to be performed. For example, there is
respectively a CSGroup for each of the client PBL
team and of the developer PBL team. Besides, to
support the interactions among project members
and between the project manager (mostly played
by PBL team leader) and specific team members,
the provision of a personal electronic space for
each of the project members, PSParticipant (PSClient,
194
or PSDeveloper) is essential to facilitate individual
work. The linkages from the project space, to the
respective collaborative spaces, to the individual
personal spaces, must be closely coordinated to
support the Web-based auxiliary processes of
collaboration in project development. The chal-
lenge is to ensure that the sites should comple-
ment the project work by enabling both client
and developer teams to interact asynchronously
or synchronously through the different customi-
zable services offered. An expression for this
project-based electronic support (Vat, 2004a)
could be written as follows: <IS-Support>Project::=
OSProject + { CSGroup } + { PSParticipant }, where the
braces {} represents the repetition of the element
embedded. It is intended that the provision of the
project spaces, the collaborative spaces, and the
personal spaces in the Web portal for collabora-
tive project work could facilitate the formation
of specific sets of IS support for different human
activity systems originated from different project
scenarios (Vat, 2006a). To elaborate on the design
of collaborative IS support we hereby consider
the respective project scenarios of planned and
unplanned communication events.
The Scenarios of Planned
Communication
Planned communication events in project develop-
ment are scheduled points in time during which
participants exchange information on a specific
topic or review a work product. Such events are
often formalized and structured to maximize the
amount of information communicated and to
minimize the time participants spend on com-
munication. Typical planned communication
events (Bruegge & Dutoit, 2004) include problem
presentation, client reviews, project reviews, peer
reviews, and status reviews.
Problem Presentation: The focus here is the
presentation of the problem statement which de-
scribes the problem, the application domain, and
the desired functionality of the system. It should
Virtual Organizing Professional Learning Communities
also include some non-functional requirements
such as usability and platform specification. The
problem statement in general does not include a
complete specification of the system. It is meant
to be a preliminary requirements activity that
establishes common ground between the client
and the developer team.
Client Review: The goal of client reviews is for
the client to assess the progress of the development
and for the developer to confirm or change the
requirements of the system. The client review is
used to manage expectations on both client and
developer sides and to increase the shared under-
standing among participants. A client review is
conducted as a formal presentation during which
developers focus on specific functionality with the
client. The review is preceded by the release of a
work product, such as a specification document,
an interface mock-up, or an evaluation prototype.
At the outcome of the review, the client provides
feedback to the developers. This feedback may
consist of a general approval or a request for
detailed changes in definition, functionality or
schedule.
Project Review: The goals of a project review
are for the project manager (PBL team leader)
to assess status and for team members to review
subsystem interfaces. Project reviews can also
encourage the exchange of operational knowl-
edge across teams, such as common problems
encountered with tools or the system. A project
review is typically conducted as a formal presenta-
tion of individual developer teams during which
each team presents its subsystem to the manage-
ment (project sponsor and supervisor) or to other
teams that depend on the subsystem. The review
is usually preceded by the release of a document
describing the aspects of the system under review.
At the close of the review, the specific developer
team may negotiate changes in the interfaces and
changes in schedule.
Peer Review: The goal of peer review is to
increase the quality of a work product produced
by any designated team member. It is composed
of two steps: the walkthrough and the inspection.
During the walkthrough, a member of the devel-
oper team presents to the other members of the
same team, his or her artifact, say, the line-by-line
code, or a sequence of user-interface mock-ups.
During inspection, the other members challenge
any suspicious area and attempt to discover as
many issues as possible based on a predefined list
of criteria. Communication among participants
is artifact-based. The peer review is similar in
nature to the project review (typically involving
more than one teams), except that they differ in
their formality, their limited audience, and their
extended duration within a single team of project
members.
Status Review: The focus of status review is
the tasks distributed among team members. Status
reviews are primarily conducted within a team
(say, weekly) and aimed to detect deviations from
the task plan and to correct them. Status reviews
encourage developers to complete pending tasks.
The review of task status encourages the discussion
of open issues and unanticipated problems, and
thus encourages informal communication among
team members. Often, solutions to common issues
can be shared and operational knowledge dissemi-
nated more effectively when discussed within the
scope of a team. Increasing the effectiveness of
status reviews normally has a global impact on
the team performance.
The Scenarios of Unplanned
Communication
In an ideal project, all communication takes
place during planned communication events. In
practice, it is difficult to anticipate all information
needs and plan all communications. In general,
issues resulting from a combination of seemingly
isolated facts from different areas of the project
are difficult to anticipate because no participants
could have a global overview of all the facts.
Consequently, a project should be prepared to deal
with unexpected situations, often under pressure.
195
 Virtual Organizing Professional Learning Communities
We call the communication resulting from such
crises unplanned communication events, including
requests for clarification, requests for changes,
and issue resolution.
Request for Clarification: This request rep-
resents the bulk of the communication among
developers, clients, and users. Such requests are
largely unplanned. A participant may request for
clarification about any aspect of the system that
seems ambiguous. These requests may occur dur-
ing informal meetings, e-mails, or any other com-
munication mechanism available to the project. It
is worthy to note that if most information needs
are handled through requests for clarification,
such situations represent symptoms of a defec-
tive communication infrastructure. And the result
could lead to serious failures downstream owing
to misunderstandings and missing and misplaced
information.
Request for Change: This request represents a
channel to report any problems with the system it-
self, including its documentation, the development
process, or the project organization. Typically, a
change request contains such details as the clas-
sification (say, severe, moderate, or annoying), a
description of the problem (say, rationale, or com-
munication), a description of the desired change
(say, a proposed solution). Requests for change are
often formalized when the number of participants
and the system size is substantial.
Issue Resolution: An issue represents a con-
crete problem, such as a requirement, a design,
or a management problem. To each decision in
project work represents an issue to be solved so
that development can proceed. Alternatives are
possible solutions that could address the issue
under consideration. Criteria are desirable qualities
that the selected solution should satisfy. During re-
quirements analysis, criteria include nonfunctional
requirements and constraints such as usability.
During system design, criteria include design goals
such as reliability. During project management,
criteria include management goals and tradeoffs
such as timely delivery versus quality. A deci-
196
sion is the resolution of an issue representing the
selected alternative according to the criteria that
were used for evaluation and the justification
of the selection. Typically, it is only after much
discussion (or argumentation) that a consensus is
reached or a decision imposed, covering all aspects
of the decision process, which includes criteria,
justification, explored alternatives, and trade-
offs. Using these issue-modeling concepts in the
context of capturing project rationales in review
meetings, we often write an agenda in terms of
issues that we need to discuss and resolve. We state
the objective of the meeting (formal or informal)
to be a resolution on these issues and any related
sub-issues that are raised in the discussion. We
structure the meeting minutes in terms of proposals
that we explore during the meeting, criteria that
we agree on, and arguments we use to support or
oppose proposals. We capture decisions as resolu-
tions and action items that implement resolutions.
During subsequent meetings, we review status in
terms of the action items that we produced in the
previous meetings.
CURRENT CHALLENGES
FACING OUR WORK
From the discussion built up so far, it is not diffi-
cult to foresee that PBL is the kind of group-based
project work which has many educational and
social benefits, in particular providing students
with opportunities for active learning. However,
teaching, directing and managing such project
work is not an easy process. This is because proj-
ects are often: expensive demanding considerable
supervision and technical resources; and complex
combining design, human communication, HCI,
and technology to satisfy objectives ranging from
consolidation of technical skills through provok-
ing insight into organizational practice, teamwork
and professional issues, to inculcating academic
discipline and presentation skills. In preparing our
students to get started, familiar and comfortable
Virtual Organizing Professional Learning Communities
with group-based project work, we need some sort
of course support which goes beyond what typical
course management systems such as WebCT or
MOODLE could accommodate currently. Indeed,
the specific characteristics required of such a
blended learning environment must be carefully
delineated and thoughtfully designed with a practi-
cal continual learning scenario in order to stimulate
any learner-centered involvements. This section
discusses the challenges behind providing such
course support, through describing an effort in
virtual organizing an AKE in support of the PLC
comprising our PBL students.
Devising the Appreciative
Knowledge Environment (AKE)
Our major focus of student-centered AC lies in
the installation of an appreciative knowledge
environment (AKE) in which electronic support
for AC to enable collaborative knowledge work
among students and between teachers and students
is made available, especially in their respective
work and study settings. In particular, we can con-
sider the AKE as the creative units for knowledge
sharing for people on a number of scales. The
smallest is perhaps the environment surrounding
one individual trying to solve a problem in his or
her course assignments, or a small team or work
group, collaborating to find creative solutions in
its search for innovations, such as a PBL team
seeking innovative ways to satisfy client require-
ments. Nonetheless, if the motivation behind our
AKE were to encourage student responsibility, to
make learning meaningful, and to encourage active
knowledge construction in the specific curricula of
students’ study, the naturalistic creation of virtual
communities of student-learners in the process of
using the underlying AKE services, must be well
supported. As a knowledge-support environment,
there are many possibilities for services identifica-
tion. Currently, the challenges of how to enhance
the value of course-specific knowledge work have
rendered, at least, three main design reflections:
1) support the actual practices and daily tasks of
the participants (teachers and students); 2) collect
experiences and represent them in an accessible
and equitable manner; and 3) provide a framework
to guide the knowledge process.
Support the Actual Practices and
Daily Tasks of the Participants
The AKE environment should support the actual
practices and daily tasks of teachers by helping
them guide students’ learning process through
the creation of a visible history of student work.
For students, the AKE should support learning
practices and tasks by making the thinking of
their peers more visible and by illustrating the
process of collaborative problem solving through
both individual and group inquiry activities (say,
through the installation of various Wiki-based
applications). Moreover, from a knowledge in-
tegration perspective, the practice of teaching
and learning involves developing a repertoire of
models for explaining situations (say, in the form
of various podcasts). What type of knowledge
integration framework can best help students and
teachers in their daily practice?
Collect Experiences and
Represent them in an Accessible
and Equitable Manner
The AKE environment should collect experiences
and represent them in an accessible and equitable
manner to promote the process of connecting
ideas so that participants (students and teachers)
can use them in subsequent tasks such as during
follow-up clarification and illustration. Com-
munities, if viewed as a network of relationships
and resources, can be structured to elicit ideas,
develop shared understanding, and promote the
integration of a diverse set of perspectives. It is
important to investigate the potential of structuring
discussions in different ways based on the type of
discussion and the associated pedagogical goals.
197
 Virtual Organizing Professional Learning Communities
Linking different types of pedagogical goals to
design strategies is a challenging task because
most of the students are yet to get accustomed to
reflecting on the nature of their contributions.
Provide a Framework to Guide
the Knowledge Process
The AKE environment should encourage partici-
pants to make sense of their learning by creating a
culture where people ask each other for justifica-
tion and clarification. It is essential to investigate
how participants adjust their learning behavior
as their peers prompt them to support their ideas
with evidence. One strategy is to create some
commonly agreed upon criteria and to examine
how these criteria are adopted and transformed
by community members (mostly students) as they
interact with one another. For communities to
maintain coherence and develop a sense of what
is desirable behavior, it is important that a strong
community culture be established with a common
set of values and criteria for making contributions.
Student communities need a general framework
to help define the mission and vision for their
knowledge process.
Meeting the Virtual Organizing
Challenge for AKE
In order for knowledge sharing within an organi-
zation (SFTW300 PBL teams of students) to be
successful, it is convinced that the people involved
must be excited about the process of sharing
knowledge. Thereby, an appreciative sharing of
knowledge must be viewed as the non-threatening
and accepting approach that makes people real-
ize what they do can make a difference. One
common example is the communities of practice
(COP) (Wenger, 1998) (be it physical or online)
mentioned earlier in the context of PLC. Many
organizations today are comprised of networks of
interconnected COPs through which knowledge is
198
created, shared, organized, revised, and passed on
within and among these communities. In a deep
sense, it is by these communities that knowledge is
owned in practice. In anticipation of our students’
knowledge challenge in a real-world organization,
it is useful to conceive of an AKE based on the
context of virtual organizing described earlier, and
experiment with how the ideas of its three vectors
can be applied to nurture online the growth of dif-
ferent COPs (Wenger, 1998) (or, in our case, more
properly called communities of learning (COL)
scattered throughout an organization.
Virtual Encountering the AKE
From a nurturing perspective, it is important to
identify what COLs are desirable in the organiza-
tion, and how, if they already exist, but are not
already online, to enable them to be online in order
to provide more chances of virtual encounter of
such communities, to the organizational members.
For those communities already online, it is also
important to design opportunities of interaction
among different online communities, to activate
their knowledge sharing. Since it is an important
COP practice not to reduce knowledge to an ob-
ject, what counts as knowledge is often produced
through a process of communal involvement,
which includes all the controversies, debate and
accommodations. This collective character of
knowledge construction is best supported online
with individuals given suitable IS support to
participate and contribute their own ideas. An IS
subsystem, operated through virtual encounter,
must help achieve many of the primary tasks of
a community of learning, such as encouraging
student participation, establishing a common
baseline of knowledge and standardizing what is
well understood so that people in the community
can exercise their creative energies on the learning
issues of interest to the community’s collective
growth.
Virtual Organizing Professional Learning Communities
Virtual Sourcing the AKE
From the discussion built up in the first vector, it is
not difficult to visualize the importance of identi-
fying the specific expertise of each potential COL
in the organization (in our case, the Department
of Computer & Information Science), and if not
yet available, planning for its acquisition through
a purposeful nurture of expertise in various COLs
related to different curricula of studies. This vec-
tor focuses on creating and deploying intellectual
and intangible assets for the organization in the
form of a continuous reconfiguration of critical
capabilities assembled through different relation-
ships in the network of COLs distributed within
and across the department(s). The mission is to set
up a resource network, in which the COL is part
of a vibrant, dynamic network of complementary
capabilities. The strategic leadership challenge
is to orchestrate an organization’s position in a
dynamic network where the organization can
carefully analyze her relative dependence on other
players in the resource coalition and ensure her
unique capabilities.
Virtual Expertising the AKE
It is important to understand that not everything
we know can be codified as documents and tools.
Sharing tacit knowledge requires interaction and
informal learning processes such as storytell-
ing, conversation, coaching, and apprenticeship.
The tacit aspects of knowledge often consist of
embodied expertise – a deep understanding of
complex, interdependent elements that enable
dynamic responses to context-specific problems.
This type of knowledge is very difficult to repli-
cate. In order to leverage such knowledge, an IS
subsystem, operated through virtual expertise,
must help hooking people with related expertise
into various networks of COLs, in order to fa-
cilitate stewarding such knowledge to the rest of
the organization.
Preparing Students’ Blended
Learning in PBL Online
Today, many educational institutions across the
world have implemented electronic learning (e-
learning) environments, implying that learners and
teachers increasingly are integrating both physical
and electronic resources, tools and environments
within mainstream educational settings. Still, these
new environments are yet to have a major impact
on learning. This is partly because the blending of
real and virtual domains in teaching and learning is
challenging for most teachers; yet, it is becoming
an essential skill for effective teaching. On the one
hand, this new way of teaching and learning has
the potential to extend learning methodologies, to
open up opportunities for flexible online learning
as well as to challenge more traditional methods
of course delivery (Vat, 2009a). At the same time,
it adds a degree of complexity to educational
development and curriculum design. It is experi-
enced that the key to success is to concentrate on
not merely thinking of how to integrate different
sorts of content resources, but also on develop-
ing educational processes that blend online with
face-to-face interactions. In this regard, the idea
to support PBL online is to empower students
to learn through various Web-based materials
including text, simulations, video demonstra-
tions, and such resources as chat rooms, message
boards, wikis, podcasts, and RSS feeds that have
been purposely built for problem-based learning.
Indeed, the increasing adoption of PBL and the
growth in online support has reflected the current
shift away from teaching as a means of transmit-
ting information towards enabling learning as a
student-generated activity. PBL online is a timely
example of a blended e-learning experience for
both teachers and students. In fact, the context of
blended e-learning (Eklund, Kay, & Lynch, 2003)
offers the possibility of changing our attitudes not
only as to where and when learning takes place,
but in terms of what resources and tools can sup-
199
 Virtual Organizing Professional Learning Communities
port learning and the ways in which these might
be used. In particular, blended e-learning fosters
integration of different spaces, allowing students
to learn from university, or from home or on the
move. It can offer flexibility in the time when
learners can participate in courses, reducing or
removing restrictions arising from the balancing
of school or home commitments with study. It
opens up the range of media resources that can
be used for learning. The blend of space, time
and media offers new possibilities as to the sorts
of activities students can carry out and the ways
they can collaborate, using available electronic
tools. Literally, the integration of physical and
online spaces means that communities can form
and interact in ways that were previously unimag-
ined. It introduces the possibility of interacting
in real time (synchronously) in conjunction with
opportunities to collaborate over a period of time
(asynchronously). This in turn allows exploration
of different forms of dialogue and new types of
learning. New media resources and tools open
up possibilities for students to create their own
resource banks, integrating self-generated intel-
lectual assets with more formal materials sourced
from libraries around the world. This brings into
question some of the traditional values of edu-
cation, such as who owns, creates and controls
resources and knowledge. New types of learning
activities thereby challenge our thinking as to
how learning might be facilitated, creating new
etiquettes of learning and teaching, and shifting the
locus of control from the teacher to the learner.
Lessons Learned for a
Teacher-as-Servant
On integrating the essential context of servant-
leadership in support of implementing a PLC
through virtual organizing the vehicle of AKE for
classes of SFTW300 Software Psychology students
over the past years, it is the author’s experience
that there are three basic empowerment practices
(Vat, 2004b) which should preferably be performed
200
by the teacher-as-servant in order to apply AC to
facilitate the PBL style of student collaboration.
Meanwhile, the use of electronic portfolio (e-
portfolio) (Vat, 2009a) as an ongoing formative
assessment tool to keep track of student learning
is also found to be very promising.
The Three Practices of
Student Empowerment
Enable Students to Determine
what they need to Learn through
Questioning and Goal Setting
It is convinced that students should work to identify
their knowledge and skill deficits, and to develop
strategies in the form of personal learning goals
for meeting those deficits. Also, they should
learn to relate what they know to what they do
not know and ask questions to guide their quest
for new knowledge. The emphasis is to foster
a sense of students’ ownership in the learning
process. If teachers, through the AKE, can guide
the students in the identification of what they
already know and what they need to learn, then
knowledge gaps and mistakes can be viewed in a
positive way such as another opportunity to learn.
And students can assume more responsibility in
addressing their own learning needs during any
instructional unit.
Enable Students to Manage
their own Learning Activities
It is convinced that students should be enabled
to develop their learning plans, which should
describe priorities, instructional tactics, resources,
deadlines, roles in collaborative learning situa-
tions, and proposed learning outcomes, including
presentation and dissemination of new knowledge
and skills, if applicable. Traditionally, these in-
structional events are arranged by teachers to be
followed by students throughout a semester or
school year, in order to accomplish a specified set
Virtual Organizing Professional Learning Communities
of pre-determined learning or assessment objec-
tives. Yet, in that case, it is not advantageous for
students to learn to take the initiative. To manage
their own learning activities, students must be
guided and supported by the teacher in the AKE,
slowly taking on more and more responsibility of
their own learning.
Enable Students to Contribute
to each other’s Learning through
Collaborative Activities
It is convinced that students should be motivated
and supported in discussing and sharing informa-
tion. Particularly, we should enable students to
become co-builders of the course- or subject-
related resources through evaluating and refining
the entries their peers put into the AKE. Collab-
orative learning is quite appealing to achieve that
purpose; however, it involves not just creating a
group and then dividing up the work. Students
must be educated to recognize what they are trying
to learn in teamwork, value it, and wish to share
that value with others. Teachers must provide
this sense of accountability by structuring the
group work to include both individual and group
assessments.
The Educational Potential
of Student e-Portfolios
In order to support the frequent formative assess-
ments of students’ work in the PLC culture of
learning, it is important not to ignore the educa-
tional potential of student e-portfolios as a tool for
learning in the PLC. In fact, different portfolios
(Stefani, Mason, & Pegler, 2007; Bangert, 2004)
have been used by students at traditional universi-
ties and colleges where face-to-face teaching is
the dominant mode of instructions. For example,
course portfolios are those assembled by students
for individual courses. They document and reflect
upon the ways in which the student has met the
outcomes for that particular course. Instructor’s
endorsement is often required to authenticate
the course portfolios. Program portfolios are de-
veloped by students to document the work they
have completed, the skills they have learned,
and the outcomes they have met in an academic
department or program. The mentor or appraiser
could add comments. It could be a requirement
for graduation. Oftentimes, students might use a
selection from their program portfolio to show
to prospective employers. Whatever the primary
focus of engagement with students, the use of e-
portfolios inevitably adds a strong online element
to the teaching and learning. Institutions need to
provide electronic support and services; teachers
need access and skills to integrate the e-portfolio
application into their overall course design, and
students need a wide range of electronic abilities
in order to develop their e-portfolios. The underly-
ing pedagogy of e-portfolio use is considered the
most significant link with student learning. Our
experience has indicated that constructivism (Vat,
2009a) does seem to be the approach worthy of re-
peated experimentation. The aim of constructivist
principles as applied to e-portfolio is to engender
independent, self-reliant learners who have the
confidence and skill to use a range of strategies
to construct their own knowledge (Stacey, 1998;
Slavin, 1994). Where students are required to
develop and maintain an e-portfolio, they are usu-
ally expected to reflect on their learning, consider
how to give evidence of their learning and pos-
sibly even develop a plan (or a learning contract)
of what they would like to learn. In other words,
an e-portfolio implementation of constructivism
usually implies a considerable level of learner
autonomy and initiative, of learner responsibility
for their learning and of opportunities to refine
their learning based on feedback from the teacher
and their peers. More importantly, e-portfolio
use can be the basis for several student-centered
initiatives (Batson, 2005), including: creating a
system of tracking student work over time, in a
single course, with students and faculty reflecting
on it; having a more fully informed and constantly
201
 Virtual Organizing Professional Learning Communities
updated view of student progress in a program,
which is very helpful in formative assessment;
aggregating other students’ work in a particular
course to see how the students as a whole are
progressing toward learning goals; and assessing
other courses in similar ways that are all part of
one major and thus assessing the entire program
of study.
Remarks for Continuing Challenge
The software engineering workplace of this cen-
tury requires professionals who not only have
an extensive store of knowledge, but also know
how to keep that knowledge up-to-date, apply it
to solve problems, and function as part of a team.
This view of the software industry compels edu-
cators to rethink and reinvent the ways in which
software practitioners are prepared. In particular,
schooling must extend beyond the traditional pre-
paratory goal of establishing a knowledge base.
Schooling must actively engage our students in
opportunities for knowledge seeking, for problem
solving, and for the collaborating necessary for
effective practice. To realize such experiences,
educators have looked to the potential of PLC to
shift the focus on teaching to a focus on learning,
seconded by the constructivist pedagogical designs
that are based on the assumption that learning is a
product of both cognitive and social interactions
in problem-centered environments (Greeno, Col-
lins, & Resnick, 1996; Savery & Duffy, 1994).
The adoption of PBL in SFTW300 is an example
of such a design (Vat, 2006b), and the support of
PBL online is always a challenge of innovation
in learning design because the interrelationship
of technology and pedagogy always renders such
question as what it means to be a problem-based
learner in an online setting. In fact, there has been
much criticism in recent years about blended
learning environments that fail to create effective
settings for learning (Oliver & Herrington, 2003).
One plausible reason is due to the peculiar focus
on technological rather than pedagogical design.
202
It is suggested that there is a need to revive the
concept of learning design rather than to do a
simplistic repackaging of the course content into
blended learning formats (Mason, 1998). The idea
of blending different sorts of media and learning
tasks is not a new concept; however, blending
e-learning has an added degree of complexity
because e-learning allows the blending of differ-
ent spaces. For example, we can use electronic
learning environments within physical teaching
spaces; we can work across time zones in real time
or asynchronously. For effective blending, we need
to have a clear idea of what we want to blend and
what we might blend. To understand how to design
engaging tasks within blended e-learning, we have
to have some knowledge of why we might design
specific learning activities in particular ways. Why
is one sort of activity appropriate for one learning
situation, but not so effective in another? What
sort of student activity are we expecting to see
online and how might this differ from what we
are accustomed to? Once teachers have decided
what sort of learning activities they require, they
face a further problem.This is the question of
how to plan so that there is integration of these
activities with appropriate resources, electronic
tools and environments, using a range of teaching
methodologies. Thinking through all the pos-
sible combinations and solutions is complex and
demanding. It is experienced that students are
motivated by solving authentic problems based
on real-world activities that may be carried out
non-sequentially and iteratively. Such problems
contrast with the sequential orchestration of tasks
frequently planned in teacher-centered educa-
tion. Planning non-sequential activities is more
complex and may involve integrating a variety of
media and electronic tools across real and virtual
spaces. More importantly, blended e-learning
brings with it a new order. With effective learn-
ing design, the locus of control should shift from
the teacher to the learner. This shift, combined
with the free flow of information, requires the
development of new sorts of relationships and
Virtual Organizing Professional Learning Communities
trust. Ethical issues are of primary importance,
and institutions may need to develop or revise
strategies to reflect this fact.
CONCLUSION
To conclude this case description, I hereby render
some of my perspectives behind adopting PBL
in the teaching of SFTW300. The educational
literature warns against compartmentalized units
of study that produce students who cannot integrate
the different parts of their knowledge. Although a
fully integrated degree was beyond the scope of
discussion, many of our conventional (teacher-
centered) courses had compartments that bore
out the literature’s predictions. In effect, any new
course designed in the Software Engineering
program must be as integrated as possible, if we
want our students to bring all their knowledge to
bear on solving real-world problems in software
development. In this regard, the nurture of inde-
pendence and collaboration becomes important.
Indeed, our conventional courses have been
widely criticized for stifling students’ initiative
in learning. Yet, through PBL, we offer an ap-
proach to learning where curricula are designed
with problem scenarios central to student learning
in each curricular component. Students working
in small teams examine a problem situation and,
through this exploration, are expected to locate the
gaps in their own knowledge and skills in order to
decide what information they need to acquire in
order to resolve or manage the situation. Lectures,
seminars, workshops or laboratories support the
inquiry process rather than transmit subject-based
knowledge. The starting point should be a set of
problem scenarios regardless of whether a mod-
ule or a whole program is being designed. The
scenarios enable students to become indepen-
dent inquirers and help them to see learning and
knowledge as flexible entities. Students should
discover they can learn by themselves, using a
range of resources. They are aided in learning to
do this by the PBL cycle of collaboration, which
develop in them their social and mega-cognitive
skills. Consequently, students’ critical thinking
and problem-solving abilities are sharpened.
These are crucial to effective project (software)
development, especially at the higher levels of
analysis and design.
In the specific case of SFTW300, students have
to go through the process of understanding, de-
signing, implementing and evaluating interactive
computer systems to match the needs of client.
This is a teamwork development exercise requir-
ing students to work in groups. This is important
to prepare their future careers; nonetheless, fresh
graduates today are expected to have the ability
and experience to perform effectively in group-
based project work. SFTW300 supports groups
by identifying specific roles for group members,
providing class time and guidelines on group
management, monitoring group planning and
progress, and conducting formative assessments
for group management and reflection on group
processes. Students working in a group naturally
learn to communicate with one another, which
is another goal highly valued by the software
industry. In particular, at the end of each problem,
PBL students need to turn in a report and to give
a presentation, during which each student must
demonstrate his or her work with justification,
followed by a session on question and answer. All
these require the students to have good command
of communications skills. Overall, PBL fosters
in our PLC of SFTW300 students such generic
skills as group work, planning, problem-solving,
independent learning, research skills, writing, and
oral presentation. These are university goals and
also highly valued by employers in the computing
industry. What is needed to support the continual
nurture of such PLCs is to realize the generative
potential of the engine of servant-leadership in
sustaining the concomitant application of ap-
preciative coaching (AC) to help our students to
tap into or rediscover their own sense of wonder
about their future possibilities.
203
 Virtual Organizing Professional Learning Communities
REFERENCES
Amador, J. A., Miles, L., & Peters, C. B. (2006).
The practice of problem-based learning: A guide
to implementing PBL in the college classroom.
Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
Bangert, A. (2004). The seven principles of good
practice: A framework for evaluating online teach-
ing. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(3),
217–232. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.06.003
Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-
based learning methods. Medical Education,
20(6), 481–486. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.1986.
tb01386.x
Batson, T. (2005). The electronic portfolio boom:
What’s it all about? Retrieved March 10, 2009,
from http://www.campustechnology.com/article.
asp?id=6984
Beazley, H., Beggs, J., & Spears, L. C. (Eds.).
(2003). The servant-leader within: A transforma-
tive path. New York: Paulist Press.
Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (1997). The challenge of
problem-based learning. London: Kogan Page.
Boyer, E. L. (1998). Boyer commission on educat-
ing undergraduates in the research university for
the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement
of Teaching. Retrieved December 9, 2008, from
http://naples.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf
Bruegge, B., & Dutoit, A. H. (2004). Obejct-orient-
ed software engineering using UML, patterns, and
Java. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Byrne, J. A., Brandt, R., & Port, O. (1993, Febru-
ary 8). The virtual corporation. Business Week,
36–41.
Carroll, J. M. (2000). Making use: Scenario-
based design of human-computer interactions.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
204
Clinton, W. (2007, May 7). Middlebury Col-
lege graduation address. Retrieved Decem-
ber 8, 2008, from http://www.middlebury.
edu/about/newsevents/ archive/2007/newsev-
ents_633158738134202567.htm
Conklin, J., & Burgess-Yakemovic, K. C. (1991).
A process-oriented approach to design rationale.
Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 357–391.
doi:10.1207/s15327051hci0603&4_6
Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2005). Appre-
ciative inquiry: A positive revolution in change.
San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Curtis, B., Krasner, H., & Iscoe, N. (1988). A field
study of the software design process for large
systems. Communications of the ACM, 31(11),
1268–1287. doi:10.1145/50087.50089
Davidow, W. H., & Malone, M. S. (1992). The
virtual corporation – structuring and revitalizing
the corporation for the 21st century. New York:
HarperCollins.
Dufour, R., Dufour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revis-
iting professional learning communities at work:
New insights for improving schools. Bloomington,
IN: Solution Tree.
Dufour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional
learning communities at work: Best practices for
enhancing student achievement. Bloomington,
IN: Solution Tree.
Eklund, J., Kay, M., & Lynch, H. (2003). E-
learning: Emerging issues and key trends. Re-
trieved March 3, 2009, from http://knowledgetree.
flexiblelearning.net.au/edition04/pdf/critique_ek-
lund_kay.pdf
Fisher, K. (2000). Leading self-directed work
teams: A guide to developing new team leadership
skills. New York: McGraw Hill.
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting
to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in.
UK: Penguin Books.
Virtual Organizing Professional Learning Communities
Gause, D., & Weinberg, G. (1989). Exploring
requirements: Quality before design. New York:
Dorset House Publishing.
Ginac, F. O. (2000). Creating high performance
software development teams. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Greening, T. (2000). Emerging constructivist
forces in computer science education: Shaping
a new future? In T. Greening (Ed.), Computer
science education in the 21st century (pp. 47-80).
New York: Springer.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A
journey into the nature of legitimate power and
greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L.
(1996). Cognition and learning. In R.G. Calfee, &
D. C. Berliner (Eds.), Handbook of Educational
Psychology (pp. 15-46). New York: Simon &
Schuster Macmillan.
Hedberg, B., Dahlgren, G., Hansson, J., & Olve,
N. (1997). Virtual organizations and beyond:
Discover imaginary systems. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Jagers, H., Jansen, W., & Steenbakkers, W. (1998).
Characteristics of virtual organizations. Retrieved
March 3, 2009, from http://primavera.fee.uva.nl/
PDFdocs/98-02.pdf
Kaner, S. (1996). Facilitator’s guide to partici-
patory decision-making. Philadelphia, PA: New
Society Publishers.
Margetson, D. (1994). Current educational reform
and the significance of problem-based learning.
Studies in Higher Education, 19, 5–19. doi:10.1
080/03075079412331382103
Mason, R. (1998). Models of online courses. ALN
Magazine, 2(2). Retrieved February 4, 2009, from
http://www.aln.org/publications/magazine/v2n2/
mason.asp
Oliver, R., & Herrington, J. (2003). Exploring
technology-mediated learning from a pedagogi-
cal perspective. Journal of Interactive Learning
Environments, 11(2), 111–126. doi:10.1076/
ilee.11.2.111.14136
Orem, S. L., Binkert, J., & Clancy, A. L. (2007).
Appreciative coaching: A positive process for
change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ryan, G. (1993). Student perceptions about
self-directed learning in a professional course
implementing problem-based learning. Studies
in Higher Education, 18, 53–63. doi:10.1080/03
075079312331382458
Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1994). Problem-
based learning: An instructional model and its
constructivist framework. Educational Technol-
ogy, 35(5), 31–38.
Sergiovanni, T. (2005). Strengthening the heart-
beat: Leading and learning together in schools.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Slavin, R. (1994). Student teams and achievement
divisions. In S. Sharon (Ed.), Handbook of coop-
erative learning methods (pp. 3-19). Westport,
CT: Greenwoeed Press.
Stacey, E. (1998). Learning collaboratively in a
CMC environment. In G. Davies (Ed.), Teleteach-
ing 98: Distance learning, training, and education
(pp. 951-960). Proceedings of the XV IFIP World
Computer Congres, Vienna and Budapest.
Stefani, L., Mason, R., & Pegler, C. (2007). The
educational potential of e-portfolios: Supporting
personal development and reflective learning.
New York: Routledge.
Vat, K. H. (2001, June 25-27). Teaching HCI
with scenario-based design: The constructivist’s
synthesis. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual ACM
Conference on Innovation and Technology in
Computer Science Education (pp. 9-12), Can-
terbury, UK.
205
 Virtual Organizing Professional Learning Communities
Vat, K. H. (2004a, February 27-28). Towards a
learning organization model for PBL: A virtual
organizing scenario of knowledge synthesis. In
CD-Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Confer-
ence of the Southern Association for Information
Systems, Savannah, Georgia, USA.
Vat, K. H. (2004b, December 15-17). Toward a
learning organization model for student empow-
erment: A teacher-designer’s experience as a
coach by the side. Proceedings of the 2004 IADIS
International Conference on Cognition and Ex-
ploratory Learning in Digital Age (pp.131-140),
Lisbon, Portugal.
Vat, K. H. (2006a). Conceiving scenario-based IS
support for knowledge synthesis: The organization
architect’s design challenge in systems thinking.
Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics,
3(3). Retrieved March 3, 2009, from http://www.
iiisci.org/Journal/CV$/sci/pdfs/P222366.pdf
Vat, K. H. (2006b). Developing a learning orga-
nization model for problem-based learning: The
emergent lesson of education from the IT trenches.
Journal of Cases on Information Technology,
8(2), 82–109.
206
Vat, K. H. (2009a). An e-portfolio scheme of
flexible online learning. In P. L. Rogers, G. A.
Berg, J. Boettcher, C. Howard, L. Justice, & K.
Schenk (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance learning
(pp. 941-949). Hershey, PA: Information Science
Reference.
Vat, K. H. (2009b). Developing REALSpace: Dis-
course on a student-centered creative knowledge
environment for virtual communities of learning.
International Journal of Virtual Communities and
Social Networking, 1(1), 43–74.
Venkatraman, N., & Henderson, J. C. (1998). Real
strategies for virtual organizing. Sloan Manage-
ment Review, 40(1), 33–48.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice:
Learning, meaning, and identity. New, York:
Cambridge University Press.
Woods, D. (1994). How to gain the most from
problem-based learning. McMaster, Canada:
McMaster University.
B: Courses
208

Chapter 12
Bothering with Technology:
Building Community in an Honors Seminar
John J. Doherty
Northern Arizona University, USA

ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses the role that technology can play in a first-year Honors seminar. For the purposes
of the chapter, blended learning is defined as re-tasking face-to-face time or out of class time to build
community and meet course objectives more effectively. The challenge in an Honors seminar, however,
is to apply this when technology is not considered a viable solution to potential course challenges. The
chapter presents four strategies to build community through interaction and engagement: (1) icebreakers
can be moved online to build more student interaction; (2) online journals can facilitate better engage-
ment with the course and the texts; (3) documents can be delivered online to model good practice and
promote sustainability; and (4) quizzes can be used to develop metacognitive skills outside of class.
Technology, it is concluded, allows instructors to explore effective and engaging mediated instruction
in multiple formats.

INTRODUCTION provide the Honors instructor and student. However,

The inherent emphasis of any Honors program in
the United States is a face-to-face interaction be-
tween faculty and students (NCHC, n. d.). Many
Honors programs or colleges across the nation see
this as essential to any Honors experience for their
students. It is an emphasis in need of re-examination
when one considers the benefits that technology can
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-880-2.ch012
it is also an emphasis ingrained in Honors, which
reflects a bias in education generally that assumes
online education is somehow less rigorous than
face-to-face traditional instruction.
Technology in higher education has become more
of a given than an exception—especially as instruc-
tors try to leverage student interest in technology
to engage them in learning. There has also been a
concomitant rise in research discussing the ways in
which instructors can leverage these technologies

Copyright © 2010, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Bothering with Technology
to better engage their users in learning. Moore et
al. (2008), for example, refer to what they term
as “new learning” which is student-centered and
technologically enriched.
In saying this, it does need to be emphasized
that students are not homogeneous. Thus, while I
will argue in this chapter that engaging students and
Honors students in particular, with technology is a
must in contemporary higher education, it should
be remembered that there needs to be support built
into the learning of and use of technology.
This chapter will review the author’s uses of
technology to enrich the learning experiences of
students in a first year Honors course in critical
reading and writing. I will show through an ex-
amination of this case that Honors instructors can
use technology in order to engage their learners in
the work of a busy course. As the 2003 National
Learning Initiative Annual Review notes:
Technologies ... enable learners and teachers to
enhance their learning and to learn different things
in different ways. Technologies make it possible for
us to envisage different strategies that help learn-
ers learn and to organize learning experiences that
address areas likely to be difficult to master. This
is why we bother with technologies: they have the
potential to expand choices about how we teach
and learn. (Educause, 2003, p.10)
As an aside, I would like to distinguish between
face-to-face, Web-enhanced, blended, and fully
online instruction. The first and last of these terms
are generally obvious: the first is a class where
instruction occurs in the classroom and through
activities such as reading and homework outside
of class; the last is a course that is delivered com-
pletely online, where the students never formally
meet face-to-face. The other two terms are not so
obviously dissimilar. Both refer to instruction that
falls somewhere in between the first and last terms.
However, for the purposes of this chapter I define
Web-enhanced as instruction that makes use of
Web resources or a course management system
to deliver support and perhaps activities without
replacing face-to-face time. Blended instruction
takes on a slightly less more accepted definition of
using online resources and experiences to actually
re-task (rather than formally replace) face-to-face
time. Indeed, I would argue that such a definition
also allows us to consider blended learning where
homework or out of class activities can also be
re-tasked to accomplish course objectives that
might traditionally be placed in class.
In this chapter, the strategies to be discussed
fall into these latter two categories. I have replaced
instruction time in class with online activities to
build community. Below I discuss the use of the
Blackboard Vista discussion tool to replace in
class icebreakers. I also use the discussion tool’s
journal feature to create more engagement with
the texts and the teacher. In many instances these
also replace some preliminary discussions in class.
I was also able to replace activities such as the
“syllabus dump” that can overwhelm students on
day one of the class. Rather, I use Vista to quiz
students on the syllabus, asking them to read it
outside of class. The quiz tool can also be used
to build metacognitive skills, and I describe an
example of that in writing instruction. Finally, for
Web enhanced, I share how a course management
system can be used to not only deliver documents,
but to build on that ideal to make a course more
student centric through enhancing turnaround
times on graded assignments.
BACKGROUND
Hays (2004) suggests that case study and eth-
nographic research methods are similar, except
that the latter asks broader questions, is more
culturally focused, and can involve more time
in the field. Yin (2003) shows that the former
gets at the rich data of ethnography through
multiple methods, including the examination of
documents and reports, interviews, observations,
and quantitative methods such as surveys. This
209

chapter is an amalgam of both, in part predicated
by the fact that what is here described is based
on my own practice. I have argued elsewhere that
case studies can represent the researcher more
than the case (Doherty, 2008, p. 33). Thus, it is
important to reiterate here that what is described
below is part of my own practice. Where quoted,
information from the students has been edited
only to maintain confidentiality; I have obtained
release to use all such quotes or I am drawing on
anonymous surveys or end of semester evalua-
tions. All references to the institution where the
program is taught are also deliberately vague in
order to maintain confidentiality.1
The framework for my argument is student
centered learning, which should be at the core of
any learning experience, and certainly that of an
Honors experience. There have been many buzz
terms doing the rounds of higher education forums,
such as learner or learning centered, that seek to
reinforce the constructivist belief that the student
belongs at the center of any learning experience.
All further refine these terms to focus on life-long
learning skills, emphasizing both the student and
learning together at the core of the higher education
mission—which is why I prefer the term student-
centered as it is rhetorically putting the student
first by placing the instructor in a facilitation role
that acknowledges the diverse learning needs
and skills of students (for a technology-based
examination of this term, see Motschnig-Pitrik
& Holzinger, 2002).
The Honors program in which I have taught
since 2004 draws upon William Cronon’s “Only
Connect” as a core document in its introductory
seminars to explain just this idea to the students.
Cronon seeks to redefine the term liberal educa-
tion by fronting the program-based definition that
many students experience—for example, at this
institution liberal education is in part seen as a
35-credit hour requirement of all undergraduate
students, and these credits are met from a cafeteria
of courses, required and elective. For Cronon,
however, a liberal education has a much more
210
Bothering with Technology
humanist focus; he provides a list of ten qualities
of a liberally education person that can lead to this
goal, such as the ability to read and understand,
listen and hear, write clearly and movingly, and
be able to talk to anyone (Cronon, 1998). By us-
ing this document as a guiding philosophy for the
program, it suggests that an overall goal is one of
creating intentional learners, as well as lifelong
learners that have a deep understanding of the
human condition.
Honors at my institution are part of a program,
not a college. As of writing, it was staffed by a
faculty Director, Associate Director, two Instruc-
tors, two staff specialists, and a varying number of
part time instructors and student peer mentors and
staff. 2 The program has about 550 students in total,
a fraction of the overall university population of
22,000 undergraduate and graduate students. The
university, with a Carnegie ranking as a Doctoral I
institution, has about 6,000 of the total population
in distributed learning programs.
The Honors program, however, is campus
based. In my years of teaching all students have
been traditional college age first years, mostly
graduates of high school advanced placement or
Honors programs, and in the throes of dealing
with typical first year experience and college
transition issues. For the first time, this last
semester (Fall 2008) I had one sophomore. The
program works as a liberal studies replacement,
with students expected to take up to 21 Honors
hours minimum. The remainder of their liberal
studies hours can be elected at Honors or regular
undergraduate levels. The university thus pro-
vides many cross-listed courses or courses with
a designated Honors component that can meet a
student’s Honors requirement.
CASE DESCRIPTION
As one of the part-time instructors, I teach one of
two required courses in the program—first year
courses that are considered replacement for the uni-
Bothering with Technology
versity writing requirement. This course, always
offered in the fall semester, has worked for years
from a relatively standard syllabus (see Appendix
A), across 8-10 sections of about 15 students per
section. In my four years I have taught sections
with 12, 15, 18, and 17 students. The syllabus
has opened up more recently to allow instructors
a greater variety in choosing texts, but we are
essentially asked to choose texts and films that
cover a broad chronological range. The intent of
the range is to give students an historical context
of the reading materials, to make connections
between past and present, and to understand the
thematic, conceptual, literary, historical, cultural,
and philosophical roots of their reading materials.
Students are expected to read an average of 30-60
pages per class period. More details are available
in Appendix A.
The majority of the grade assigned in the
class is based on student writing, so there is also
a requirement to include a writing text and to
devote a significant amount of course time (I
use this phrase deliberately here as opposed to
“class” time) to writing and writing instruction.
These assignments include three formal papers,
each of 5-7 pages in length; 13 informal writing
assignments (i.e. non-graded writing practices)
that can be up to 2 pages in length; an annotated
bibliography; and a self-assessment piece that
introduces a portfolio of student writing at the
conclusion of the course.
From a requirement perspective, this is a very
intense course, and many students over the years
have expressed their outright fear after perusing
the syllabus. For example, one student wrote:
“When I first entered the room for this rigorous
Honors course, I was scared. I was not sure of
what was expected of me.”
Therefore, an emerging challenge in this course
was to make it more student-centered and less
assignment focused—a major challenge consider-
ing the grade-driven approach of these students.
I used “Seven principles for good practice in un-
dergraduate education” (Chickering & Gamson,
1987) as a guiding document in implementing this
philosophy. Chickering and Gamson share guide-
lines that could significantly impact how students
learn and how faculty communicates with their
students and each other in support of learning. This
interaction has been a part of educational literature
and theory for a very long time (see, for example,
Moore, 1989; Schwab et al., 1978) has applied
these specifically to online learning, where he
focuses on the interactions between learners and
learners, learners and instructors, and learners and
content. Gunawardena and McIsaac (2003) later
added the milieu of Schwab et al. (1978) to this
model as learner to technology interactions.
It is, therefore, through a focus on interaction
that technology can be used as a tool to support
and, I would argue, help us re-think our pedagogy
when it comes to face-to-face learning. Garrison
and Anderson (2003) note that technology can
support and even somewhat enhance traditional
practices such as the lecture; however, they sug-
gest technology also can take us back to the future,
to a learning theory framed on communities on
inquiry, or, as they note, a “community where
individual experiences and ideas are recognized
and discussed in light of societal knowledge,
norms, and values” (p. 4).
CURRENT CHALLENGES
Such a community is very difficult to create. One
of my own goals in teaching first year classes
is to introduce the complexity and variety of a
university experience. Through that I can also
open up the opportunities presented by a liberal
education, especially in the light of Cronon’s
humanistic definition of liberal education as a
place to begin making connections. Such a goal,
however, requires a group of students to make
those connections amongst themselves and with
their texts. And it places the onus on the instructor
211

to sometimes make situations strange or uncom-
fortable. But doing this necessitates a classroom
of trusting students.
I have tried a variety of ways to build such
communities. As a university, we had made the
decision to deliver all electronic readings through
our course management system (initially WebCT
Vista, then Blackboard Vista) a few years ago
(from the Honors Program Self Study, Appendix
E, Library Support). This necessitated the need
for all courses to have a Vista shell each time they
are delivered. In other words, even though my
class was a face-to-face class, I still had access
to Vista—and, indeed, needed my students to
access Vista in order to get some of my supple-
mental readings. That opened up opportunities
to do more with Vista, such as delivering paper
prompts, the syllabus, handouts, and other ac-
tivities such as those documented above. But it
also suggested ways in which I could rethink my
pedagogy through enhancing my face-to-face
time, and even, at times, re-tasking some face-
to-face activities to Vista—thus freeing up my in
class time to focus on areas I felt more in need of
face-to-face time.
I describe here some strategies that I’ve used
in my Honors seminar that have at their core a
student-centered use of technology to blend or
enhance my face-to-face instruction. This study
is necessarily descriptive in focus. I have tried to
connect what I have been learning from imple-
menting some of the strategies here presented with
what is being discussed in educational literature.
What is evidenced here may not necessarily
be generalizable to another course or program,
even in an Honors program similar to the one
here described. In saying this, however, the four
strategies I have outlined here are, I think, very
effective ways to interact with students through
the use of technology.
212
Bothering with Technology
Strategy One: Icebreakers
Icebreakers are important to the establishment of
the learning community and climate (Knowles,
1980). I have used in class icebreakers during
my first few sessions, but I have had resistance
to that when it becomes the umpteenth icebreaker
students have experienced. It is interesting to note
that when I initially began my teaching in Honors
I had the first class of the program at 9 AM on a
Monday morning. For a majority of my students,
this was also their first university course. But for
all students (over the course of three semesters) it
was their third or fourth icebreaker of the weekend.
They had gone through these activities in various
orientations, and by that point had developed a
cynical attitude towards them. Such an attitude
was a barrier to the development of the community
necessary for success in this class and program.
Technology, however, can help here. The
purpose of an icebreaker is to begin to build a
community of learners. However, does it need to
happen in the first class, and if so, should it only
happen in the first class? A community cannot
form in one day, never mind one 50 or 75 minute
class. Conrad and Donaldson (2004) note four
phases of engagement in online learners that are
equally applicable to the traditional classroom:
the newcomer, the cooperator, the collaborator,
and the initiator or partner (p. 11). Essential to
this is the newcomer, which they argue takes at
least two weeks to negotiate through, with the
instructor acting as the social negotiator.
One activity that I adapted from Conrad and
Donaldson involved moving the icebreaker to
Blackboard Vista, the course management system
that I was using to deliver documents and have
students deliver documents to me. Following some
brief peer led introductions during our first meeting
I assigned students a Name That Movie activity in
a Vista based discussion (see Appendix B).
Bothering with Technology
The discussion tool we used was in the Black-
board Vista course management system, which
can allow for threaded discussions, blogs, and
journals. For this discussion I used the threaded
tool, in part to also introduce the tool to the stu-
dents. Also, this assignment was not graded, yet
still received such phenomenal interactions. It
generated 307 messages from a class that initially
had 18 students (one later dropped out) over the
course of 5 days, between our Thursday meeting
and our next meeting on the Tuesday following.
My only adaptation to this activity was to have
the students come to class to discuss their final
responses. Walking into the Tuesday class after
this activity was a different experience from the
week before—I had a very noisy room, students
visiting with their neighbors, discussing their
movie titles and music tastes.
Strategy Two: Journals
Almost immediately following, we entered into our
first major writing assignment, a critical reading
of Ishmael Beah’s A Long Way Gone: Memoirs
of a Boy Soldier—chosen as a part of our campus
summer reading program, and seen by many of
our faculty and staff as somewhat controversial
due to its violence and general subject matter. I
decided to begin our class discussions online—but
considering the controversial nature of the book I
also wanted to make this interaction between me
at each individual student. For this reason, I used
the journal feature.
Appendix C-1 is a copy of a section of my
syllabus introducing the online journal and ex-
plaining its purpose. As can be seen from this,
the journal was an integral part of my strategy to
engage students in the texts and in class activities.
All were asked to post one question to the journal
about their text, and to try to write an answer
too. With A Long Way Gone, for example, one
student wrote:
Subject: A Long Way Gone Date: September 3,
2008 1:57 PM
I guess the thing that surprised me the most in “a
long way gone” was when they brought all those
boys to the recovery center thing, they continued
to fight each other. I would have thought that the
war and the fighting was something they were
trying to escape but it seems that it was part of
their life for so long that it became ingrained in
their nature.
I guess I sort of lost a little hope for the human
race when I read that because how are we sup-
posed to stop wars if the people in them just accept
it as a way of life.
This then led to the following interaction in the
journal between the same student and myself:
Author: Doherty, John Joseph Date: September
4, 2008 9:05 AM
Or, what if it becomes so ingrained that we cannot
escape it without help. We hear a lot today about
the PTSD our troops suffer from when they return
from the war zone -- we are better able to recognize
this today, but I’d argue all returning troops have
that problem -- even our WWII grandparents and
great-grandparents.
As adults we perhaps have a little more ability to
control this -- though even then we still need a lot
of help. What about children?
Author: STUDENT Date: September 4, 2008
1:50 PM
213

I don’t think anything can erase memories of what
happened to someone. Eventually they just become
a part of who they are. It’s a big problem and I
can’t really thing of a solution other than stopping
wars all together which is probably impossible.
This particular student chose to examine the
idea of societies disintegrating in a paper he later
wrote about this book—clearly influenced by
his reading of this text. He also shared in class
some interesting reactions to hearing Beah speak
when he visited our campus a few weeks after
this interaction.
Technology here, I think, changes the peda-
gogical use of a journal. Journals are relatively
typical in humanities and education classes, and are
especially good at promoting self-reflection. Mills
(2008), for example, documents that journaling
as a pedagogical tool came from out of English in
the 1980s. However, she also notes that students
can tend to view journaling as busy work. Draw-
ing on the Kiersey Temperament Model (cited in
Mills, 2008), she suggests a number of strategies to
overcome this, including allowing for expediency/
cleverness and focusing on immediate needs and
issues. For the former, I would also add that one
should allow for creativity—one of my students
recently complained about the restrictiveness of
the college paper structure. I opened up the journal
to allow him an outlet for his more creative ten-
dencies. This led to an increased effort in trying to
use his perceived creative strengths work within
the confines of the academic journal.
My online journal was a little more structured
than most (see Appendix C-1). Doing it online,
however, allowed me to browse it more frequently,
and to keep an eye on the students’ progress in
the course. Indeed, sometimes reading the journal
entries on a Monday evening would suggest ways
I would have to change class on Tuesday to deal
with emerging misunderstandings. Also, I was
able to read and interact with the students’ jour-
nals without having to remove the journal from
214
Bothering with Technology
them—such as if they had been keeping a physical
journal that they would have to submit.
Students were also required to do two reflective
writings that drew on their journal content, one at
mid-semester and one at the end. Both were the
same assignment, except the end of semester one
was cumulative for the entire semester. The end of
semester prompt for this assignment is presented
in Appendix C-2. Students averaged a posting a
week in their journals, which is confirmed by my
doing a similar assignment in the previous year
and by an evaluation survey conducted by another
instructor also using the Journal feature. In this
latter survey, students suggested they tended to
access their journal once a week (see Appendix
D). In saying this, however, in my most recent
(Fall 2008) class, 7 students were averaging more
than two entries per week. Indeed, for quite a few
of these students the journal replaced email and
in class questions as the primary mode of contact
between me and them.
All initially resisted the journals—as suggested
by Mills (2008) they saw the journals as busy
work. However, by the end of the semester, and
the aforementioned reflective writing prompt,
the value of the journal was universally acknowl-
edged, even by students who had not completed as
much of the work as others. These latter students
actually expressed regret in not using the journal
more, as they had heard anecdotally from their
peers that the journals became an effective place
to document their ongoing development as critical
readers and writers.
Strategy Three: Documents
Management
Using these tools effectively requires the instructor
to model the value of using the tools to the students.
I would argue that this could also build in some
of the learner support mentioned briefly above. It
is important to introduce the tools noted here in a
low stakes manner—for example, if students are
going to be required to make extensive use of the
Bothering with Technology
discussion tool then the icebreaker activity could
be built to also introduce the discussion tool.
A major goal of our university is sustainability.
Also, this generation of students has a very strong
sense of the value of sustainable activities. It was
a comment on a previous end of term evaluation
that suggested to me ways in which I could use
the course management system and other tools to
improve my own use of paper—and coincidentally
save the program some printing costs.
I decided to make all my papers due in Vista,
not in class. This meant fewer actual pieces of
paper—though it did require me to become more
comfortable grading writing assignments online,
using the MS Word Track Changes feature. As
an aside, I also had to learn how to create PDF
documents in order to create versions of the paper
to return to the students in a way that required
them to read my comments and edits rather than
just accepting the changes in Word. There are
also other ways to do this, such as using a Tablet
PC in order to write margin comments, but I fast
became comfortable in doing it the Word way.
And, importantly for the students, even I have a
hard time deciphering my own handwriting (see
Bridge & Appleyard, 2008, p. 648).
This also allowed me to explore the option
of making papers due closer to the time when I
would be actually grading them, thus closing the
feedback loop by getting my graded versions back
to students when the work was still relatively fresh
in their minds. My class would run from 2.20 to
3.35 PM on Tuesdays and Thursdays. However,
I usually would get to my grading on Saturday
mornings. Therefore, instead of the papers sitting
on my desk for two days or more, I made them
due on Vista at 9 AM on Saturday, usually about
an hour before I was to grade them. I could then
return them before class on the following Tuesday,
and students soon learned to look over my graded
comments and to come prepared to discuss some
of the writing issues I was noticing. Indeed, they
came to prefer the online feedback, especially as
they saw it happening much faster than in other
classes with more traditional paper submissions
and returns.
Strategy Four: Quizzes
I also used the course management tool to deliver
the syllabus. For much of the same reasons as I
spoke of above when speaking of icebreakers, I
do not cover the syllabus on the first day of class.
Rather, students are expected to read it online and
then complete an online quiz that addresses the
essential issues I would normally have addressed.
Also, by introducing the quiz tool in a low stakes
but essential assignment such as this, I had the
added bonus of building student comfort with
the tool and was therefore able to use it more
frequently. This might on first blush seem a little
strange in an Honors writing course.
However, using the quiz tool allowed me to
push some of my writing instruction from in class
to online. I was using a writing text that had a good
test bank supporting it. The publisher allowed me
to download a Vista compatible set of questions
covering some of the major issues the text itself
explicates. In each of my major assignments I
had the students focus on particular components
of the writing process. For example, in their first
formal assignment the most significant portion
of the grade was in their thesis and introductions,
typically an area in need of work with first year
students. Students were therefore required to do
these readings in complement to classroom activi-
ties, and then to take the online quiz. The quiz
was not worth any points in the final grade, but
success on the quiz did mean that students would
then get access to the Assignment Drop Box for
the paper they were writing (see a sample of this
quiz in Appendix E).
In other words, until the students completed
the quiz to 90% satisfaction they would not be
able to submit their paper (worth a significant
amount of points). Students were allowed two
tries, and if on the second they were still having
issues, there would be an intervention by myself
215

or one of my upper-class peer mentors, where we
could work on that writing issue and then manually
release the Assignment Drop Box. A metacogni-
tive component to this—adapted from the work
of Lovett (2008)—was also added, where students
had to complete a journal entry with the paper that
discussed their process in completing the paper,
what they learned from the text, handouts and
quiz, and how they applied those lessons to their
paper. A follow up entry would follow, where the
students would review my grade and make a plan
for their next formal paper.
CONCLUSION
These strategies are examples of where technol-
ogy can help with interaction and engagement in
a very busy seminar. The essential point here is
that they need to be predicated on the idea of a
community of inquiry. This class was so success-
ful in building community that their engagement
became intrinsic to their motivation to attend
class. By the end of the semester one student had
dropped out due to circumstances beyond her
control. Of the remaining 17, not one was absent
for the entire semester.
So, why bother with technology? The four
strategies outlined here were designed to refocus
the course on the students. Therefore, it is fair to
hear from the students, via an end of semester
evaluation. Students were asked to rate how ef-
fectively their class time was used. Of 15 respon-
dents (out of 17 in the class), 67% rated it at least
Mostly or Always. In regards to interaction, 80%
rated participation from the class and instructor
at Mostly or Always encouraged. In saying this,
some noted in open comments that the documents
management though the course management sys-
tem was a hindrance. An equal number reported
that using the system was effective.
I have given relatively short shrift to the need
for student support in the use of technology. There
is a basic assumption that first year students are
216
Bothering with Technology
technologically savvy. However, my students
were not prepared to use Blackboard Vista and
needed some scaffolding to build their comfort
level in it. That needs to be a part of my practice
in future iterations of this course. In saying that,
however, I saw a great deal of student engage-
ment. I have already noted that I did not register
one absence the entire Fall 2008 semester. I only
really became aware of this record about 8 or 9
weeks into the course—when students have usu-
ally discovered the absence policy in the syllabus
(see Appendix A) and begin to take advantage of
it. I suspect that students saw their in class time
as being more effectively used, and that the out
of class online activities, such as the Journal,
prepared them well for what we did in class. In
some ways, I feel that they started to become more
intentional learners.
The overwhelming response to the icebreaker
activity was certainly something that proved in-
valuable to both the in class discussion of Cronon’s
Only Connect and Beah’s A Long Way Gone. By
the end of the semester this was a group fully
connected with and respectful of each other. Ac-
tivities that demanded trust, such as peer review,
became much more invaluable and engaging, in
that the students saw their success as intertwined
with that of their peers.
From a student perspective, therefore, there
was a sense that the technology helped with
interaction and engagement, but they were rela-
tively undecided as a group to the uses in respect
to documents management. For the former, one
student did think there should have been more
interaction online, noting in the end of semester
evaluation that:
“The [upper class peer mentors] kind of
fostered a sense of community. … They made
announcements about fun things going on at
NAU. I think they should’ve utilized VISTA
more and interacted with the students through
that media.”
For the latter, the ambivalence was mostly
due to the barriers that the course management
Bothering with Technology
system put in the students’ way when they were
submitting assignments:
“Much of the assignments posted on Vista hin-
dered me, as well as the Wiki portfolios. Online
assignments are not my strong points.”
Technology can provide a way to not only
enhance the classroom experience. It can allow
instructors to explore mediated instruction outside
of the context of the classroom time by using a
course management system. Even a course as in-
tensely classroom based as an Honors seminar can
utilize technology in pedagogically appropriate
ways that will make it worth bothering with.
REFERENCES
Bridge, P., & Appleyard, R. (2008). A comparison
of electronic and paper-based assignment submis-
sion and feedback. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 39(4), 644–650. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2007.00753.x
Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven
principles of good practice in undergraduate
education. AAHE Bulletin, 39, 3–7.
Conrad, R.-M., & Donaldson, J. A. (2004). Engag-
ing the online learner: Activities and resources
for creative instruction. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Cronon, W. (1998). Only connect: The goals of a
liberal education. The American Scholar, 67(4),
73–80.
Doherty, J. J. (2008). Facilitating interaction: A
case study on the role of the reference librarian
in online learning environments. Saarbrucken:
VDM.
Educause. (2003). The new academy: The NLII
annual review 2003. Retrieved January 21, 2009,
from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/html/
nlii_ar_2003/index.asp
Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning
in the 21st century: A framework for research and
practice. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Gunawardena, L., & McIsaac, M. (2003). Theory
of distance education. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),
Handbook of research for educational communi-
cations and technology (pp. 355-395). New York:
Simon and Schuster Macmillan.
Hays, P. A. (2004). Case study research. In K.
deMarrais & S. D. Lapan (Eds.), Foundations for
research: Methods of inquiry in education and
the social sciences (pp. 217-234). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of
adult education: Andragogy versus pedagogy.
(2nd ed.). New York: Association Press.
Lovett, M. C. (2008, May 5). Metacognition
and monitoring: Understanding and improving
students’ skills for learning: Educause learning
initiative events. Retrieved January 21, 2009, from
http://net.educause.edu/eliweb085
Mills, R. (2008). It’s just a nuisance: Improving
college student reflective journal writing. College
Student Journal, 42(2), 684–690.
Moore, A. H., Fowler, S. B., Jesiek, B. K., Moore,
J. F., & Watson, C. E. (2008, April 17). Learners
2.0? IT and 21st century learners in higher educa-
tion. ECAR Research Bulletin, 2008(7). Retrieved
January 21, 2009, from http://connect.educause.
edu/Library/ECAR/Learners20ITand21stCen-
tur/46519.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction.
American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2),
1–6.
217

Motschnig-Pitrik, R., & Holzinger, A. (2002).
Student-centered teaching meets new media:
Concept and case study. Educational Technology
& Society, 5(4), 160–172.
National Collegiate Honors Council (NCHC).
(n. d.). What is honors? Retrieved December 19,
2008, from http://www.nchchonors.org/whatis-
honors.shtml.
Schwab, J. J., Westbury, I., & Wilkof, N. J.
(1978). Science, curriculum, and liberal educa-
tion: Selected essays. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Applications of case study
research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
218
Bothering with Technology
ENDNOTES
1.
Thanks must go to the many students and staff
of this program, especially to the students
of my Fall 2007 and Fall 2008 courses. A
special appreciation is due to Kevin Ketchner
for not only working through some of the
ideas in this chapter with me but for helping
with the final version of this chapter.
2.
Much of the data describing the program is
from a Spring 2007 Self Study created in
support of the program’s seven-year review
by the National Collegiate Honors Council.
This 43-page document and accompanying
appendices (A through P) are not included
here in order to maintain confidentiality
of the institution and program herein de-
scribed.
Bothering with Technology

APPENDIX A

Common Syllabus for First Semester Honors Course

Note: this has been edited to delete any identifying information

[ - - ] University
University Honors Program
Honors 1--: Seminar in Critical Reading and Writing, I
Instructor:
Office Hours:
Class Meeting Time:
Phone/Office:
Course Prerequisites:
Admission to the Honors Program

Course Description:

Honors 1-- is a reading- and writing-intensive course designed to introduce you to a liberal studies
education. An important part of this course is your acquisition of specific skills: close (i.e., critical)
reading, analytical writing, cogent speaking (i.e., effective oral communication), attentive and active
listening, and critical thinking. The readings for this class, as well as the tasks required of you, have
been carefully chosen and arranged in order to make possible your attainment as well as enhancement of
these skills within a learning environment that encourages your understanding and appreciation of key
issues at the heart of a liberal studies education. Your 1-- instructors come from a variety of disciplines
and professions. They will help you define and explore these key issues in a manner that reflects their
unique training, specialties, and perspectives.

Course Orientation and Goals:

In this course, your readings, writings, and class discussions will address, both broadly as well as spe-
cifically, the theme of the human condition and the ideas and issues arising from this theme: e.g.,
the nature and function of being human; societies, communities, and communication; morals, ethics,
and ethnicities; power; gender; or identity, to name a few. We will explore this theme through literature
spanning a number of centuries and across disciplines. Through your readings, written assignments, and
discussions this semester, you will work to clarify these issues, refine your thoughts and attitudes about
them, and consider these issues within the context of the world around you.
By the end of this course, you will:

• Demonstrate improved and refined capabilities in essential lifelong skills, including close (criti-
cal) reading, analytical writing, cogent speaking (effective oral communication), attentive and
active listening, and critical thinking.
• Recognize the complexities of the human condition from a variety of perspectives: literary, his-
torical, cultural, moral, social, and so on.
• Appreciate the role that you play as a member of the Honors, [University], and [local] communities,

219
 Bothering with Technology

and as a citizen of the 21st century.

Course Requirements:

The following requirements are common across all sections of HON 1--.

1. HON 1-- and HON 1-- may be taken in any order.

2. If, within the first two-three weeks of classes, your instructor deems that you need extra writing
instruction, you will be required to register for ENG 100, a 1-credit-hour, pass/fail course designed
to help you improve your writing skills. You must take and complete this course during this current
semester. We also encourage any students to take this course if they believe they need extra writing
instruction during the semester.
3. You will read the syllabus carefully and familiarize yourselves with the HON 1-- attendance
policy.
4. You will read materials – books, essays, articles, chapters, etc. – that cover a broad chronological
range and a number of important themes. Individual instructors will tailor the reading materials
according to these guidelines as well as to their specific needs in each section of HON 1--.
5. You will write a 3-page paper during the first 2 weeks of classes on the [University] Summer
Reading Program text, A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier, by Ishmael Beah. You will
submit 2 copies of this paper to your instructors.
6. You will write 3 formal, analytical essays (5-7pp. each) that explore topics and issues related to
your readings and discussions. The second and third papers may also introduce you to the rudi-
ments of research-paper writing. You will also revise each of these papers through a peer-review
process.
7. You will complete a minimum of 13 pieces of informal writing, each 1 ½-3 pp. long. 6 of these 13
informal exercises and writing assignments will address the categories of composition – introduc-
tion/thesis, paragraphing, style/voice, mechanics, analysis/logic, and supporting evidence – that
will be part of your formal writing assignments all semester long.
8. You will complete an annotated bibliography on a topic, book, or issue related to your class read-
ings or discussions, which contains a minimum of 5 secondary sources.
9. You will submit a collection or portfolio of writing at the end of the semester that consists of (a)
your first draft and revised copies of your Summer Reading text assignment, (b) all of your first
draft and revised informal writing assignments, (c) your first draft and revised copies of your formal
papers, (d) 1 copy of your best formal paper, and (e) a 1-2pp. “Self Statement.”
10. You will be expected to participate thoughtfully and intelligently in all class discussions.

Assessment and Grading:

The goals and objectives listed above will be assessed and/or graded in the following manner:

1. 15% of total grade: 1 5-7pp. formal essay on 1 text/reading.

2. 20% of total grade: 1 5-7pp. formal essay on 2 texts/readings.
3. 20% of total grade: 1 5-7pp. formal essay on 2 or more texts/readings.

220
Bothering with Technology

4. 15% of total grade: 1 5-item (minimum) annotated bibliography on a topic related to class readings/
discussion.
5. 15% of total grade: participation. This portion of your grade will include some or all of the follow-
ing: class attendance; active and informed class discussions; active and informed participation in
study groups; write-ups of your study group meetings; on-time submission of formal and informal
writing assignments; diligent attention to peer reviews of essays; an awareness of and respect for
differing opinions; one 10-minute book report; submission of writing assignments for the Honors
Program Assessment procedure. Individual instructors will specify the requirements for this aspect
of your grade.
6. 15% of total grade: your portfolio (see number 9 above).
TOTAL: 100%
Note: each instructor will be responsible for providing a rubric or formula for grade justification. In
addition, each instructor will responsible for providing students with handouts on writing instruction,
prompts, and so forth.

Attendance, Academic Dishonesty Policies:

Seminars such as this are joint enterprises and it is crucial that we come to speak, to listen, and to con-
tribute. Students who learn the most do so, among other reasons, because they participate and involve
themselves consistently and earnestly in class discussions with their instructor and with other students.
Therefore, attendance is extremely important, and students who miss class will be penalized as follows:
If a student has 4 absences, his or her participation grade will be lowered; if a student has more
than 4 absences, his or her final grade will be lowered according to the requirements specified by
individual instructors.
Academic dishonesty in all forms violates the basic principles of integrity and thus impedes learning.
More specifically, academic dishonesty is a form of misconduct that is subject to disciplinary action
under the Student Code of Conduct and includes the following: cheating, fabrication, fraud, facilitating
academic dishonesty, and plagiarism. Academic dishonesty, as defined in the Student Handbook, will
not be tolerated in this class, and will be handled in the manner prescribed by this handbook.

Texts and Readings:

All students will purchase the books required for their specific section of HON 1--. They will also pur-
chase a writing manual as specified by their instructors. Please note that instructors may also provide
you with additional photocopied materials, materials available on [Course Management System], and
materials obtained on-line. Finally, all students will purchase the [University] Summer Reading Program
text, A Long Way Gone, if they haven’t already received a copy through Summer Orientation.

Course Schedule:

Week Reading Assignments Writing Assignments

Week 1: Summer Informal Writing #1
Reading Text; Selection of Education Readings
Week 2: (instructor choice) Informal Writing #2

221
 Bothering with Technology

Week 3: (instructor choice) Informal Writing #3; Rough Draft of

Formal Paper #1; Peer Review
Week 4: (instructor choice) Informal Writing #4; Final Draft of Formal
Paper #1
Week 5: (instructor choice) Informal Writing #5
Week 6: (instructor choice) Informal Writing #6
Week 7: (instructor choice)informal Writing #7
Week 8: (instructor choice) Informal Writing #8; Rough Draft of
Formal Paper #2; Peer Review
Week 9: (instructor choice) Informal Writing #9; Final Draft of Formal
Paper #2
Week 10: (instructor choice) Informal Writing #10
Week 11: (instructor choice) Informal Writing #11
Week 12: (instructor choice) Informal Writing #12; Bibliography Due.
Week 13: (instructor choice) Informal Writing #13; Rough Draft of Formal
Paper #3; Peer Review
Week 14: (instructor choice) (instructor choice for informal writing);
Final Draft of Formal Paper #3 Due
Week 15: (instructor choice) (instructor choice for informal writing)
Guidelines for choosing readings for your individual HON 1-- sections and for creating your syl-
labi:

1. Instructors should choose readings (and films, if desired) that cover a broad chronological range.
In other words, instructors should not create syllabi that look solely at contemporary literature
or events. This broad chronological range is intended to give students a historical context of the
reading materials, to make connections between past and present, and to understand the thematic,
conceptual, literary, historical, cultural, and philosophical roots of their reading materials.
2. Instructors should include a paragraph after the boiler-plate HON 1-- information about the content
of their specific sections of HON 1--. The paragraph should address what kinds of readings will be
assigned, why these readings have been assigned, how they relate to one another, and the themes,
issues, and (historical, literary, cultural, and philosophical) concerns that these readings might well
address.
3. Students can and should be expected to read 30-60 pages per class period of assigned materials.
4. The assigned readings should touch upon several themes related to the Human Condition, such as
Education, Politics, Gender, Community, Class, Ecology, and the Environment, Science, Psychology,
Ethics and Morals, Philosophy, Post-Colonial Thought, Ethnicity, Gender, among others. Ideally,
these themes will connect with one another in some meaningful way.
5. Choose readings that you know will stimulate good discussion and that will lead to interesting
prompts, paper assignments, and out-of-class conversations.
6. Reading materials can be, but need not be, typical “English Department” fare, i.e., novels, short
stories, poems, plays, and the like. Reading materials can include collections of essays on a cer-
tain topic, materials from journals, newspapers, and magazines, and readings specific to certain
departmental interests (history, sociology, psychology, ethnic studies, etc.) In other words, syllabi
can reflect an interdisciplinary perspective.

222
Bothering with Technology

7. In addition, syllabi can reflect content that is cross-cultural.

8. Finally, all faculty agree to assign and teach reading materials on Education and to teach the Summer
Reading text at the beginning of the semester. (For new instructors: please ask the director for a
list of education readings often used by HON 1-- instructors.)

APPENDIX B

Name That Movie

Adapted from Conrad, R-M and Donaldson, J. A. (2004). Engaging the online learner: Activities and
resources for creative instruction. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass (p. 53).
By the end of Wednesday, August 26th:

1. Post a 2-3 sentence discussion response to the following:

If you were to write the score to the movie of your life, which two songs would you pick and why?
Please pick one song that represents your life as a whole and another that gives a more recent picture.
2. By the end of Sunday, September 1st:
Based on the answers to 1, above, suggest a movie title for each person, followed by a one sentence
explanation of why you chose that title. Do this by responding to their initial posts.
3. By the beginning of class, Tuesday, September 2nd:
Consider all the suggested titles for your movie (by reading all of your responses). Select the one
title that would best fit your movie and note it in your discussion thread, followed by a 1-2 sentence
explanation of why you chose it. Also, bring this response to class.

APPENDIX C-1

Journal Assignment

[Section redacted]
Participation Journal: (Worth 170 points)
Participation Journal 1 up to 10/12/2007: 85 points, incl. Informal Writing 5
Participation Journal 2 from 10/15/2007: 85 points, incl. Informal Writing 13
Note: The Participation Journals are available in the Vista Discussions section. Here you will weekly
post your discussion questions and engage in a 1-to-1 dialogue with me. No one else has access to this
Journal. At Mid-Term and Finals week I will review the Journals and the Summative Journal essays (i.e.
informal writing assignments 5 and 13) and assign the 85 points accordingly.

In Class Participation:

I will frequently ask you to present your views on different subjects during class discussions. You will
be expected to come to class ready to fully participate. Failure to do this will result in the lowering of the

223