Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 109117

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

University teacher approaches to design and teaching and concepts of learning technologies
Robert A. Ellis a, *, Jane Hughes b, Mark Weyers b, Phil Riding c
a

Institute of Teaching and Learning, Carslaw F07, University of Sydney, Broadway Campus, Sydney 2006, Australia Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching, University College London, UK c Learning Technologies Support Service, University College London, UK
b

a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history: Received 12 October 2007 Received in revised form 2 May 2008 Accepted 30 June 2008 Keywords: Teachers approaches Design Teaching Learning technologies

a b s t r a c t
This study investigates the experience of teaching of 19 teachers who are teaching on university courses involving face-to-face and on-line learning. The teachers are asked about how they think about learning technologies and how they approach the design and teaching of their courses across these two contexts. Results show that there are qualitatively different ways of thinking about learning technologies that relate logically and positively to qualitatively different ways of designing and teaching using learning technologies. The results have implications for teachers and those interested in maximising the likelihood of learning for university students when teachers teach with learning technologies. 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Teaching for quality student learning at university is a challenge that never ceases. For teachers and researchers who strive to understand how to achieve successful student learning outcomes, the challenge becomes greater when new and unknown aspects are introduced to the university classroom. This is particularly true when learning technologies are used. The literature does not offer a clear and consistent understanding of how learning technologies can be used to enable students to engage in deep and purposeful ways. Seminal research has emphasised the importance of approaches to teaching (Entwistle, McCune, & Walker, 2001; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Ramsden, 2002) by identifying qualitatively different approaches to teaching which are closely related to variations in the quality of student learning. However, when learning technologies are used as part of the approach to teaching, it is not clear how they are related to student learning. Some aspects of the experience of teaching come to the foreground when learning technologies are used. This study argues that two important aspects are the approaches to design and the concepts of learning technologies that teachers hold. Design is important because it can be shaped to help achieve the intentions underpinning teaching. Concepts of learning technologies held by

teachers are important because it is unlikely that a concept that views learning technologies as purely delivery mechanisms is likely to be related to a meaningful use of them. On the face of it therefore, it would seem that these two aspects are likely to be an important part of the approach to teaching, but there is yet to be sustained research into these parts of the experience and how they are related to variations in the quality of approaches to teaching. The purpose of this study is to investigate associations amongst the way teachers report thinking about learning technologies, their approaches to design when learning technologies are used and their approaches to teaching when learning technologies are used to enable student understanding. Teachers from two researchintensive, predominantly campus-based institutions on two different continents were interviewed with a view to better understand variations in experiences of teaching involving learning technologies, so that we might be in a better position to offer insight into ways of thinking about and using learning technologies in teaching approaches at university.

1.1. View of learning and teaching and prior research Related prior research for this study falls across two areas; research into relational student learning in higher education (for example Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Ramsden, 2002; Marton & Booth, 1997) and learning technologies in higher education (for example Hawkridge, 1999; Reeves & Laffey, 1999; Reiser, 2001).

* Corresponding author. Fax: 61 2 9351 4331. E-mail address: r.ellis@vcc.usyd.edu.au (R.A. Ellis). 0742-051X/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.06.010

110

R.A. Ellis et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 109117

This study adopts a view of learning and teaching which is a relational one, one that links the experiences of teaching to the student experiences of learning. The key parts of this view of teaching in this study include the teachers prior experiences, the situation they nd themselves in when teaching, their perceptions of the context, their approaches to teaching and the outcomes that occur as a result of their teaching (Prosser & Trigwell, 1999). This research approach is part of a tradition of research into student learning in higher education often referred to as phenomenography (Marton & Booth, 1997). Broadly expressed, it adopts the view that qualitative differences in approaches to teaching are logically related to qualitative differences in the way students experience their learning. In terms of the teachers experience, the quality of the approach to teaching adopted is related to their perceptions of the context, the conceptions of learning which they bring to the experience, the situation they nd themselves in and the outcomes they are able to achieve. Studies in this area have focussed on the conceptions of, and approaches to, teaching adopted by teachers and links between these aspects and the student experience of learning (DallAlba, 1991; Prosser, Trigwell, & Taylor, 1994; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996). Another area of related research for this study is learning technologies. For the purposes of this study, learning technologies are dened as those technologies used to help students to attain the learning outcomes of their course (derived from HEFCE, 2005). The eld of learning technologies has been a signicant part of the higher education landscape for more than 30 years (Hawkridge, 1999). As a eld it has been inuenced by instructional design ideas, pedagogical ideas, ideas related to motivation, experiential validity, and collaborative learning, most of which have been situated in relation to each to help guide approaches to design and evaluation (Reeves & Laffey, 1999; Reiser, 2001). Perhaps because of its integration with so many other elds, the eld of learning technologies continues to be a rapidly evolving one which must continue to seek to inform its principles and practice with the latest developments across the international educational sector (Kozma, 2000). Relatively recent books have provided frameworks which allow teachers to make the most of the affordance of the current generation of learning technologies mostly for predominantly online contexts (Anderson and Elloumi, 2004; Clark & Mayer, 2002; Collis & Moonen, 2001; Garrison & Anderson, 2003; Lockwood & Gooley, 2001; Palloff & Pratt, 1999, 2003; Salmon, 2001, 2002). This study complements and extends the existing research by focusing on the implications of the experience of teaching when learning technologies are included to support student learning. Little research has been undertaken which attends to associations amongst qualitatively different experiences of teaching and their relationship to concepts of learning technologies. Research methodologies from phenomenography (Marton & Booth, 1997; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999) are adopted in this study. They are particularly suited to identify qualitatively different experiences of learning and teaching. The research methodologies aid the researchers in unpacking the internal and external structures of the phenomenon under study in order to identify its key aspects and qualitative variation of those aspects. In the context of this study, learning technologies provided the means by which students were able to engage in on-line learning. The key aspects that are focused on in this study are teacher conceptions of learning technologies, approaches to design for university courses when students are expected to learn across faceto-face and on-line contexts, and approaches to teaching when students are expected to learn across face-to-face and on-line contexts. In the context of the interviews with teachers, the combination of experiences of learning and teaching across face-toface and on-line contexts is referred to as blended experiences of learning and teaching.

2. Method This study arose from a collaboration between researchers at two metropolitan campus-based, research-intensive universities: one in Britain and one in Australia. Its structure follows earlier studies, but focuses on different variables (Crawford, Gordon, Nicholas, & Prosser, 1994; Ellis, Steed, & Applebee, 2006). As the study and interviews progressed, it became clear that for the majority of the teachers being interviewed, the course each chose as the focus of discussion had previously been taught completely in a face-to-face context. Through continued curriculum development over the past ve years on-line activities and materials were introduced to support the student experience of learning, an experience which provided some signicant challenges for the teachers involved. The interviews help to unpack variation in these experiences of teaching.

2.1. Research site and participants Teachers with varying experiences of designing and teaching in a blended learning context (that is, combinations of face-to-face and on-line learning) were randomly sought as volunteers. Nineteen teachers volunteered from a range of undergraduate and postgraduate courses in different disciplines, 9 males and 10 females. The range of ages was from 30 to 50 years old, and all had a similar amount of experience of teaching using learning management systems. Tables 1 and 2 summarise the contexts of the courses from which the teachers came. Table 1 provides summary information which indicates the prole of courses taught by interviewees from the rst university. The sample includes 7 undergraduate and 2 postgraduate courses, totalling approximately 950 student enrolments. All students used a learning management system (LMS), interactive and informational resources to support the student learning experiences. Interactive resources included discussions which required postings on-line, inquiry-based tasks such as case studies and problem solving which required submissions. Information resources included course information and readings as well as instructions for activities. Table 2 provides summary information which indicates the prole of courses taught by interviewees from the second university. The sample includes 7 undergraduate, 3 postgraduate courses and one mixed-level course, totalling approximately 700 student enrolments. All students used a learning management system (LMS), interactive and informational resources to support the student learning experiences. Interactive resources included

Table 1 Proles of courses of interviewees from the rst university Level Discipline Course Type of technologies and resources used size LMS Interactive Informational <100 <100 <300 Discussions Case-based problems Blackboard Financial problems on Excel WebCT Inquiry-based exercises WebCT Discussions Blackboard Discussions WebCT WebCT Case studies Case studies WebCT WebCT All courses had a mixture of course outlines, assessment instructions and course readings as a minimum

Undergraduate Engineering Undergraduate Pharmacy Postgraduate Finance

Undergraduate Science

<100

Postgraduate Education <50 Undergraduate International <100 studies Undergraduate Veterinary <100 science Undergraduate Veterinary <100 science

R.A. Ellis et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 109117 Table 2 Proles of courses of interviewees from the second university Level Discipline Course size Type of technologies and resources used LMS Undergraduate Undergraduate Undergraduate Postgraduate PG&UG Undergraduate Undergraduate Undergraduate Postgraduate Undergraduate Postgraduate Arts <20 Management <200 Management <200 Health <10 sciences Arts <10 Sciences <30 Sciences <30 Humanities <180 Architecture <10 Arts <40 Health sciences <20 Interactive Informational

111

All courses had a mixture of course outlines, WebCT Discussion assessment instructions WebCT Discussion WebCT Project-based and course readings as a WebCT Simulations minimum Moodle Discussion Moodle Blogging WebCT Collaborative writing tools Moodle Discussion

WebCT Discussion Moodle Discussion

discussions, blogging and project-based tasks, all of which required submissions. Information resources included course information and readings as well as instructions for activities. 2.2. Research questions and methodological analysis The volunteer teachers were invited to semi-structured interviews, which lasted between 30 and 40 min and were fully recorded and transcribed. The interviews began with a discussion in which teachers were able to provide the salient characteristics of their contexts of teaching. The interviews were then divided into sections in which the teachers were given a chance to discuss their answers to three key questions: 1. What are learning technologies? (teacher conceptions of learning technologies) 2. How do you approach designing courses in which students are expected to learn in face-to-face and on-line contexts? (approaches to blended design) 3. How do you approach teaching courses in which students are expected to learn in face-to-face and on-line contexts? (approaches to blended teaching) The interview process allowed probing of the interviewee responses through follow up questions. This particularly occurred when teachers used words which could take on different meanings in different contexts. Four researchers then began an iterative research process which involved creating and classifying the teachers interview transcripts using a phenomenographic approach (Marton & Booth, 1997). An example of the analysis process for approaches to design is given in the following.  All the teacher responses to the question on approaches to design were read to get a feel for the depth and breadth of variation in the experiences of design.
Table 3 The communicability of the categories of the experience of blended teaching Conceptions of learning technologies % Agreement after initial categorisation Researcher 1 Researcher 2 Researcher 3 100 90 80 % Agreement after consultation 100 100 90

 Two researchers identied initial extracts from all the transcripts that identied the main themes in what the teachers were saying.  Themes were linked into logically related groupings.  Representative extracts and draft categories were collated and discussed amongst all of the researchers.  Key aspects of the teacher experiences were discussed in terms of the strategies underpinning their approach (what they did) and the reference of the approach (what was their intention in doing what they did) (Marton & Booth, 1997). This process of analysis follows the phenomenographic position that any phenomenon can be analysed in terms of its structure (the parts that make it up) and its reference (what the parts mean in relation to each other and as a whole).  Discussion ensued and on the basis of a combined reection in which different aspects of the teacher experience of design came to the fore, the draft categories went through a number of iterations and were amended to provide the nal categories which are presented in Section 3.  The categorisation process drew on the SOLO taxonomy to help structure the hierarchies of the nal categories in Section 3 (Biggs, 2003). The taxonomy describes the holistic nature of students understanding in stages ranging from pre-structural [which is collecting bits of information] to extended abstract [which involves making links with understanding beyond the given subject area]. In this study, this framework is drawn on to shape qualitatively different categories described below for each of the key variables: teachers conceptions of learning technologies, their approaches to design and approaches to teaching in blended contexts. The process described above was used to analyse each of the research questions in the interviews. The discussion surrounding the categorisation process helped to clarify the categories for all the researchers. Table 3 shows the percentage agreement amongst the three remaining researchers before and after consultations with the classication of one of the researchers. Percentage agreement after consultation for all categories was between 80 and 100% amongst the four researchers. During the interview and analysis processes, it became clear that the contexts of the teachers in the two countries had many similarities. This characteristic of the population sample was further emphasised when the analysis process of the interview transcripts was undertaken. The nal categories identied through the analysis process were not sufciently distinct between the two universities to warrant their separation. Consequently, a decision to pool the data was taken. It is likely that the similarities in the nature of the two universities, that they are both campus-based, researchintensive universities, contributed to the similarity of teaching experiences amongst the teachers in both contexts. 3. Results The results are presented in three sections: (1) teacher conceptions of learning technologies; (2) teacher approaches to blended design; and (3) teacher approaches to blended teaching.

Approaches to blended design % Agreement after initial categorisation 90 70 80 % Agreement after consultation 100 80 90

Approaches to blended teaching % Agreement after initial categorisation 90 80 90 % Agreement after consultation 90 90 100

112

R.A. Ellis et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 109117

The main ndings of the study presented below present qualitatively different categories of conceptions and approaches to teaching using blended learning environments. 3.1. Teacher conceptions of learning technologies The interviews identied variation in how teachers reported thinking about learning technologies. In the categories presented below, the rst two categories tend to focus more on technologies as tools and the last two categories tend to focus more on the student. 3.1.1. Category A: learning technologies as tools for access In response to the question what are learning technologies?, some teachers reported thinking about technologies primarily as a mechanism to improve issues related to access. Id say its just another way to get students to learn and it can be more convenient to teach people like say who are geographically spread, or who for example dont have time maybe theyre a parttime student, they dont have theyre not able to come in when class is held for example. That could be another scenario. And you could teach those people, allow them to have access to the same information as a basic set of stuff, but in their own time so they could you know login whenever they have time in the evening or on the weekends or whatever. So really its not a way to in a way its not a ground-breakingly different way of teaching. So I schedule those things in and I get them to tell me.you know when all the students can be there. We just kind of have to schedule it. We cant really take very much account of you know whos got a class within we kind of have to just think its here. And so I get all the students to try and get those times free from the very beginning of the course. And I just kind of try and stress to them how important it is to be there. Yeah, it works pretty well. I mean theres you know sometimes theres the odd student who has another class that they feel so important they cant really miss or you know illness you cant really predict that. But it works pretty well. In this category of conception, learning technologies are conceived as tools and their main function is seen as overcoming constraints or problems related to distance and time. When pushed, the ideas of access came to the fore rather than an emphasis on how the technologies could be used to support and improve learning. In this conception, technologies can provide a way of getting to something, but are not conceived of as contributing substantially to the development of comprehension. 3.1.2. Category B: learning technologies as tools for information delivery In this category of conception, learning technologies are akin to receptacles that carry things. The purpose is basically to expand the resources that the students have at hand to learn. I mean texts are great but theyre very limited and really the Internet and the computer access just opens up a really, really broad range of information that they can nd, can get resources through. Learning technologies well, its a way of delivery on new media which can be used which are often used as an end in itself, which should not be the case. Im very keen on technology myself, so in a way Im probably carried away just use it for the sake of using it. This conception of learning technologies associates them with the idea of tools delivering something. Transcripts categorised in this section did not reveal any awareness of how the technologies might be related to activities that required some evidence of student engagement. Rather it was as if the agency in the relationship between the student and the technology lay in the

technology with the delivery of information, rather than the use of the technology by the student to improve understanding. 3.1.3. Category C: learning technologies as ways of providing active learning opportunities In this and the next category, the focus of the conception has shifted away from the technology and towards the student. In category C, it is about relating the technologies to learning outcomes. Their purpose is to enhance and support things that students are learning. And like it comes back to what I said originally, that they have to support the learning outcome or graduate attributes that Im aiming for by providing something that is not available in a face-to-face context or that the student utilises in a different way when its online. There is a thing that you use to separate two of the dominant minerals from one another, thats central to the accurate identication and naming of these materials. And its a thing called twinning. And its very hard to teach students because its an optical thing. You move a rock around and one set of minerals, one of these mineral groups looks a bit like it might be striped pyjamas. And one side ashes and the other, and the other mineral in that group just has one plain so theres a shiny side and a dull side. And if you move the material around (on-line) the dull side becomes shiny and shiny side becomes dull. Students traditionally can go through a whole undergraduate program, they can be fourth year honours graduates, they can be real geologists and have never actually seen this in a hand-specimen. And Ive had PhD students in their rst year in the prac room with me who Im either training or Ive got working for me as demonstrators. Its the rst time theyve actually seen multi-twinning as opposed to single twinning enhanced specimens when they come in. In this category, the focus shifts from the technology towards learning opportunities that technologies can offer. For some it is about providing learning opportunities which are rare or cannot be provided in a face-to-face context alone. For others it is about using the learning outcomes of the course as a way to ensure the learning technologies are supporting the students experience of learning. 3.1.4. Category D: learning technologies as ways of building knowledge Like category C, learning technologies in this category are related to active experiences of learning. This category is different in that it conceives the technologies in a supporting role for the construction of knowledge. And I found that again designing group work into the learning management system is quite an effective way to provide the students with the opportunity to talk to each other. . Because Im convinced by the literature that when you are constructing new knowledge, that when you take things in here and here, the way that theres some formula that happens in your brain that when you get it out here, or at least speak it out, I have to put it into words. That the process of thinking once concretised into words is a part of the process of affecting knowledge construction. So I cant like I read this literature dont ask me to quote you. But Im convinced by that. Because I know in my own case that once I I mean theres a classic the best way to learn something is to teach it. Right. And why is that so? Because youre having to speak out your thoughts and concretise them. Im convinced of that. So I that very core issue I then embed in all of my teaching to provide every student with an opportunity. Even the ones who wont speak under normal circumstances. They are forced to speak in a sense. They are forced to concretise their thoughts online.

R.A. Ellis et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 109117

113

Well its to facilitate, well, to facilitate learning in some way, and often to facilitate interaction between, whether its teacher and learner or between learners.In terms of asking students to come up and draw something or add something to a list of points. So youre, you know, can facilitate a constructivist approach in that youre getting, and youre actually trying to get a group of students to add their ideas. Student learning is the focus of this category. It offers a more theoretical view of how students learn than some of the lower categories, relating it to ideas of learning and knowledge construction. It adopts a student perspective on the technologies, one that seems integrated with ideas of teaching and learning. Table 4 summarises the referential (meaning) and structural aspects of conceptions of learning technologies categorised from the interviews. Table 4 has divided the categories of conceptions into cohesive and fragmented (Ellis et al., 2006; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999). Cohesive conceptions of learning technologies are those that relate the technologies in some way to learning, showing an awareness of how a use of the technologies by students can support their learning. Fragmented conceptions of learning technologies are those that separate the idea of the learning technologies from a strong awareness of how they relate to learning experiences and the development of comprehension. 3.2. Teacher approaches to designing for blended contexts In response to the question, How do you approach designing courses in which students are expected to learn in face-to-face and on-line contexts?, teachers reported approaches which varied in intent and strategy. 3.2.1. Category A: designing for blended contexts for pragmatic ends I think one bit was very straightforward. I thought, we thought we would put lecture material on there for sheer convenience because we know there are students with clashes and things like that. And we say to them, I mean in the rst kind of meeting I say all this will be available but if you think that not turning up to the lecture and just looking at whats on Moodle is going to substitute, youre completely wrong. Dont be daft, you know. Coming to the lecture youll get things you wont get from that. Thats just a backup. More than anything to know what you meant so that you know what you missed rather than actually replace what you missed. So I think that, in terms of helping students manage their learning in an impractical environment - its much more difcult for these students they come from so many different degrees, theres always clashes. Its still Ill have to admit, its still in relatively lower level of merging. I mean of blending. Im still in the process also of identifying ways of how to more smoothly blend it together. On the hand, during the contact hours of course, weve got no access to a computer. When we go to a classroom everybodys looking at the

computers and nobody would listen to me if I held a seminar or gave a lecture or something like that. In this category, experiences of design were not closely related to the learning goals of the courses in which the students studied. Rather, they focused on goals that were more about resolving inefciencies and practical problems that students sometimes face. In some cases it was related to issues of scheduling such as designing to avoid timetable clashes, in others it was an awareness that the students needed some on-line resources, but that ideas of how to integrate these with assessment and learning were yet to be developed. 3.2.2. Category B: designing for blended contexts in order to add on I think that its not only the content of the, you know, that sort of dictates when you use the computers and when you dont. Its also, as I said, is the variety of media that could offer to your students. As I said, because now-a-days our life is so youve got a choice of those tools to use. I think theres a lot to be said for solidarity among PhD students. I mean its very interesting how regardless of their cultural background, you know, the experience, the age background, they all tend to go through similar crises at similar points. However many times I say to them oh well, you know, this is half-way through your rst year, this is, you know, quite appropriate, quite normal that you should be having these questions at this moment in time. I think unless you very much are social and you do talk to people a lot and try to become integrated within the PhD student community, there still exists this tendency to think that its just you that this happening to. And I dont think it is easy for, you know, them to actually see themselves as a part of a solidarity that kind of . So, I mean I think Im very much trying to. deliberately push them in a direction in technology. In this category of approach, the strategies employed do not tend to indicate attempts to synthesise or integrate the on-line experiences with the face-to-face. There tends to be some awareness that there are some things that could be useful for students, but the motivation is more about adding on resources rather than improving comprehension. For some teachers, it is about adding on more tools, for others it may include some awareness of the benets of socialisation, but without any explicit patterns of design to harness such affordances. 3.2.3. Category C: designing for blended contexts to encourage active learning In category C, qualitatively different ideas are associated with the approach to design. A greater awareness of orientating the design surrounding the technologies towards the outcomes of the course is evident. Well, I guess youd have think about rst of all what you want to achieve with the course what your learning objectives are basically. And then once youve decided on that then youre going to decide on how youre going to achieve those learning objectives in the most efcient and effective way possible I suppose. And determining well assessment is a big part of it I guess so trying to align your assessment with your objectives and making sure that they compliment each other. One reects the other. And I think that would basically determine the design of your courses what kinds of assessments youre going to do and how you want the students to be able to achieve those learning objectives. So I mean thats a pretty general idea of how I would approach it. If that meant that self-directed learning and use of online resources were relevant to that then I would think about incorporating them into the design of the course.

Table 4 Conceptions of learning technologies Structural Referential Fragmented focusing on tools Tools for access Tools for information delivery Ways of providing active learning opportunities Ways of building knowledge A B C D Cohesive supporting student learning

114

R.A. Ellis et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 109117

I mean, especially with rst years, we end up trying to teach concepts on the one hand and then encourage reection about those particular concepts so that students can see how they might be operationalised or operating out in the real world. And so, for example, things like dictionaries where were encouraging students to try and build up a basic vocabulary of the course, we will turn on commentary comments so that students can reect back on kind of denitions that other students have put up what they think about those things. And actually weve found that there was much more substantive writing and thinking going on around that particular kind of tool within the environment than was happening with students actually using a Wiki. And that was quite a surprise for us because we hadnt really expected that. We initially designed the course so that students would have partners for contributing to the Wikis. So the idea was that outside of class time that we were trying to get them to talk and think about some of the ideas in the course and then simply divide up the work. And then one of the two would simply log in during the week and make some type of contribution. In this type of approach to design, there is a more holistic awareness of how the face-to-face and on-line aspects of the students experience can be linked through the learning objectives. There does not appear to be an articial separation of the two contexts. Rather the focus on common goals for both contexts, such as learning objectives and outcomes, reection and autonomy, encourages a more integrated approach to design. 3.2.4. Category D: designing for blended contexts to develop applied understanding In this approach to design, the extracts categorised revealed some awareness of a context greater than the course itself, in which students could apply some of their learning. So its coming up with integrative problems that build on the lecture material. And its always constantly comes back to the utilitarian thing. This knowledge is useful because I will put it into practice one day. And, oh yes I am going to build buildings or I am going to build dams and they sit on the ground. I need to know about that. So theres a design philosophy in there of connecting the old-fashioned content and concepts which might have been given in. these things are just important because its knowledge and knowledge is important in its own right. The design principle behind it is that we engage in some small group work face-to-face. But these are busy professionals who arent taking an awful lot of time out for their learning. And so were hoping that they might, once inspired by small group work around this topic, that they will use the online environment to stay in touch both for getting advice from fellow students that they meet on the day and from the tutors for preparation of their assignment. And also the possibility of applying what theyve learnt in their work context. If they really are going to go on and do a research project, then well have set up a little community of practice I suppose. But, you know, a little online community of practice. An awareness of the students context from which they have come or to which they are going seems to be related to this

approach. The strategy of the design seems to be to emphasise the usefulness of the learning tasks by showing how they are relevant in the students broader context and is motivated by making the tasks as useful as possible. Table 5 summarises the referential and structural aspects of approaches to blended design categorised from the interviews. Table 5 has divided the categories of approaches into integrated and unintegrated. While these terms have not been used specically for approaches to design before in exactly this way, their associations are consistent with similar terminology in related research (Biggs, 2003; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Ramsden, 2002). Integrated approaches to blended design are those that focus on learning and understanding, are aligned to learning outcomes and encourage activity on the part of the student that integrates across face-to-face and on-line contexts. They may even display an awareness of a context for applied learning which is greater than the course context alone. Unintegrated approaches to blended design are those that are more concerned with a list of things, adding things on, usually without showing any awareness of how they might be integrated in a more meaningful way to support the students experience of learning and understanding. 3.3. Teacher approaches to teaching in blended contexts In response to the question, How do you approach teaching courses in which students are expected to learn in face-to-face and on-line contexts?, variation in the way teachers approached teaching in such contexts was identied. 3.3.1. Category A: approaching teaching in blended contexts to manage student activity So I communicate with them by email to say look on the WebCT course event, oh you guys have a deadline coming up you know, thanks for your posting. I noticed three people didnt post. Could you let me know if theres a problem about whatever. So a few days before they make their rst presentation, I want to put something up that says here are some key things about presentation. We expect you to do these. Good presentations will get marks for doing these. Look at these, make sure that if youve got a question about them, ask me. And when I show a screen grab of one of the tools that theyre going to use in the afternoon and say well this is how in this particular view on the website youll see the structure of an example gene which they also see in the afternoon. So, you know, they see something of the tools theyre going to use. In the above quotations, the focus is on whether or not students have completed something, following instructions, or using tools, rather than the quality of the outcome. In some ways, the approach tends towards a view of the teaching, rather than developing a view of how students are developing their understanding. 3.3.2. Category B: approaching teaching in blended contexts by trying things out In category B, the approaches reported were yet to develop a holistic understanding of how the learning technologies were related to the student experience. A willingness to experiment was a key aspect of this category. So, for example, I cant you know just shove up the balance sheet on the screen, and say well this is this anymore. Instead, Ill be saying well right, what do you need to know when youre running a business and what is this telling you. And, ok so heres my business and I want to know the answers to this question this question and this question. So I want to look at something. Ill do that and Ill introduce it as a story. In fact the story I usually begin

Table 5 Approaches to blended design Structural Referential Unintegrated Design Design Design Design to achieve pragmatic ends to add on to encourage active learning to develop applied understanding A B C D Integrated

R.A. Ellis et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 109117

115

with this year is the one abut the theory of business. So you start off with a picture of a guy with a white bag its a very simple business what does he need to know to operate it. What was happening is that students had, especially rst years, had a very specic idea of what their role was as a student and of how they should be in that role. And using social software pulled them outside of that kind of role and they were very uncomfortable with that. we were also trying to encourage we were also trying to encourage social interaction that we were in the face of social relationships that they were naturally forming as a part of the course. we found that because the students saw each other a great deal of time face-to-face, that what they did not want to do was to really communicate with one another through this computerised format when it was just as easy for them to grab somebody when they were walking down the hall and have a chat. In this approach to teaching, the teachers are experimenting with resources. There is often a goal to create something, but perhaps because the means are new, an awareness of how the innovation can lead to the development of student understanding is yet to be articulated. Such approaches do not typically offer an overview or theory to explain how they are combining the contexts. 3.3.3. Category C: approaching teaching in blended contexts through integrating experiences of learning In categories C and D, there is a qualitative shift in comparison with the rst two categories. The underlying intention in the approach to teaching is to integrate and leverage the benets from both the face-to-face and the on-line contexts of learning in ways to improve a more holistic experience occurring across both contexts. Whats happening now is that theres no real separation of tasks or separation of problem to pracs, home study (on-line) or lecture theatre. Bits and pieces of each come in to the different places. So even in the prac room some of the stuff I might have done in the lecture might become part of the prac. So for ten minutes were going to do this now you need to know this heres some pictures youre going to look at these rocks this is what they look like this is how we do it ok off you go. So the three workplaces are sort of blending or sort of oozing into each other. .Theres the lecture theatre, the prac room and then theres online or paper-based exercises and so on. The tasks that we might do in those three spaces are often quite similar because I have a point of view on teaching is that theres no point in me just standing up and sprouting a whole bunch of content. So in this particular writing class technology is used for writing and they write it used to be a very traditional class writing class where you explain people how to write and you give them examples of good essays and bad essays and typical mistakes and you write on the board all the time. You know, they get very sleepy and because theyre not involved. But now, with this particular writing class, they do their productive work. They write themselves. And the advantage of this. when they interact with each other (online) they can see what everybodys doing and they are much more involved. And because it is on a computer I think the language with which theyre writing is more a language of email or, sort of, like computer-mediated language rather than the language and this is sort of a word processed sort of type of writing which is again more close to their authentic situation. In this approach, teachers do not perceive articial boundaries between the face-to-face and on-line contexts. They merge together with the student being the point of departure for the focus. In comparison with the previous two categories, the approach seems to derive more from the student perspective and how both contexts work together to support the students learning.

3.3.4. Category D: approaching teaching in blended contexts to encourage student autonomy in learning Transcripts classied in this category tended to reveal a relatively stronger awareness of the student perspective of learning, typically realising this through a goal of developing student autonomy in learning. They have the experience of researching and following leads and trying to make sense of information on their own. Which is the core skill that you should be getting at university. But which is expensive to deliver by traditional methods. So they have some experience of that. So the blending bit wheres the blending bit come in they get some experience of that and then are reassured because their vocabulary works, the bits of information that theyve picked up are the bits of vocabulary in use by the professionals. The ways of presentation, the subjects under discussion in scholarly papers, etc, etc. So they have some, they have some exposure to process in actually researching something and reading something following their own leads to some extent. Thats what I would hope the blend would bring out. Some mixture of nding out something for themselves and that theyre doing the right thing. Its a ne balance because youre trying to let the students do most of the work for themselves and its important that they gure out what they need to know and then go and research that without having someone thats sits there and says you need to know this, this and this. Cause the whole point of selfdirected learning . So from my perspective I always try to step back and let them direct the process. But if I nd that theyre not looking at something deeply enough or theyve gone off on a tangent and theyre not looking at what you know whats really going to accomplish the learning objectives for that particular session, then Ill try to direct them in that way by asking them questions and getting them thinking about you know what they might not have thought of before. So thats how I approach it. In this approach to teaching, a key intention is not just the combination of the two contexts to support the development of student understanding. This type of approach values and tries to create situations in which students can take initiative in their learning, through engaging in research and inquiry for example. One of the goals appears to be to help the students take more responsibility for their learning to prepare them for similar types of tasks outside of the classroom. Table 6 summarises the referential and structural aspects of approaches to blended teaching categorised from the interviews. Table 6 has divided the categories of approaches to teaching into student-focused and technology-focused approaches. In this study, student-focused approaches to teaching are those that adopt a student perspective, that integrate experiences of learning across face-to-face and on-line contexts and that seek to emphasise the development of understanding. In contrast, technology-focused approaches to teaching are those that are yet to emphasise the student perspective. Technology features largely in these categories of approaches as the motivation or stimulation for the activity adopted rather than a focus on an outcome which is linked to how students develop their understanding of the course objectives.

Table 6 Approaches to blended teaching Structural Referential Technology-focused Teach Teach Teach Teach to manage student activity to try things out to integrate experiences of learning to encourage student autonomy A B C D Student-focused

116

R.A. Ellis et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 109117 Table 8 Associations between concepts of learning technologies and approaches to design Concepts of technology Fragmented Approach to design Total Unintegrated Integrated 7 2 9 Cohesive 2 8 10 9 10 19 Total

These approaches may be more managerial in nature, may tend to focus on efciencies, may experiment with new ways of doing things with technologies, but are yet to develop an integrated overview of how teaching innovations can be used to support student learning. 3.4. Associations amongst the experiences of teaching This section of the study investigates associations amongst parts of the experience of teaching in contexts that combine face-to-face and on-line experiences of learning. The analyses begin with a presentation of a distribution table showing the dispersion of categories across the 12 categories constituted from the interviews. Then to investigate patterns in associations amongst this distribution, 2 2 contingency tables are used. Since the population sample is relatively low, that is, the sample in at least one of the cells is less than 5, the Fisher exact method of statistical signicance is used. Table 7 shows the distribution of the categories of conceptions and approaches in the experience of blended teaching. Tables 8 and 9 show the statistically signicant contingency tables. To assess whether or not the distribution of teacher responses as shown in Table 7 was statistically signicant, a 4 coefcient was calculated and a Fisher exact procedure was used. The Fisher exact procedure of testing the statistical signicance of the 4 coefcient is preferably used when the population is small and one of the numbers in the 2 2 table is less than 5. Table 8 indicates a positive and signicant relationship between cohesive conceptions of learning technologies and integrated approaches to design. Table 9 indicates a positive and signicant relationship between integrated approaches to design and studentfocused approaches to teaching. Note that although the distributions in the two tables are the same, the cases making up the numbers in each cell differed between the two tables. No associations were identied between conceptions of technology and approaches to teaching. 3.5. Limitations of this study The outcomes of this study should be interpreted in relation to its salient characteristics. The population sample comes from two research-intensive, campus-based universities and due to its qualitative nature, the sample is relatively small (n 19). As a result, some of the categories have only two or three responses in them which may be one of the reasons why no associations were found between conceptions of learning technologies and

4 0.58, p < .05, n 19.

approaches to teaching. It is worth noting that the sample size is similar to related studies in the literature (Prosser et al., 1994, n 24; Ellis et al., 2006, n 22). To investigate the nature of the associations in more detail, a larger study involving greater numbers of teachers should be undertaken. Such a study might also look for associations between experiences of teaching with learning technologies and gender or age. Despite these limitations, this study has identied important emerging associations in the experience of teaching at university when technologies are used to support student learning. 4. Discussion This study was designed to investigate the emerging associations in the experience of teaching at university when learning technologies are part of that experience. This is an important focus for research into learning in higher education because of the increasingly ubiquitous use of technologies in student experiences of learning, which is yet to develop a substantial, evidence-rich, research base. Without studies into this area, uninformed approaches to design and teaching using technologies could result in impoverished experiences. Consequently it is important that we develop a deeper understanding of qualitatively better ways of thinking about and using technologies to support student learning. In brief, this study involved 19 teachers from 2 research-intensive, campus-based universities, who between them, teach over 1600 students across more than a dozen disciplines. The teachers undertook interviews which were subsequently analysed by a team of four researchers. An iterative analysis process revealed qualitatively different categories of ways of thinking about learning technologies and approaches to design and teaching in blended contexts. Smallscale quantitative analyses of the qualitative categories then revealed emerging patterns in the data suggesting promising associations amongst key aspects of the experience of teaching. The results provide outcomes worth reecting on in two areas: the qualitative differences within each of the aspects of conceptions and approaches and the associations between these aspects. Not all teachers reported thinking about or approaching the design and teaching of courses with learning technologies in the same way. There seem to be some key differences in conceptions of, and approaches to using, learning technologies in design and teaching. Some conceptions of learning technologies are more about efciencies and the technologies themselves, while others are comparatively more orientated towards enabling learning. In terms of design, some approaches seem to make more of the affordances of the technologies, such as enabling communication about task
Table 9 Associations between approaches to design and approaches to teaching Approaches to teaching Technology-focused Approach to design Unintegrated Integrated 7 2 9 Student-focused 2 8 10 9 10 19 Total

Table 7 Distribution of categories in the experience of teaching Parts of the experience of teaching Conceptions of learning technologies Fragmented Cohesive Category A B C D Total A B C D Total A B C D Total Number 2 7 7 3 19 4 5 6 4 19 6 4 3 6 19 Percentage 48 52 100 47 53 100 51 49

Approaches to blended design

Unintegrated Integrated

Approaches to blended teaching

Technology-focused Student-focused

Total 100

4 0.58, p < .05, n 19.

R.A. Ellis et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 109117

117

objectives, they tend to be situated in relation to the face-to-face experience, aligned to the course outcomes and aimed at developing an applied understanding. In contrast, other approaches to design seem to be limited to simply adding resources to the experience or using technologies for more pragmatic goals such as avoiding timetable clashes. Some approaches to teaching aim to provide new ways of experiencing learning and autonomy. They focus on the experience from a student perspective and encourage students to take more responsibility for their learning. In contrast, other approaches to teaching seem to have a technology-focus that involves trialling what the technologies might enable having yet to fully integrate them into a holistic approach. Perhaps the more signicant results of this study are the emerging associations between the parts of the experience of teaching that were indicated by the analyses in Tables 8 and 9. These suggest that concepts of learning technologies that are orientated towards access and information delivery tend to be associated approaches to design that do not display an awareness of how to integrate them to support student learning and are more about efciency. Conversely, the concepts of learning technologies that are orientated towards active learning and building knowledge tend to be related to approaches to design that aim to encourage student learning that can lead to applied understanding. Similar interpretations can be made about the associations between approaches to design and teaching. Approaches to design, which are pragmatically orientated and aim at adding things on, tend to be related to approaches to teaching that involve trial and error and are yet to develop a more holistic approach to their use. In contrast, those approaches to design that encourage active learning and applied understanding tend to be related to approaches to teaching which integrate experiences of learning across face-toface and on-line contexts in which students are able to develop autonomy. The implications of these results are promising for those seeking to support university teachers to improve their approaches to design and teaching when learning technologies are involved. It seems that some work needs to be done on how we think about learning technologies in the student experience. Some ways of thinking about them do not seem to be helpful if we seek to make the most of their use in design. If we can orientate concepts of learning technologies towards those that are more closely related to student learning, then we may be able to more readily encourage approaches to design which are similarly inclined. Furthermore, given the results suggest that approaches to design and teaching are also related, it suggests that if we work carefully on how teachers design with learning technologies, then this may encourage approaches to teaching which are more student centred and vice-versa. The introduction of learning technologies into experiences of teaching and learning is creating new associations in university experiences which are yet to be fully understood. Without talking to those involved in how they think about, and approach using the technologies, we will not fully understand how to make the most of

the technologies in such experiences. Such a state of affairs in the profession of teaching at university must not be allowed to develop. More studies are needed into how teachers experience teaching when technologies are used to enable student learning if we are to be able to reduce risk when introducing such new aspects into the experience. References
Anderson, T., & Elloumi, F. (2004). The theory and practice of online learning. Creative Commons Athabasca University. www.cde.athabascau.ca/online_book. Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at University (2nd ed).. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Clark, R., & Mayer, R. (2002). E-learning and the science of instruction. Pfeiffer. Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations. London: Kogan Page. Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1994). Conceptions of mathematics and how it is learned: the perspectives of students entering university. Learning and Instruction, 4, 331345. DallAlba, G. (1991). Foreshadowing conceptions of teaching. Research and Development in Higher Education, 13, 293297. Ellis, R. A., Steed, A., & Applebee, A. (2006). Teacher conceptions of blended learning, blended teaching and associations with approaches to design. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(3), 312335. Entwistle, N. J., McCune, V. S., & Walker, P. (2001). Conceptions, styles, and approaches within higher education: Analytical abstractions and everyday experience. In R. J. Sternberg, & L.-F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles (pp, 103136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. USA: Routledge. Hawkridge, D. (1999). Thirty years on, BJET! and educational technology comes of age. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), 293304. Higher Education Funding Council of England. (2005). HEFCE strategy for e-learning. Available from. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2005/05_12/. Accessed 1.06.08. Kozma, R. (2000). Reections on the state of educational technology research and development. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 48(1), 515. Lockwood, F., & Gooley, A. (Eds.), (2001). Innovation in open and distance learning: Successful development of online and web-based learning. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc, Publishers. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual student: A prole and guide to working with online learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning & teaching: The experience in higher education. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of academics conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 4, 217231. Ramsden, P. (2002). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge Falmer. Reeves, T. C., & Laffey, J. M. (1999). Design, assessment, and evaluation of a problembased learning environment in undergraduate engineering. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(2), 219232. Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 49(2), 5767. Salmon, G. (2001). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page. Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Congruence between intention and strategy in science teachers approach to teaching. Higher Education, 32, 7787.