ArticlePDF Available

Why we should pay more attention to E-learning

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Background: This paper discusses the benefits of designing a blended learning programme that combines the use of self-directed E-learning and collaborative face-to-face sessions in respiratory medicine at the undergraduate level. Objectives: The paper discusses the Blended Learning Design Tool (BLEnDT©) used to support the design process. This paper presents the findings of the evaluation carried out to identify learning gains and students' attitudes towards the use of tablet devices (iPads) to support the blended learning experience. Materials and Methods: The sample analysed, included 283 full-time year 1 undergraduate medical students of an average age of 19 years. Results: The analysis carried out shows the evidence of learning gains as students engaged in the full blended learning programme with the evidence of an association between higher overall marks in the final year exam and the post-quiz scores (P = 0.006). Conclusion: The attitude components collected via the survey 'my learning experience after the interactive session using iPads' also highlighted the interesting findings in relation to the perceived control component with students that own a tablet device (P = 0.094) feeling much more in control when using an iPad to support their learning.
Content may be subject to copyright.
© 2015 Journal of Health Specialties | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 191
Why we should pay more attention to E‑learning
Maria Toro‑Troconis
Faculty Education Office, School of Medicine, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK
ABSTRACT
Background: This paper discusses the benets of designing a blended learning programme that combines the use of
self‑directed E‑learning and collaborative face‑to‑face sessions in respiratory medicine at the undergraduate level.
Objectives: The paper discusses the Blended Learning Design Tool (BLEnDT©) used to support the design process.
This paper presents the ndings of the evaluation carried out to identify learning gains and students’ attitudes towards
the use of tablet devices (iPads) to support the blended learning experience.
Materials and Methods: The sample analysed, included 283 full‑time year 1 undergraduate medical students of an
average age of 19 years.
Results: The analysis carried out shows the evidence of learning gains as students engaged in the full blended learning
programme with the evidence of an association between higher overall marks in the nal year exam and the post‑quiz
scores (P = 0.006).
Conclusion: The attitude components collected via the survey ‘my learning experience after the interactive session
using iPads’ also highlighted the interesting ndings in relation to the perceived control component with students that
own a tablet device (P = 0.094) feeling much more in control when using an iPad to support their learning.
Keywords: Blended learning, E‑learning, ipped classroom, learning design
Original Article
Access this article online
Quick Response Code:
Website:
www.thejhs.org
DOI:
10.4103/1658-600X.166499
INTRODUCTION
Several blended learning definitions and variations
in blends have been discussed in the literature[1‑3] and
suggested the use of this term, highlighting its acceptance
among higher education. They define blended learning
as an approach which combines E‑learning technology
with the traditional face‑to‑face instructor‑led teaching.
Oliver and Trigwell[4] define blended learning as a
description of particular forms of teaching, embedding
the use of technology. According to Whitelock and
Jelfs,[5] blended learning is the combination of media
and tools embedded within an E‑learning environment
or the combination of a series of pedagogic approaches,
irrespective of learning technology used.
Banados[6] provides a definition of blended learning
in the context of higher education highlighting the
importance of combining online and face‑to‑face
instruction with the aim to improve the learning
experience and reduce the costs wherever possible.
Littlejohn and Pegler[7] introduced a different definition
and approach called as ‘blended E‑learning’, which
shifts the emphasis from thinking about the online and
face‑to‑face delivery to the design approach as the main
focus. Similarly, Valiathan[8] focuses ‘blend’ on learning
or ‘intended’ learning, identifying the following areas:
• Skill‑driven learning, which combines self‑paced
learning with instructor or facilitator support to
develop specific knowledge and skills;
How to cite this article: Toro-Troconis M. Why we should pay more attention
to E-learning. J Health Spec 2015;3:191-7.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution‑NonCommercial‑ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows
others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non‑commercially, as long as the
author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
For reprints contact: reprints@medknow.com
Address for correspondence:
Dr. Maria Toro‑Troconis, School of Medicine, Imperial College London,
Sir Alexander Fleming Building, Room No. 165, South Kensington
Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK.
E‑mail: m.toro@imperial.ac.uk
[Downloaded free from http://www.thejhs.org on Saturday, March 24, 2018, IP: 85.103.47.151]
Toro‑Troconis: Why we should pay more attention to E‑learning?
192 Journal of Health Specialties / October 2015 / Vol 3 | Issue 4
• Attitude‑driven learning, which combines various
events and delivery media to develop specific
behaviours; and
• Competency‑driven learning, which aims to develop
the workplace competencies, blending performance
and support tools with knowledge management
resources.
This is an interesting definition which echoes the
recommendations made by several authors emphasising
the need to follow a holistic approach to blended
learning, moving the focus away from the technology
and concentrating on learning design.[3,7,9,10]
Blended learning design
According to Graham,[1] there is a wide range of models
of delivery in the design of blended learning programmes
with some authors focussing their design on the
combination of different types of media, instructional
methods and web‑based technologies. Some authors
also focus the design on the combination of different
media (off‑line, web‑based and self‑guided).[11]
In other cases, the emphasis is on the positive
effects that blended learning has on pedagogy,
cost‑effectiveness, access and flexibility.[12‑14] According
to the meta‑analysis carried out by the US Department
of Education in 2010,[15] no significant differences
in learning gains were found in the studies that
directly compared purely online and blended learning
conditions.
This meta‑analysis included 18 medical related studies
at undergraduate and graduate educational levels,
including nursing and related areas. The conditions
presented in both blended and online studies were
very varied which may have contributed to the results.
This highlights the need to develop a systematic
theory‑based approach for the design of blended
learning programmes.[15]
As Alebaikan and Troudi[12] pointed out, a programme
should be blended in design and not just in delivery. The
authors emphasise the need to produce the guidelines
and design frameworks to support and simplify the
task of implementing blended learning design. In the
words of Gibbs,[16] a good pedagogical design must
ensure that there is ‘constructive alignment’ between
the intended curriculum, the teaching methods, the
learning environment and the assessments methods
implemented. Mayes and de Freitas[9] confirm the
statement made by Biggs,[16] by emphasising the
importance of selecting the learning outcomes carefully,
the learning and teaching activities and the assessment
methods to accomplish the intended learning outcomes.
Blended learning frameworks and tools
A small number of learning designs and blended learning
design frameworks and tools have been found. Alonso
et al.,[17] developed an E‑learning instructional model,
which defines an e‑lesson as the minimum self‑contained
learning unit. This model offers a systematic presentation
of units following the sequence: Analysis, design,
development, implementation, execution and review.
The main limitation found in this tool was the lack of
direct guidance for the academics when selecting learning
activities depending on the learning outcomes intended.
The second design tool found was the Learning Designer
Tool[18] produced by the Technology Enhanced Learning
Research Programme led by Professor Diana Laurillard
at the London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education
London (Learning Designer, 2011).
The Learning Designer Tool allows teachers to input
their curriculum requirements and provide the teachers
with a balance of different learning activities. The
learning design activities are also displayed in a visual
way (pie chart). It also provides a break‑down of the time
spent on different learning activities recommending
how much time the teacher may need in order to prepare
the materials. The tool does not provide direct feedback
on the balance between the online and face‑to‑face
activities based on the learning outcomes.
The final design tool to be discussed in this section is
the Blended Learning Design Tool ‑ BLEnDT© produced
at the School of Medicine – Imperial College London[19]
and used in this research. The pedagogic framework
which forms the basis of BLEnDT©, makes use of the
learning domains explained previously (psychomotor,
cognitive and affective), in order to allocate and classify
the learning outcomes required within the specific
learning activities.[20‑24]
According to BLEnDT©, the more focused the learning
outcomes are on developing attitude and high‑end
cognitive knowledge (conceptual and metacognitive),
the more the learning activities fit a face‑to‑face/online
or collaborative/constructivist approach. The more
focused the learning outcomes are on skills development
as well as on low end cognitive skills (factual and
procedural knowledge), the more the learning activity
can fit an interactive self‑guided/instructional online
learning approach.[25]
For example, for a person to perform cardio‑pulmonary
resuscitation, the person must know the steps of
the procedure (cognitive – procedural knowledge),
know how the procedure may vary for
infants (cognitive – conceptual knowledge), the person
must remain calm (affective), co‑ordinated movements
[Downloaded free from http://www.thejhs.org on Saturday, March 24, 2018, IP: 85.103.47.151]
Toro‑Troconis: Why we should pay more attention to E‑learning?
Journal of Health Specialties / October 2015 / Vol 3 | Issue 4 193
must be performed (psychomotor), and the procedures
must be adjusted based on the sounds and tactile
sensations (psychomotor).[26]
Figure 1 shows three different types of blended
learning designs (Blended I, II and III). The X axis
represents the activities that are best delivered using
self‑guided/online learning materials, whereas the Y
axis represents the activities that are best delivered
using a collaborative approach either face to face or
online with Web 2.0 tools.
Blended I, is encouraged when there is a perfect match
between self‑guided/online activities and collaborative
activities. Blended II suggests there is a higher number
of learning outcomes falling under the collaborative
approach. Blended III suggests there is a higher number
of learning outcomes falling under the self‑guided/
online delivery approach[27] [Figure 1].
METHODS
The course on respiratory medicine delivered to year
1 students of the MBBS course was selected for this
research. The learning outcomes of the course were run
through BLEnDT©. According to the blended learning
design suggested by BLEnDT©, 25% of the learning
outcomes of the course were best suited for self‑guided
interactive learning, leaving the rest 75% of the learning
outcomes to be delivered in a collaborative way during
the course.
An interactive self‑guided module was then developed
and delivered via Blackboard before the course. The
interactive module focussed mainly on the revision of
anatomical concepts related to respiratory medicine.
At the course, the students completed a pre‑quiz
covering the content delivered on the interactive
module and received an iPad to interact with the
lecturer using the iPad App: NearPod.
At the end of the course, the students completed a
post‑quiz which covered the content delivered at the
course as well as a survey titled ‘my learning experience
after the interactive session using iPads’ which is
an adaptation of the validated survey developed by
Bonnanno and Kommers.[28]
The median and interquartile range was used to
summarise continuous variables such as the quiz scores
and the different components. The Mann–Whitney U‑test
was used to compare the scores in two groups. Spearman
correlation was used to compare the continuous variables
such as the quiz scores and other exam results. Stata
version 13 (StataCorp LP, 4905 Lakeway Drive, College
Station, Texas 77845‑4512, USA) was used for analysis.
Linear regression was used to analyse any association
between final year result and the blended learning
programme implemented (completion of Blackboard
course plus Pre Quiz and post‑quiz).
The survey ‘my learning experience after the interactive
session using iPads’ was completed, and the scores for
the separate statements were coded in Stata version 13,
using reverse scoring for unfavourable statements.
Subjects
Figure 2 shows the different areas involved in the
blended learning course, 114 students completed the
interactive self‑guided module on Blackboard before
the practical (male = 58%), 275 students completed
the pre and post‑quiz (male = 170) and 197 students
completed the survey (male = 121).
RESULTS
The different scores collected were analysed looking
at all the different components of the blended
learning course. Some of the key findings are explained
below.
Figure 1: BLEnDT© model. Copyright 2010. Dr. Maria Toro-Troconis.
Imperial College London. CC License - CC BY-NC-ND Figure 2: Blended Learning Design course based on BLEnDT© analysis
[Downloaded free from http://www.thejhs.org on Saturday, March 24, 2018, IP: 85.103.47.151]
Toro‑Troconis: Why we should pay more attention to E‑learning?
194 Journal of Health Specialties / October 2015 / Vol 3 | Issue 4
There is weak evidence of an association between
average overall mark in the final year exam and the
post‑quiz scores (rs = 0.201, P = 0.006) [Figures 3 and 4].
There is also very strong evidence of an association
between the average mark obtained that year and
overall respiratory mark (rs = 0.509, P < 0.0001).
The overall respiratory mark includes all the courses and
tutorials related to respiratory medicine undertaken that
year, of which the respiratory medicine course discussed
in this paper is one of them [Figure 5].
Linear regression was used to assess the effectiveness
of the fully blended learning experience in relation to
the student performance in the final year exam.
After taking into account the scores of the students that
completed the self‑guided module on Blackboard and the
pre‑quiz, there is marginal evidence of an increase in the
final respiratory mark as the post‑quiz scores increases.
The attitude components collected via the survey
‘my learning experience after the interactive session
using iPads’[28] were entered in StataCorp LP using the
appropriate codes.
A number of variables were constructed by computing
individual scores for the different components:
Affective component, perceived use, perceived control
and behavioural components. Tables 1 and 2 present
the scores for each statement related to the various
attitudinal components summarised, forming four
computed variables in relation to gender and ownership
of smartphones and tablet devices.
DISCUSSION
Gender‑related differences regarding the different
attitudinal components presented in the survey ‘my
learning experience after the interactive session
using iPads’ in relation to the use of iPads for learning
were analysed. Differences in relation to current
ownership of tablet devices and smartphones were also
looked at. The discussion is organised around the four
major components relating to the students’ attitudes, and
the statistical significance of some of the statements is
discussed in relation to the pedagogical implications.
Affective component
The affective component addresses feelings of fear,
hesitation and uneasiness experienced before and while
learning using an iPad.
There is no evidence of a difference in the affective
component between males and females (P = 0.364) as
well as between students who have and do not have a
smartphone (P = 0.336). In general, males and females
40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00
20 40 60 80 100
Post-quiz
Fitted values
Average Mark Year 1
Figure 3: Strong evidence of an association between average overall
mark in the nal year exam and the post‑quiz scores
20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
20 40 60 80 100
Post-quiz
Respiratory MarkFitted values
Figure 4: Evidence of an association between the year respiratory
mark and the post‑quiz scores
40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00
20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
Respiratory Mark
Fitted values
Average Mark Year 1
Figure 5: Very strong evidence of an association between average
marks obtained that year and respiratory mark
[Downloaded free from http://www.thejhs.org on Saturday, March 24, 2018, IP: 85.103.47.151]
Toro‑Troconis: Why we should pay more attention to E‑learning?
Journal of Health Specialties / October 2015 / Vol 3 | Issue 4 195
feel confident when using an iPad to interact with their
facilitator during the course.
However, there is evidence of a difference in the
affective component between those that have and do
not have a tablet device (P = 0.012). A more positive
attitude has been shown by students who have a tablet
device (28/30, 95%).
Perceived usefulness
There is no evidence of a difference in the perceived
usefulness component between males and
females (P = 0.851) as well as between students who
have and do not have a tablet device (P = 0.679).
However, there is some evidence of a difference
in the perceived usefulness component between
those who have and do not have a smartphone
(P = 0.086).
Perceived control
Students who already have a tablet device (P = 0.094)
felt much more in control when using an iPad to support
their learning and thus felt more capable of performing
the demanded actions. There is no evidence of a
difference in the perceived control component between
males and females (P = 0.394).
There is no evidence of a difference in the perceived
control component between those who have and do not
have a smartphone (P = 0.424).
Behavioural component
A positive behavioural component was manifested
as a willingness to use iPads for learning. Negative
behaviours involved avoidance tendencies.
There is no evidence of a difference in the behavioural
component between males and females (P = 0.406),
between those who have and do not have a
smartphone (P = 0.117) and between those who have
and do not have a tablet device (P = 0.136).
Both groups declared that they would not avoid using
iPads for learning showing their willingness to engage
in learning using iPads.
The survey ‘my learning experience after the interactive
session using iPads’ is a useful instrument from a
pedagogical perspective because it addresses attitudinal
components. The survey findings have helped to
identify key elements that should be looked at more
carefully during the design of blended learning activities
supported by the use of tablet devices, in this case,
iPads.
This study has been extremely important in the
evaluation of students’ attitudes towards learning
using iPads as part of a blended learning experience.
The feedback received informed the development and
implementation of the School of Medicine Mobile
Learning Strategy and subsequently the design and
implementation of the Mobile Learning pilot project
introduced in 2013.[29] The School of Medicine
subsequently issued iPads Mini to students in years
5 and 6 of the undergraduate medical curriculum
course at the beginning of the 2013/14 academic
term (over 800 iPads Mini for students and 50 to
academic staff).
The Ethical Committee at the School of Medicine
decided to accept the changes to the traditional course
only if all the students were exposed to the same
blended learning programme. Therefore, this study
was not conducted using a control group which may
be seen as a limitation.
The blended learning design and development
process supported by BLEnDT© has helped to identify
the requirements and potential challenges when
implementing blended learning courses supported
by tablet devices. These findings helped to shape the
direction of the Mobile Learning strategy in clinical years,
and it will definitely help to inform the development of
future blended learning courses and programmes in early
years, supported by the use of tablet devices.
It is worth noting that this blended learning course
was introduced in the early years of the medical
curriculum following a campus‑based approach with
a large number of learning outcomes targeting low end
cognitive skills. A blended course in a clinical setting
Table 1: Attitudinal components summarised in relation to gender
Computed components PMedian (IQR)
females
Median (IQR)
males
Affective component 0.364 27 (27 - 28) 28 (27 - 30)
Perceived use 0.851 16 (15 - 17) 16 (15 - 17)
Perceived control 0.394 23 (22 - 24) 25 (24 - 26)
Behavioural component 0.406 15 (14 - 16) 14 (14 - 16)
IQR: Interquartile range
Table 2: Attitudinal components summarised in relation to
ownership of smartphones and tablet devices
Computed components P
Smartphone
ownership
Tablet device
ownership
Affective component 0.336 0.012
Perceived use 0.086 0.679
Perceived control 0.424 0.094
Behavioural component 0.117 0.136
[Downloaded free from http://www.thejhs.org on Saturday, March 24, 2018, IP: 85.103.47.151]
Toro‑Troconis: Why we should pay more attention to E‑learning?
196 Journal of Health Specialties / October 2015 / Vol 3 | Issue 4
will bring different challenges which may have an
effect on the way the blended course is finally designed
and delivered. Blended courses at post‑graduate level
will also tend to target higher order cognitive skills for
which the blended learning design approach may differ
to undergraduate level.
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the support provided
by the E‑Learning team and the Faculty Education
Office at the School of Medicine, Imperial College
London.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
1. GrahamCR.Blendedlearning systems: Denition, current
trends,andfuturedirections.In:BonkCJ,GrahamCR,editors.
The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives,
Local Designs. San Francisco: Jossey Bass/Pfeiffer; 2006.
p.3‑21.
2. Procter C. Blended Learning in Practice. Proceedings of
Conference on Education in a Changing Environment 2003.
Salford,UK:TheUniversityofSalford;2003.
3. SharpeR,BeneldG,RobertsRG,FrancisR.Theundergraduate
experience of blended e‑learning:A review of UK literature
andpractice.TheHigherEducationAcademy;2006Available
from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/
ourwork/research/literature_reviews/blended_elearning_exec_
summary_1.pdf.[Lastaccessedon2013Oct20].
4. OliverM, TrigwellK. CanBlendedLearning BeRedeemed?
ELearn2005;2:17‑25.Availablefrom:http://www.wwwords.
co.uk/elea/content/pdfs/2/issue2‑1.asp#3.
5. WhitelockD,JelfsA.Journalofeducationalmediaspecialissue
onblendedlearning.JEducMedia2003;28:99‑100.
6. BanadosE,Ablended‑learningpedagogicalmodelforteaching
and learning EFL successfully through an online interactive
multimediaenvironment.CALICOJ2006;23:533‑50.
7. Littlejohn A, Pegler C. Preparing for Blended e‑Learning.
Connectingwith e‑Learning.Abingdon,UK:Rutledge;2007.
Availablefrom:http://oro.open.ac.uk/26763/.
8. Valiathan P.Blended Learning Models; 2002. Available
from: http://www.purnima‑valiathan.com/readings/
Blended‑Learning‑Models‑2002‑ASTD.pdf.[Lastaccessedon
2015Mar03].
9. MayesT,deFreitas S. JISC e‑LearningModelsDeskStudy:
Stage 2 – Review of e‑Learning Theories, Frameworks
and Models; 2004.Available from: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/
uploaded_documents/Stage%202%20Learning%20Models%20
(Version%201).pdf.[Lastaccessedon2013Oct20].
10. BliucA,GoodyearP,EllisR.Researchfocusandmethodological
choicesinstudiesintostudents’experiencesofblendedlearning.
InternetHighEduc2007;10:231‑44.
11. PiccianoAG. Blended learning: Implications for growth and
access.JAsynchronousLearnNetw2006;10:3.
12. AlebaikanR,TroudiS.BlendedlearninginSaudiuniversities:
Challengesandperspectives.ALTJ2010;18:49‑59.
13. Graham CR,Allen S, Ure D. Benefits and challenges of
blendedlearningenvironments. In: Khosrow‑Pour M, editor.
EncyclopediaofInformationScienceandTechnology.Hershey,
PA:IdeaGroup;2005.p.253‑9.
14. Osguthorpe RT, Graham CR. Blended learning systems:
Definitions and directions. Q Rev Distance Educ
2003;4:227‑34.
15. U.S.DepartmentofEducation,OfceofPlanning,Evaluation,
and Policy Development. Evaluation of Evidence‑Based
PracticesinOnlineLearning:AMeta‑AnalysisandReviewof
OnlineLearningStudies.Washington,DC;2010.
16. Biggs J. Teaching for Quality Learning at University.
Buckingham:SRHEandOpenUniversityPress;1999.
17. AlonsoF,LopezG,ManriqueD,VinezJM.Aninstructional
model for web‑based e‑learning education with a
blended learning process approach. Br J Educ Technol
2005;36:217‑35.
18. LearningDesignerTool.TechnologyEnhancedLearning(TEL)
Research Programme’sLearning Designer project led by
Professor Diana Laurillard at the London Knowledge Lab,
Institute of Education London. YouTube Video.Available
from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJRR8W_C0U4&
lr=1.[Lastaccessedon2015Mar03].
19. BLEnDT©–Blended Learning Design Tool. Faculty of
Medicine – Imperial College London; 2010.Available from:
http://www1.imperial.ac.uk/medicine/teaching/elearning/
blendt/.[Lastaccessedon2015Mar03].
20. BloomB. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, The
Classication of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive
Domain.UK:LongmanGroup;1956.
21. Simpson E. The Classication of Educational Objectives in
thePsychomotor Domain: ThePsychomotorDomain. Vol.3.
Washington,DC:GryphonHouse;1972.
22. Dave RH. Psychomotor levels in Developing and Writing
BehaviouralObjectives.ArmstrongRJ,editor.Tucson,Arizona,
USA:EducationalInnovatorsPress;1975.p.33‑4.
23. Harrow AJ.A Taxonomyof the Psychomotor Domain.
NewYork:DavidMcKayCo.;1972.
24. Kratwohl DR, Bloom BS, Masia BB. Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives, The Classication of Educational
Goals–HandbookII:AffectiveDomain.NewYork:McKay;
1964.
25. Toro‑Troconis M. Flipped Classroom, Blended Learning
and MOOCs. Learning Design in the 21st Century;
2013.Available from: http://www.f.imperial.ac.uk/blog/
learntechzone/2013/09/03/ipped‑classrooms‑blended‑learning‑
and‑moocs‑learning‑design‑in‑the‑21st‑century/.[Lastaccessed
on2015Mar03].
26. HortonW.E‑learningby Design. San Francisco: John Wiley
andSons;2006.
27. Toro‑TroconisM.Game‑basedLearningforVirtualPatientsin
SecondLife.DoctoralThesis,LuleåUniversityofTechnology.
Luleå,Sweden;2011.Availablefrom:http://www.tinyurl.com/
bsp6soe.[Lastaccessedon2015Mar03].
28. BonnannoP,KommersMP.Exploringtheinuenceofgender
andgamingcompetenceonattitudestowardsusinginstructional
[Downloaded free from http://www.thejhs.org on Saturday, March 24, 2018, IP: 85.103.47.151]
Toro‑Troconis: Why we should pay more attention to E‑learning?
Journal of Health Specialties / October 2015 / Vol 3 | Issue 4 197
games.BrJEducTechnol2008;39:97‑109.
29. Toro‑Troconis M, Hemani A, Murphy K. Learning
Design in the 21st Century – Blended Learning Design
Tool(BLEnDT© and MOOC‑it©). In Proceedings of the
#designforlearning: From Blended Learning to Learning
AnalyticsinHE. Open University (OU),HigherEducation
AcademyConference,TheOpenUniversityMiltonKeynes,
UK;26‑27November,2014.
Author Help: Online submission of the manuscripts
Articles can be submitted online from http://www.journalonweb.com. For online submission, the articles should be prepared in two files (first
page file and article file). Images should be submitted separately.
1) First Page File:
Prepare the title page, covering letter, acknowledgement etc. using a word processor program. All information related to your identity should
be included here. Use text/rtf/doc/pdf files. Do not zip the files.
2) Article File:
The main text of the article, beginning with the Abstract to References (including tables) should be in this file. Do not include any informa‑
tion (such as acknowledgement, your names in page headers etc.) in this file. Use text/rtf/doc/pdf files. Do not zip the files. Limit the file
size to 1 MB. Do not incorporate images in the file. If file size is large, graphs can be submitted separately as images, without their being
incorporated in the article file. This will reduce the size of the file.
3) Images:
Submit good quality color images. Each image should be less than 4096 kb (4 MB) in size. The size of the image can be reduced by decreas‑
ing the actual height and width of the images (keep up to about 6 inches and up to about 1800 x 1200 pixels). JPEG is the most suitable
file format. The image quality should be good enough to judge the scientific value of the image. For the purpose of printing, always retain a
good quality, high resolution image. This high resolution image should be sent to the editorial office at the time of sending a revised article.
4) Legends:
Legends for the figures/images should be included at the end of the article file.
[Downloaded free from http://www.thejhs.org on Saturday, March 24, 2018, IP: 85.103.47.151]
... Individuals learn independently and then come together for dynamic interaction in group sessions [13]. A tool based on this philosophy has been developed at Imperial College London called the Blended Learning Design Tool (BLEnDT) [14]. The pedagogic framework which forms the basis of BLEnDT uses the learning domains (psychomotor, cognitive and affective), in order to classify the verb of each learning outcome an online or face-to-face format [15,16]. ...
... The module was redesigned using BLEnDT, a tool developed within the School of Medicine in Imperial College London [14]. Readers wishing to use the tool are invited to contact the e-learning team at Imperial College London (elearnm@imperial.ac.uk). ...
Article
Full-text available
Background Blended learning is a combination of online and face-to-face learning and is increasingly of interest for use in undergraduate medical education. It has been used to teach clinical post-graduate students pharmacology but needs evaluation for its use in teaching pharmacology to undergraduate medical students, which represent a different group of students with different learning needs. Methods An existing BSc-level module on neuropharmacology was redesigned using the Blended Learning Design Tool (BLEnDT), a tool which uses learning domains (psychomotor, cognitive and affective) to classify learning outcomes into those taught best by self-directed learning (online) or by collaborative learning (face-to-face). Two online courses were developed, one on Neurotransmitters and the other on Neurodegenerative Conditions. These were supported with face-to-face tutorials. Undergraduate students’ engagement with blended learning was explored by the means of three focus groups, the data from which were analysed thematically. ResultsFive major themes emerged from the data 1) Purpose and Acceptability 2) Structure, Focus and Consolidation 3) Preparation and workload 4) Engagement with e-learning component 5) Future Medical Education. Conclusion Blended learning was acceptable and of interest to undergraduate students learning this subject. They expressed a desire for more blended learning in their courses, but only if it was highly structured, of high quality and supported by tutorials. Students identified that the ‘blend’ was beneficial rather than purely online learning.
... Blended learning is an education method that combines the advantages of online and offline instruction. The advantage of face-to-face education is realistic interaction, and the advantages of online education are that group class time is minimized and prior learning or review is possible without time and space constraints [14]. For students who are proficient in information technology, the combination of online education using the university's learning management system (LMS) and practice education is an effective teaching method. ...
... In the design stage, it was decided to apply blended learning, which was thoroughly reviewed during the analysis process. In this study, offline and online contents were appropriately distributed by applying blended learning, a teaching method that can efficiently use class time and increase student interest [14]. And the skills that require repetitive training were demonstrated by peers and practiced repeatedly so that learners' autonomy could be maximized [19,20]. ...
Article
Purpose: This study describes the development and implementation of a mechanical ventilation education program with a blended learning method for nursing students.Methods: Sixty-five nursing students were recruited either to the experimental group (n=33) or to the control group (n=32) in May 2020. This program was developed based on the analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation model. The analysis phase consisted of a literature review, expert consultations, and target group survey. In addition, learning objectives and a structure were designed, and an online program was developed. In the implementation phase, the program was conducted over the course of 2 weeks. The evaluation phase involved verification of the effects of the program on knowledge of mechanical ventilation, self-confidence, and ventilator nursing skills performance, as well as an assessment of satisfaction with the program.Results: The experimental group had significantly higher scores on knowledge of mechanical ventilation (t=4.29, p<.001), self-confidence (t=2.31, p=.024), and ventilator nursing skills performance (t=4.65, p<.001) than the control group.Conclusion: The results indicate that this mechanical ventilation education program with blended learning was effective in meeting the needs of nursing students and can be widely used in this context.
... - (Morton et al., 2016;Toro-Troconis, 2015). ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper introduces the COM-B model (Capabilities-Opportunities-Motivation:Behaviour) and its use in combination with the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) in developing an intervention which aims to promote the adoption of learning design methodologies by academic staff working with learning technologists in Higher Education (HE). Qualitative structured interviews were conducted among members of staff from five UK universities based on the COM-B model to identify the main behavioural determinants for the use and implementation of learning design methodologies. The analysis suggests that the implementation of learning design methodologies/frameworks might be more likely to occur if academic staff and learning technologists’ psychological capability, physical and social opportunities, and intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are addressed. The COM-B model and the BCW have been effective in the context of learning design to analyse the behaviour of academic staff and learning technologists when engaging in the design of online/blended learning programmes.
... Easy availability of these modern learning tools has made medical education easy and lesser expensive [1][2][3] . Lectures on blackboards and overheads have been replaced by power point and easily available e-Learning software 4 . Information technology is a new way of teaching and learning to achieve fast and successful development of knowl-edge and skills among users 5 . ...
Article
Full-text available
Background: Information technology (IT) is a new way of teaching and learning. One of the promising media of information technology is e-Learning, which is used to enhance knowledge and skills among users. A student gains better and deep knowledge through a useful tool. This survey aimed to determine practices among medical students for e-Learning. Methods: This cross-sectional survey was conducted on 184 students amongst the 500 students currently enrolled in medical college. Data was collected using questionnaires and were analyzed through SPSS version 22. Chi-square was used for qualitative values. Results: Majority 90.80% (n=167) students were aware of e-Learning and were statistically high in first year students (p-value: 0.018). The student did not show statistically significant results for content learned through e-Learning with a p-value of 0.063. Different resources were used for e-Learning in which videos had the highest percentage (87.60%) and audios were used as the least resource for e-Learning (29.20%). Daily, 56% of the students use e-Learning for 1 hour or less and only 3% of the students used it for more than 4 hours. Conclusion: Majority of undergraduate medical students were aware of the use of e-Learning and most of them preferred e-Learning for their course work and studies showing a significant increase in understanding and use, compared to studies conducted earlier. Participants found e-Learning useful and effective tool in increasing knowledge and understanding of their subject. Keywords: e-Learning; Practices; Students.
... According to the framework, the more focused the learning outcomes are on developing attitude and high-order cognitive knowledge (conceptual and metacognitive), the more the learning activities fit a collaborative approach. The more focused the learning outcomes are on skills development as well as on low-end cognitive skills (factual and procedural knowledge), the more the learning activity can fit a self-directed learning approach (Bloom et al., 1956;Morton et al., 2016;Toro-Troconis, 2015). ...
Article
This paper presents the learning design framework used in the design of the Online MA in Photography at Falmouth University. It discusses the importance of evaluating the success of online learning programmes by analysing learning analytics and student feedback within the overall pedagogic context and design of the programme. Linear regression analysis was used to analyse the engagement of three cohorts of students that completed four modules of the Online MA Photography (n=33) with over 80,000 entries in the dataset. The research explored student engagement with online content that promoted low-order cognitive skills (i.e. watching videos, reading materials and listening to podcasts) as well as high-order cognitive skills (i.e. participating in online forums and webinars). The results suggest there is weak evidence of an association between average overall mark in all modules and the level of engagement with self-directed content (P = 0.0187). There is also weak evidence of an association between average overall mark in all modules and the level of engagement in collaborative activities (P < 0.0528). Three major themes emerged from the focus group 1) weekly forums and webinars, 2) self-directed learning materials and 3) learning design and support. Online learning was acceptable and convenient to postgraduate students. These findings are discussed further in the paper as potential predictors of student performance in online programmes.
Chapter
This chapter presents the findings from four case studies by higher education curriculum teams who used the CoDesignS Learning Design Framework for designing online or blended learning modules as part of the Learning Design Bootcamp and/or an institutional community of practice (CoP). The aim of the bootcamp was to inspire and empower learning technologists, learning designers, and academics from different disciplines to acquire a learning design mindset. The learning design journeys of each team are explored and analysed. The CoDesignS Framework enabled the teams to develop their designs and to systematically scale up learning design practices within their organisations. The sharing of good practice through the Learning Design Bootcamp and institutional CoPs was a key factor in the development of educator identity and confidence. Together, the framework and CoPs positively impacted culture and mindset, resulting in improved quality of learning and teaching and enhanced student experience and outcomes.
Article
Full-text available
The transition to online learning is an accepted and anticipated change across all higher education institutions. These changes have become even more relevant to healthcare education given the challenges posed by COVID19. This paper describes the application of the Cambridge Education Group Pedagogic Framework (2018) to online dental education, specifically the conversion of a face-to-face ‘Transition to Clinical Practice’ module in paediatric dentistry. The framework has a foundation in medical education and holds great value for clinical academics across all healthcare disciplines in the design and implementation of online teaching. This affords educators much needed structure and assistance in meeting the needs of our students in this era of online learning. The advantages and disadvantages are explored, illustrated by student feedback, following a pilot implementation at a Dental School in the United Kingdom.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this paper is to reflect on issues of growth and access in blended learning environments. Increasingly decision makers throughout higher education are considering blended learning as an important component of their academic programs. It is hoped that this paper will help to provide insight for these decision makers. Many of the thoughts and ideas in this paper evolved out of discussions on Growth Paradigms held at the 2005 Sloan-C Summer Workshop in Victoria, British Columbia, and the 2004 and 2005 Sloan-C Workshops on Blended Learning held in Chicago.
Article
Full-text available
Although the term ‘blended learning’ is widely used, this article argues against it. Two arguments are advanced. The first is primarily philosophical, although it has several pragmatic implications. It proposes that ‘blending’ either relies on the idea of dichotomies which are suspect within the context of learning with technology or else becomes ineffective as a discriminating concept and is thus without purpose. The implication of this is that the term ‘blended’ should either be abandoned or, at the least, radically reconceived. The second argument proposes that learning, from the perspective of the learner, is rarely, if ever, the subject of blended learning. What is actually being addressed are forms of instruction, teaching, or at best, pedagogies. The implication of this is that the term ‘learning’ should be abandoned. The second half of the article attempts to redeem the concept of blended learning by arguing that learning gains attributed to blended learning may have their explanation in variation theory. It offers a new way to conceptualise what is being ‘blended’ that is theoretically coherent, philosophically defensible and pragmatically informative. The article concludes by setting an agenda for further work in this area.
Technical Report
Full-text available
The review report addresses the current meanings of 'blended learning' across the sector. A team of researchers from the Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development (OCSLD) has completed a review of the UK literature and practice relating to the undergraduate experience of blended learning. The study aimed to review existing research and practice on blended e-learning, identify key studies and issues, and make recommendations to guide future policy and practice. The review team combined traditional desk research, with institutional visits and interviews with key personnel. The review report addresses the current meanings of 'blended learning' across the sector, the underlying institutional rationales for blended learning, the monitoring and evaluation strategies being adopted for ensuring and enhancing the quality of blended e-learning. The review has found that the student response to the provision of online information to supplement traditional teaching is overwhelmingly positive. It is clear from the uptake of this area of technology by institutions, the rise of the use of the term 'blended learning' and the number of evaluative studies identified in the review, that institutions and practitioners are attempting to engage with blended learning and are doing so successfully.