Strategies for large scale blended learning initiatives

Since 2003, the College of Fine Arts (COFA), The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia has successfully developed and implemented online learning and teaching training programs. In 2008, an increase of interest amongst the Faculty in the potential of blending learning, prompted COFA Online (COFA's elearning unit), to conduct a special Blended Learning Fellowship Training Program to support staff wishing to develop and implement their own blended learning curricula. This program was to serve as a pilot test before a wider implementation of blended learning strategies across the faculty. A total of 35 academics participated in the program, which comprised blended curriculum development, online teaching, and online class management techniques. A total of 11 blended courses across a range of programs and stages were developed, involving 1185 students. During the program and the teaching semester, comparative analysis of different courses in the program was conducted in the context of comprehensive evaluation data, and collegial discussion within the community of involved academics. Whilst the program was an overall success, revealing several effective blended learning strategies, it also highlighted several problematic issues relevant to any large-scale implementation of blended learning. In particular: • The traditional roles and expectations of teachers and students were challenged, revealing particular adaptive difficulties shared by both groups • Balance of workload and time management were key for both teachers and students • The 'ripple effect' of blended learning upon academic management and administrative strategies must be anticipated to ensure this form of teaching integrates well with existing practice. This paper discusses these issues and outlines what teachers, administrators and students can expect when adapting to a blended learning environment, and provides a solid foundation for further research into management, training and teaching issues surrounding large scale blended learning applications in tertiary institutions. COFA Online Overview COFA Online is an academic unit responsible for the development and management of a wide range of fully online and blended undergraduate and postgraduate courses in art and design disciplines at the College of Fine Arts, The University of New South Wales, Sydney Australia. COFA Online also specialises in the development and dissemination of online specific pedagogy and training through a series of specially designed Fellowship programs. Since 2003, these programs have assisted academic staff develop and teach around 15 blended and 60 fully online undergraduate and postgraduate units, a fully online global postgraduate degree, and various special projects. Fellowships are typically run over a number of months, and bring together academics and learning and teaching professionals in both face-to-face and online environments for sharing of ideas, experience and support. Special instruction is given on online curriculum development, teaching and collaborative learning management. The Blended Learning Fellowship Program Context During early 2008, interest in blended learning in the COFA Faculty increased due to the growing acceptance of online learning as a legitimate and effective educational option in the broader academic community (Goodyear & Ellis, 2007), and word of mouth of from several academics within our fully online programs. When the program coordinators of the Faculty's Design and Media Arts programs wished to implement more flexible blended learning options, it was decided to develop a tailored training program to bring involved academics together to work towards a common goal, rather than work in isolation. The COFA Online Blended Learning Program, based upon the format of previous Fellowships, was therefore designed to provide: • a formalisation of the development of blended learning within the faculty • a supportive community of practice for interested academics • a lasting training infrastructure and an adaptable blended learning model for others to follow • a pedagogy (opposed to technology) focused approach to blended learning • an improved learning experience for students who participate in the blended projects. Seventeen full time academic staff and eighteen casual tutors from the Schools of Design Studies, Digital Media and Art History and Education, took part in the pilot Blended Learning Fellowship Program. Fellowship Structure The Blended Learning Fellowship Program was conducted in three main phases: staff training, implementation of the blended units, and evaluation (Figure 1). Figure 1 Methodological approach of the Blended Learning Fellowship Program As this was the first time such a program had been run at this scale, it was to act as a pilot study to help determine the most effective model of practice for a wider implementation of blended learning across the Faculty in the future. The Fellowship aimed to help academics unite the advantages of both face-toface and online learning models to maximise: • the efficiency of face-to-face studio/tutorial time • constructive alignment (Biggs 1999) of learning outcomes and integrated projects across units within the same program • interaction between students in different tutorial groups within units • streamlined delivery and integration of course material with collaborative learning methods • universal access to resources and administrative material • sustainability of programs through the collection of a digital repository of lectures, notes and resources. Fellowship Workshops The Fellowship itself comprised a series of face-to-face workshops, supported by an online community in between meetings, where staff could upload developmental milestones, access resources and offer peer review. This blended approach was integral in offering the academics first hand experience using this model of teaching, and also gave them an appreciation of the student point of view. Initially, full time academics attended the first three workshops in order to adapt the curricula of their units to a blended learning format. Tutors were inducted in Workshop 3 before the start of semester, and all students were given an overview of the blended learning program and online learning environment at the start of semester. The workshops continued into Semester 2 so as to offer ongoing support and discussion for the academics. The workshop and activity structure can be summarised as below: WORKSHOP 1 ‘Introduction – Inspirations and Suggestions’ May 2 Attendees: Coordinators, Conveners and Student Panel Introduction to Fellowship process Community of practice philosophy Roles and responsibilities Preconceptions/misconceptions about online learning Benefits of blended learning Suggestions by staff and students Expectations of coordinators, teachers and students Introduction to online learning environment Mapping out course structure Graduate attributes Issue Stage 1 evaluation to students WORKSHOP 2 ‘Setting up, preparing and teaching your course’ May 30 Attendees: Coordinators and Conveners Course Schedules Constructive Alignment Online socialising Signposting, branding Academics commence uploading information WORKSHOP 3 ‘Inducting Tutors’ June 27 Attendees: Coordinators, Conveners, Tutors Identify and coordinate administrative and housekeeping issues Coordinators to brief tutors on expectations and blended model Navigating website Issue evaluations to coordinators and conveners WORKSHOP 4 ‘Induct students’ July 25 Attendees: all participating students Academics induct students to website Student workshop to introduce blended learning environment and discuss expectations WORKSHOP 5 ‘Course Evaluation’ – August 15 Attendees: Coordinators, Conveners and Tutors Feedback from tutors, coordinators, conveners Community of Practice suggestions, sharing of information and experiences Monitor process Brief analysis of student feedback WORKSHOP 6 ‘Reflection and Discussion’ – October 3 Attendees: Coordinators, Conveners and Tutors Evaluations of coordinators, tutors, conveners Community of Practice – suggestions, sharing of information and experiences Issue results online student evaluations Discuss issues that arose suggestions on strategies for improvement What worked well during the session? Evaluation of the Program Worthy of note were the different ways in which the three Schools used blended learning in their units of study, and the varying number of students, teaching staff and tutorial groups involved in each unit (Table 1). Table 1 Number of Staff and Students involved in the Blended Learning Fellowship Program  School Lecturers Tutors Units Av Tutes per Unit Total Students Design Studies (Integrated Studio) 9 14 5 7 850 Media Arts (Individual Studio) 7 4 5 2 305  Art History & Education (Individual Theory) 1 0 1 1 30 Totals 17 18 11 n/a 1185 This enabled a comparative analysis of training, teaching and managerial aspects surrounding the application of simple, intermediate and complex applications of blended learning. Evaluation Methodology There were three key elements of the pilot Blended Learning Fellowship Program that were evaluated: • Effectiveness of the Fellowship • Teaching experiences • Student learning experiences To ensure a comparative basis for analysis, data were gathered from different instruments at three key stages during the program, from students and teaching staff: Stage 1: Pre Semester (Pre-blended learning) Student Survey 1 Issued to all students to gauge level of student satisfaction with various aspects of their existing face-to-face units. Used as benchmark for post evaluation Student Focus Group Representatives of the three Schools were brought together to discuss their expectations and preconceptions about blended learning Staff Focus Groups Staff discussed their expectations and preconceptions of blended learning Stage 2: Mid Semester Student Feedback All students were given the oppor