13
This article was downloaded by: [University of Virginia, Charlottesville] On: 30 September 2013, At: 18:34 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Education, Communication & Information Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reci20 A Dynamic, Systematic Method for Developing Blended Learning Tom Boyle a a London Metropolitan University, UK Published online: 17 Feb 2007. To cite this article: Tom Boyle (2005) A Dynamic, Systematic Method for Developing Blended Learning, Education, Communication & Information, 5:3, 221-232, DOI: 10.1080/14636310500350422 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14636310500350422 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

A Dynamic, Systematic Method for Developing Blended Learning

  • Upload
    tom

  • View
    213

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: A Dynamic, Systematic Method for Developing Blended Learning

This article was downloaded by: [University of Virginia, Charlottesville]On: 30 September 2013, At: 18:34Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Education, Communication & InformationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reci20

A Dynamic, Systematic Method forDeveloping Blended LearningTom Boyle aa London Metropolitan University, UKPublished online: 17 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Tom Boyle (2005) A Dynamic, Systematic Method for Developing Blended Learning,Education, Communication & Information, 5:3, 221-232, DOI: 10.1080/14636310500350422

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14636310500350422

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: A Dynamic, Systematic Method for Developing Blended Learning

ISSN 1463-631X print; 1470-6725 online/05/030221-12 © 2005 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/14636310500350422

Education, Communication & Information, Vol. 5, No. 3, November 2005

A Dynamic, Systematic Method for Developing Blended Learning

TOM BOYLE,

London Metropolitan University, UK

Taylor and Francis LtdRECI_A_135025.sgm10.1080/14636310500350422Education, Communication & Information1463-631X (print)/1470-6725 (online)Original Article2005Taylor & Francis53000000November 2005TomBoyleLearning Technology Research Institute (LTRI)London Metropolitan University35 Kingsland RoadLondonE2 [email protected]

A

BSTRACT

The focus of this paper is how to improve a course using a blendedlearning approach. The paper advocates a methodology that is pedagogicallydriven. The nature of the blend is determined by an analysis of the range and natureof the problems faced by learners. The components and relationships in the blendare developed to tackle these problems systematically to produce an overallsolution that makes a measurable impact on student performance. The methodologyis illustrated by a major case study where a marked impact on student performancewas demonstrated. The paper concludes by discussing how better conceptual repre-sentation can underpin the evolution of more powerful methodologies for blendedlearning development.

Introduction

There is a wide range of interpretations of how to define blended learning(Whitelock & Jelfs, 2003; Driscoll, 2002). These arise partially from the differentmotives that underpin the use of a blended learning approach. These vary from awish to introduce an ICT-based component to ‘update’ a traditional training oracademic course, through commercial considerations of cost effectiveness, topedagogical considerations of producing more effective blends to support learning.At the base of these descriptions is usually a mixture of ICT-based and traditionalteaching.

The focus of this paper is how to improve a course through the developmentand implementation of an effective blended learning approach. The emphasis is onhow to bring about clear improvement in student performance. The primary over-arching perspective is pedagogically driven. Students who have difficulties with amodule often face multiple problems. This approach starts with the users’ needs—this is what motivates the particular blend. Each component in the blend deals witha significant pedagogical problem. The overall solution should deal with the totalityof the significant problems. It is thus the nature of the problems faced by the learners

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f V

irgi

nia,

Cha

rlot

tesv

ille]

at 1

8:34

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Page 3: A Dynamic, Systematic Method for Developing Blended Learning

222

T. Boyle

that determines the nature of the ‘blended’ solution. All other aspects of the blend,mix of online/offline components and media mix, are derived from this strategicposition. As O’Toole and Absalom (2003) point out, ICT access formats are,by themselves, of limited value to learners. The choice of media must fit thepedagogical tasks faced by the learners (Kerres & De Witt, 2003).

The paper aims to provide a systematic delineation of how to develop an effec-tive blended learning solution from problem analysis through to implementation.Driscoll (2002) argues that ‘blended learning means different things to differentpeople’. From a methodological point of view this is a reasonable expectation.Blends that are developed to solve different problems should take different forms, asit is the nature of the problem that determines the form of the blend. Commonality,perhaps, may be more realistically sought in delineating methodological processesfor developing effective blends.

The next section introduces a significant case study. This study is used toexemplify and ground the points discussed in the paper. The paper then worksthrough the process of creating a blended learning environment from problem anal-ysis, through design and development, to implementation and evaluation. Towardsthe end of the paper the issues of formal analysis, representation and replication ofsuccessful blended learning solutions are discussed.

The Case Study

The case study involves the development of the blended learning environment forthe teaching and learning of introductory programming. There is a significanteducational problem in this area. The extent and severity of the problem is capturedin the following quote: ‘Anyone who has presented an introductory programmingmodule will be all too familiar with students who appear to be totally unable tograsp the basic concepts’ (Jenkins & Davy, 2001).

E-learning offers advantages in helping students to deal with certain prob-lems. However, any successful approach has to deal with the range and scale of theproblems. An appropriate blend of online and offline resources seemed to offer thebest hope of dealing with this complex problem. The project, which involved devel-oping a large blended learning environment to tackle the problems the studentsfaced, is now in its third year of implementation. It has been developed used andevaluated with over 1000 students at London Metropolitan University and BoltonInstitute. Marked improvements in successful retention of students have beenachieved (Bradley & Boyle, 2004b). The blend involves significant changes in boththe offline and online organisation of the programming modules. These changesinclude: significant changes to the content of the curriculum; changes to the organi-sation of the modules; and the development and use of a major e-learning compo-nent. The e-learning aspect involved the use of a standard VLE enhanced withmultimedia learning objects. This project has been reported in a number of papers(Boyle

et al

., 2003; Bradley & Boyle, 2004a, 2004b). In this paper, decisions madein the project will be used to exemplify aspects of the blended learning developmentprocess described in the paper.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f V

irgi

nia,

Cha

rlot

tesv

ille]

at 1

8:34

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Page 4: A Dynamic, Systematic Method for Developing Blended Learning

Developing Blended Learning

223

Requirements for an Effective Methodology

Project development in an educational context is often very challenging. This placesa number of demands on the methodology used. Desired features of a suitable meth-odology include that it should:

1. Provide the right balance of creativity and structure;2. Be flexible, and support iterative development;3. Encourage and support collaborative, team-based working;4. Involve tutors closely to ensure:

• accuracy and quality of the products;• acceptability of the products;• delivery and appropriate evaluation

5. Be robust in the face of development noise: where the developers may beworking ‘part-time’ with several other demands on their time;

6. Deliver results: to get the project accepted there should be a promise of clear,observable or measurable results.

Traditional instructional systems design (ISD) provides quite a structuredapproach to project development (Boyle, 1997). However, with the advent ofconstructivism this highly systematic approach fell into disfavour in educationalsettings. It was seen as being too rigid and not supporting pedagogical innovationand flexibility. There is a need for a flexible development method that willencourage creativity, provide structure, and serve as an economical method forsmall educational teams. In software engineering, problems with traditional,highly structured, approaches to project development led to the evolution of flexi-ble and adaptable methods of project development, collectively known as RAD(Rapid Application Development) methods. Insights from these approaches, inparticular the non-proprietary DSDM (Dynamic Systems Development Method),have influenced the approach advocated in this paper (Stapleton, 1997; Yeoman,2000).

Understanding and Analysing the Problem

High-Level Analysis

Projects benefit when there is a deep, driving vision. This provides a global view ofwhat the problem is and how blended learning will help. In the programming casestudy there was a significant national problem identified in this area (Jenkins &Davy, 2001). The project aimed to tackle this problem at an institutional level,resulting in a marked improvement in successful retention. However, the blend wasalso developed to provide reusable components that could be used across differentinstitutions both nationally and internationally.

A clear analysis of the problem and the expected benefits to be achieved byintroducing blended learning provide the base for the subsequent development andimplementation of a blended learning approach. The first stage in the project is ahigh-level analysis of the problem. This high-level analysis should specify all the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f V

irgi

nia,

Cha

rlot

tesv

ille]

at 1

8:34

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Page 5: A Dynamic, Systematic Method for Developing Blended Learning

224

T. Boyle

significant problems, identify the required changes and identify the resourcesrequired to tackle these problems. DSDM advocates a similar high-level analysis insoftware development projects (Stapleton, 1997; Yeoman, 2000). In the case of theprogramming project it was clear that the students faced multiple problems, and thatseveral of these problems were critical in their own right. The solution required anappropriate blend of offline and online components to help students deal with theselearning difficulties. It was also clear that there was scope for more efficient use ofresources. A collaborative, team-based approach to developing and reusingresources seemed more efficient than the traditional approach of parallel teachingbased on individual lecturers.

The questions that need to be asked at this stage are: what do you want toachieve? How can blended learning achieve this? How are you going to getresources to achieve this goal? How will you know that the project has succeeded?

The high-level analysis should achieve the following:

• Set the strategic goal, e.g. improve retention rates by….This should be quanti-fied, if possible, because this gives a clear target to judge whether (and thedegree to which) the blended learning intervention is successful.

• Establish the set of tasks that need to be tackled to achieve this goal.• Identify the resources needed (including composition of the project team).• Establish a baseline for evaluation against which you can measure improvement.

This analysis provides a basis for a recommendation to the management committeethat controls the allocation of resources. A positive decision by the managementteam should release the resources required to develop, implement and evaluate theblended learning system.

At this stage the full development team should be set up. There are variousfunctions within this team. The project manager oversees the development of theproject, ensures the tasks are allocated, monitors performance to ensure timelycompletion and manages the dependencies between tasks to ensure co-ordinationamong the members of the team in their work. There will be different skills androles within the team in order to tackle the problems identified effectively (Staple-ton, 1997). In the case study the project tutors were complemented by the multime-dia developer and an evaluator. The project manager was provided by theUniversity Learning Technology Research Institute.

There is a strong need to build a group that works by consensus. This is vitalif the project is going to succeed. The group must work on the basis that the optimi-sation of the whole blended learning experience is more important than the optimis-ation of one part. There will, therefore, have to be compromises. Building a creativegroup dynamic is one of the most important challenges in getting the method tosucceed. To be creative, people must be able to input their ideas; there should bevigorous discussion; then decisions need to be made on solutions that can be sharedacross the group. Where there are still differences of opinion choose the mostproductive compromise, but insist on evaluation to provide feedback on the successof the choice made. The most productive compromise is the one that will carryforward most effectively the momentum of the group.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f V

irgi

nia,

Cha

rlot

tesv

ille]

at 1

8:34

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Page 6: A Dynamic, Systematic Method for Developing Blended Learning

Developing Blended Learning

225

Detailed Analysis and Specification of Required Changes

It is necessary to examine the specific nature of each of the problems in the area,and identify the appropriate changes required (offline or online). Each significantproblem should be analysed in its own right, and a specification produced for therequired changes in instructional approach, learning resources and/or tools. Thenature of the change, whether offline or online, and the particular media mix, shouldbe dictated by that which best deals with the problem.

The output is a set of specifications for improvement/replacement of the prob-lem process, tool or entity in each of the areas. The areas that may require changeare: the curriculum (or parts of the curriculum); new tools for student use; need forimproved online support; need for better management of the module (especiallywhen large groups are involved); need for specialised learning support for studentsin areas causing particular difficulty. The changes specified for any one componentmay be primarily online, offline or a mixture of the two. The total specificationshould produce an appropriate mixture of offline and online changes.

Examples of significant decisions in the Java project were:

• The curriculum: originally different languages were used with the students insemesters 1 and 2. It was decided to go for one language (Java), as one languageprovided the base for creating a critical mass of resources to tackle the problem.A collaborative approach was used, where lecturers developed and shared acommon set of resources. Based on the pedagogical literature, a graphicsapproach to teaching programming was also adopted (Papert, 1980).

• It was decided to provide extensive online support as very little existed before.Given the nature and flexible attendance patterns of the student population thiswas crucial.

• The main framework of online support would be provided through a VLE.WebCT was selected as this was the standard VLE in the university

• There was a need for online multimedia support to help students learn difficultprogramming concepts. It was agreed that this would be provided through reusablelearning objects, as this would contribute to solving the problem at national level.

• With approximately 30 teaching assistants on the programming modules it wasclear that there was a need for better communication. This would be providedthrough a mixture of online and offline means. Special induction/briefingsessions would be provided at the beginning of the semester. Clear, structuredcourse information held in the VLE would provide a means of communicationwith the teaching assistants throughout the semester.

By this stage the main structure and components of the blend have been selected.This is driven by a pedagogically based analysis of the educational/training situa-tion. Different component problems lend themselves appropriately to offline oronline solutions or a mixture of the two. Decisions are clearly affected by the possi-bilities in the context of development, for example, the availability of a VLE. Thetotal blend must cover the totality of the educational challenges faced by thestudents. Table I summarises the tasks, methods and deliverables of this phase.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f V

irgi

nia,

Cha

rlot

tesv

ille]

at 1

8:34

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Page 7: A Dynamic, Systematic Method for Developing Blended Learning

226

T. Boyle

Design and Development

The design/development team needs to have an appropriate mixture of roles, and inacademic settings, clarity about the commitment of people working part-time on theproject. There should be a clear plan for tackling the design and development tasks.The plan involves breaking the overall problems into sub-tasks and allocating theseto groups and individuals within the group. There needs to be regular group meet-ings to discuss the progress against targets. Good design requires a creative,motivated group. The operation of the group, therefore, must be robust and flexiblein order to keep the momentum going. Compromises may well be required withinthe group to achieve the aim of an overall integrated blended learning environment.

It is useful to have a clear ‘design and development’ phase. However, analysisand design functions do not have to be realised sequentially as non-overlappingphases. There is scope for considerable parallelism and interleaving in the develop-ment process. Normally, analysis will be done before design, but in iterativedevelopment there is a dynamic interplay between the two––a point again emphasisedin DSDM (Stapleton, 1997). Certain sub-tasks will be completed much faster thanothers, so that some tasks will have completed designs while others are still in theanalysis phase. Design is one of the

functions

in the method required to produce a

T

ABLE

I. Analysis and specification.

Task Methods Outputs Examples

High-level analysisEstablish

all

significant problem areas

Interviews with tutors, students; observation

List of significant problem areas and top-level view as to the nature of the problems

Problem witha) curriculum (or topics in curriculum);b) tool(s) used by students;c) communication with teaching assistants;d) limited and ineffective pedagogical approach (e.g. too high a reliance on information transmission)

For each problem areaAnalyse and specify the required changes

Methods:a) Reference to research literature on pedagogy (to match the specific problem with a known problem/solution class)b) Intensive discussion with team membersc) Reflection on evidence gathered

Set of

agreed

requirements for improvement/replacement of the problem process, tool or entity

If the problem is with a tool then specify the required characteristics of the new tool (e.g. simpler functionality and greater ease of use)If there are problems with the curriculum then identify the specific nature of the problems, and specify the required changes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f V

irgi

nia,

Cha

rlot

tesv

ille]

at 1

8:34

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Page 8: A Dynamic, Systematic Method for Developing Blended Learning

Developing Blended Learning

227

solution. This function is mapped onto a certain time period or periods. Though theterm

design phase

is used this should not be taken to imply a bounded period of timedevoted exclusively to design which follows the analysis. This rather applies to designactivities that may be interleaved with ongoing analysis.

For each task identified this phase begins by taking the output of the analysisinto the nature of the problem, and produces a design for the solution of thatproblem. The design tasks need to be allocated to the members of the group. Extramembers of the team may come into play at this stage. For example, the multimediadeveloper(s) may begin to produce prototypes of resources. There is a natural paral-lelism in the design of the solutions to the various tasks. Tasks vary in size and inthe degree of dependence on other tasks. Some tasks involve a self-contained designchallenge that can be allocated to one member of the group. Other tasks requirecontinuous consultation between various members of the group.

The team has to produce a solution that can be delivered within the organisa-tion. Organisational opportunities and constraints clearly have an importantinfluence on the design decisions made. However, pedagogical vision and goalsshould drive, with the organisational factors acting as secondary shaping influences.Different media offer different affordances for learning (Conole & Dyke, 2004).However, media alone do not deliver learning experiences. Based on a deep reviewof the evidence, Tergan (1997) argues that it is the quality of the task-directed activitythat determines learning outcomes. The team, therefore, needs to design and developlearning activities employing appropriate media that effectively tackle the learningproblems. Knowledge of pedagogy and e-learning research should be an importantinfluence in shaping these design decisions.

In the case study, just over five months were allocated to the design anddevelopment phase (April to end of August). This left a small overshoot time beforethe start of term (which was needed). Major areas of development included:

• design and development of a new curriculum• selection of a new software development tool (as the students clearly struggled

with the old one)• organisation of teaching assistants (including a more effective communication

structure between the lecturers and teaching assistants)• development of the learning environment in WebCT• development of multimedia learning objects• developing a revised assessment framework.

The new blended learning system was to be implemented in four separate modulesacross two institutions. An important consideration throughout the development wasto develop and maintain consensus. The module lecturers were part of the develop-ment team. They worked to develop the new curriculum material, which they agreedwould be shared across the modules. One member of the group produced a structurefor the WebCT environment, which it was agreed would be used by all the tutors.Another member reviewed software development tools and produced a recommen-dation, which was accepted by the group. The development of the multimedia learn-ing objects involved close interaction between the module tutors and the multimedia

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f V

irgi

nia,

Cha

rlot

tesv

ille]

at 1

8:34

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Page 9: A Dynamic, Systematic Method for Developing Blended Learning

228

T. Boyle

developer. Prototypes were posted on an Intranet site dedicated to the project. Allmembers of the group could comment on the prototypes as they were developed.Learning objects are small and relatively self-contained. This meant that paralleldevelopment on several learning objects could take place at the same time.

The basis for developing the blended learning system was to achieve agree-ment within the group on the basic structure and components of the new learningenvironment. It was then possible to divide the work across the group, work inparallel as appropriate and, finally, assemble the components into the overallblended learning structure

Outputs of the Design Phase

The outputs of the design phase embody the solution to each of the major sub-problems identified in the analysis phase. The form of the solutions may be:

1) Documents specifying a new syllabus for the course2) Selection of a new tool or resource and procedures for installation of that tool

in time for the beginning of the course3) Training materials (offline and online)4) Selection and allocation of personnel to deliver the course5) Teaching/learning materials: lecture notes, lab notes, group project specifica-

tions, etc.6) Online multimedia learning materials7) Assessment structure and test materials8) Evaluation framework and resources (for evaluating the project deliverables,

not assessing the students)

Blended learning provides a way of introducing novel approaches within a familiarframework. In the case study, for example, multimedia learning objects were intro-duced into the course. The design of these was quite novel, and this was reported inseveral research papers (Boyle, 2003; Bradley & Boyle, 2004b). These learningobjects, in fact, won a European Academic Software Award (EASA, 2004). In areal environment, involving over 600 students initially, this novelty was acceptableto the lecturers because it was introduced within more traditional structures.Blended learning can thus provide a way of introducing novel, potentially veryeffective e-learning approaches, within a familiar, acceptable framework.

Delivery and Evaluation

Large projects may involve many stakeholders in the delivery of the system. It is,therefore, necessary to plan carefully for delivery and communication to the stake-holders involved. In the case study, this involved planning for student induction(especially as this was a semester 1, year 1 course) and training for the teachingassistants. The teaching assistants were an important part of the delivery blend. Theanalysis phase revealed that there had been problems in the communicationbetween lecturers and teaching assistants.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f V

irgi

nia,

Cha

rlot

tesv

ille]

at 1

8:34

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Page 10: A Dynamic, Systematic Method for Developing Blended Learning

Developing Blended Learning

229

Careful design should have produced a clear, well-structured plan for thedelivery of the course. The delivery of this plan should be subject to continuousmonitoring and evaluation. Some dynamic adjustments may be possible. For exam-ple, we found that some of the lab notes and the pace of the course were overloadingstudents. The density of lab material was reduced in response to this feedback. Thefeedback received from the monitoring should indicate which components, andrelationships between components, are working well and where there are problems.Even if this information cannot be acted on immediately, it provides a basis forformative improvement of the next delivery of the course.

In the initial analysis phase, clear targets should have been set for the blendedlearning system. When the delivery is complete, the results obtained should becompared with the targets. In the case study, the targets were to obtain an 8 per centimprovement in retention rates across the four modules. The actual results exceededthe targets, with retention gains of between 12 and 23 percentage points (Boyle

et al

., 2003). These results may be used to justify the cost of the resources used indeveloping the blended learning system.

The introduction of a new blended learning environment can be treated as a formof action research. The aim of the evaluation is to inform the team which innovationswere effective, where there were problems and how these might be dealt with. In thecase study, in addition to the module results, information was gathered through onlinetracking, observation, questionnaires and interviews. Interpreting the data has to bedone carefully. The evaluation of the impact of the individual components within theblend derives from the initial analysis. This analysis specified the range and type ofthe problems faced by the students. The components in the blend were designed anddeveloped to tackle these problems. This provides a foundation for criterion-basedevaluation. Each component can be evaluated in terms of its success on the relevantcriterion or criteria. For example, the analysis indicated that the students had problemsdealing with the abstract nature of certain concepts in programming. The primarypurpose in developing the

multimedia learning objects

was to develop attractiveresources that would enable students to engage visually with these concepts, and henceovercome the problem of abstraction. In the action learning context the measures thatwere derived of success in meeting these goals are based on observation, online track-ing of use, questionnaire and interview. Online tracking data give objective informa-tion on the use of the learning objects by the students on a 24/7 basis. Observation inthe laboratories showed how the students used the learning objects. Questionnaireswere given in which the students were specifically asked about the key features ofthe learning objects (attractiveness, ease of use and effectiveness in aiding learning).This information was augmented by interviews with a sample of the students (approx-imately 10%) that provided richer, qualitative information on how the students viewedand used the learning objects. This rich data provides a basis on which to evaluatethe extent to which the learning objects have been successful in getting the studentsto engage with and learn effectively the target abstract concepts in programming. Theseresults have been reported in several papers, e.g. Bradley and Boyle (2004b).

The questionnaires provided a basis for the students’ evaluation of all of thesignificant components in the course (the students took three online questionnaires

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f V

irgi

nia,

Cha

rlot

tesv

ille]

at 1

8:34

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Page 11: A Dynamic, Systematic Method for Developing Blended Learning

230

T. Boyle

at the beginning, middle and end of the semester). This evaluation was augmented,as appropriate for the particular component, by the use of observation, interviews, andonline tracking. This feedback provided information to the course team in makingchanges for the second delivery of the course. For example, the textbook was givena low rating by the students. This was changed in the subsequent delivery of the course.

The evaluation should yield information not just on the components in isola-tion but the effectiveness of different strategies for integrating these with otheraspects of the course. It is clear, for example, that the effectiveness of the learningobjects depended on how they were integrated into the rest of the course. In somecases the multimedia learning objects were integrated into the tasks given to thestudents for their practical work. In these instances the learning objects seem to bevery effective. In other cases the learning objects were left as ‘extras’ for thestudents to fit in, as best they could, into their work schedule. In this case the impactof the learning objects was more diluted. The evaluation thus provides informationnot just on the effectiveness of the components, but on how they were ‘blended’together. Identifying and recording both effective and less successful approaches toblending components is an important output from the evaluation.

Representing Successful Blended Learning Practice

Blended learning was developed as a very pragmatic concept. It was developed incommercial training to refer to the tendency to replace completely traditional face-to-face training with a mixture, or blend, of new e-learning and traditional approaches.In most formal education the situation is very similar. Only a few students move toICT as the complete medium for their teaching/learning. It is more normal for theICT element to complement and extend the traditional face-to-face approaches.

Blended learning, however, has potentially a major role in educational processre-engineering. The introduction of novel e-learning elements in the blend providesan entry point. The module tutors retain a framework of the familiar within which toexperiment using the new technologies. Blended learning thus provides a potentiallypowerful means of managing educational transitions. One possibility is the evolutionof the ‘blend’ over several years towards more extensible and radical use of e-learning.

Educational process re-engineering requires a better conceptual representa-tion of blended learning. A productive option for this conceptual representation isthe evolving international specification for learning activity design. IMS hasreleased a first specification for a learning design standard (IMS, 2003; Tattersall &Koper, 2003; Britain, 2004). Systems such as LAMS provide high-level tools forcreating such designs that seem reasonably user-friendly for teachers and lecturers(Dalziel, 2003; Kraan, 2003; LAMS, 2004). Theoretically, different blendedlearning scenarios could be represented as different learning activity structuresrepresented as learning design patterns. The linkage of the theoretical attempt tocapture learning activity patterns and the pragmatic robustness of blended learningcould provide a very productive focus for development. There is a mutuallyproductive relationship as blended learning provides a testing case to judge theadequacy of the learning design specification framework.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f V

irgi

nia,

Cha

rlot

tesv

ille]

at 1

8:34

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Page 12: A Dynamic, Systematic Method for Developing Blended Learning

Developing Blended Learning

231

This approach could be very useful in developing representations for reusabil-ity and transferability. There is considerable interest in capturing effective learningactivity patterns that are reusable. There is an intersection here of: a) the empirical(these learning activity patterns must be demonstrably effective); b) the theoreticalrepresentation—how can we capture and represent these patterns; and c) transfer ofthese patterns to new situations of use. The application of these requirements toblended learning provides the challenge of how to represent and transfer successfulblended learning practice. Clear conceptual representation, linked with strong eval-uation, should provide insights into which features and combinations are successful,and under which conditions. Such knowledge will aid in the development andextension of more powerful methodologies for blended learning development. Thisis a major challenge for future work in this area.

Conclusion

This paper argues that the design and development of blended learning solutionsshould be pedagogically driven. In developing a blended learning environment thefirst task is to understand the nature of the problem. The blend starts with the needsof the users. The number and nature of components in the blend are dictated by thenumber and nature of the problems faced by the learners. It is pedagogical objec-tives that drive, and issues of on/offline and media blend serve as means to meetthese pedagogical objectives. Organisational support and constraints act as second-ary shaping influences in this approach.

Blended learning can provide a controlled and productive approach to educa-tional process re-engineering. To transform a course completely, especially onewith a high number of learners, is risky. There is a need to carry the teachers ortutors. A blend of familiar components together with new (often ICT-based)components will be more acceptable to them. Over time, as the new componentsbecome accepted, it should be possible to extend the blend in more novel and radi-cal directions. Thorough evaluation is required to guide this development process.A significant challenge remains in mapping standard conceptual structures that,through more precise representation of structures and relationships, will aid thisdevelopment process.

Acknowledgements

I have gained many insights by working with the team who worked on the casestudy referred to in the paper: Poppy Pickard, Ray Jones, Peter Chalk, Ken Fisherand Tingkai Wang (tutors), Richard Haynes (multimedia developer) and ClaireBradley (evaluator). This project was supported by the LTSN (now Higher Educa-tion Academy) Centre for Information and Computer Sciences.

Correspondence

: Tom Boyle, Learning Technology Research Institute, LondonMetropolitan University, 35 Kingsland Road, London E2 8AA, UK; e-mail:[email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f V

irgi

nia,

Cha

rlot

tesv

ille]

at 1

8:34

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Page 13: A Dynamic, Systematic Method for Developing Blended Learning

232

T. Boyle

REFERENCES

B

OYLE

, T. (1997)

Design for Multimedia Learning

(Prentice Hall).B

OYLE

, T. (2003) Design principles for authoring dynamic, reusable learning objects,

Australian Journalof Educational Technology,

19(1), pp. 46–58, online at: http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet19/boyle.html

B

OYLE

, T., B

RADLEY

, C., C

HALK

, P., J

ONES

, R. & P

ICKARD

, P. (2003) Using blended learning toimprove student success rates in learning to program,

Journal of Educational Media, Special Editionon Blended learning,

28(2/3), pp. 165–178.B

RADLEY

, C. & B

OYLE

, T. (2004a) Student’s use of learning objects,

Interactive Multimedia ElectronicJournal of Computer-Enhanced Learning,

6(2), online at: htttp://imej.wfu.edu/articles/2004/2/01/index.asp

B

RADLEY

, C. & B

OYLE

, T. (2004b) The design, development and use of multimedia learning objects,

Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, Special Edition on Learning Objects,

13(4),pp. 371–389.

B

RITAIN

, S. (2004)

A Review of Learning Design: concept, specifications and tools,

a report for the JISCE-learning Pedagogy Programme, May 2004, online at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/ACF83C.doc

C

ONOLE

, G. & D

YKE

, M. (2004) What are the affordances of information and communication technolo-gies?,

ALT-J,

12(2), pp. 113–24.D

ALZIEL

, J. (2003) Implementing learning design: the learning activity management system (LAMS), in:G. C

RISP

, D. T

HIELE

, I. S

CHOLTEN

, S. B

ARKER

& J. B

ARON

(Eds)

Proceedings of the 20th AnnualConference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE),

Adelaide, Australia, December 2003, online at: http://www.melcoe.mq.edu.au/documents/ASCILITE2003%20Dalziel%20Final.pdf

D

RISCOLL

, M. (2002) Blended learning: let’s get beyond the hype.

LTI Magazine,

1 March.EASA (2004) Winners of the European Academic Software Awards 2004, online at: http://www.bth.se/

llab/easa.nsfJ

ENKINS

, T. & D

AVY

, J. (2001) Diversity and motivation in introductory programming,

Italics,

1(1),online at http://www.ics.ltsn.ac.uk/pub/italics/issue1/tjenkins/003.html

K

ERRES

, M. & D

E

W

ITT

, C. (2003) A didactical framework for the design of blended learning arrange-ments,

Journal of Educational Media, Special Edition on Blended Learning,

28(2–3), pp. 101–13.K

RAAN

, W. (2003) Learning design inspiration, online at: http://www.cetis.ac.uk/content2/20031105152011

IMS (2003)

IMS Learning Design Specification V1.0,

online at: http://www.imsglobal.org/learningde-sign/index.cfm

LAMS W

EBSITE

(2004) http://www.lamsinternational.com/O’T

OOLE

, J.M. & A

BSALOM

, D.J. (2003) The impact of blended learning on student outcomes: is thereroom on the horse for two?,

Journal of Educational Media, Special Edition on Blended Learning,

28(2–3), pp. 179–90.P

APERT

, S. (1980)

Mindstorms: children, computers and powerful ideas

(Brighton, Harvester).S

TAPLETON

, J. (1997)

Dynamic Systems Development Method

(Addison–Wesley).T

ATTERSALL

, C. and K

OPER

, R (2003) EML and IMS Learning Design: from LO to LA, LTSN GenericCentre, online at: http://www.ltsn.ac.uk/application.asp?app=resources.asp&process=full_record&section=generic&id=255.

T

ERGAN

, S-O. (1997) Misleading theoretical assumptions in hypertext/hypermedia research,

Journal ofEducational Multimedia and Hypermedia,

6(3–4), pp. 257–83.W

HITELOCK

, D. & J

ELFS

, A. (2003) Editorial for Special issue on Blended Learning: blending the issuesand concerns of staff and students,

Journal of Educational Media, Special Edition on Blended Learning,

28(2–3), pp. 99–100.Y

EOMAN

, P. (2000) The applicability of Dynamic Systems Development Method to the field of multime-dia development. Unpublished M. Phil thesis, Manchester Metropolitan University.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f V

irgi

nia,

Cha

rlot

tesv

ille]

at 1

8:34

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13