Developing a European Maturity Model for Blended Education – The EMBED Project Gets Underway

Earlier this week the first face-to–face meeting of the new European funded EMBED Project took place in Brussels. This project aims at offering higher education institutions expertise and guidance by developing a conceptual framework and a European maturity model on blended education.EMBED_Logo_Defi_RGB_300dpiThe EMDED Project involves a strategic partnership between the European Association of Distance Teaching Universities (EADTU), Delft University, University of Edinburgh, KU-Leuven, Aarhus University, Tampere University of Applied Sciences, and the NIDL at Dublin City University. It brings together recognised specialists in blended education to build a multi-level maturity model and framework for pedagogical and institutional change based on progress markers related to stakeholder-focused outcomes. Importantly, the project adopts a multi-level conception of blended education, including micro-level teaching and learning processes, meso-level institutional innovation and enabling strategies, and macro-level governmental policy and support structures.

IMG_5047

One of the challenges for the project team, particularly during the establishment phase, is to develop a shared conception of blended education, which goes beyond many of the narrow and instrumentalist definitions in the literature. In this regard, the adoption of the term “blended education”, as distinct from “blended learning”, is not insignificant, especially if the project aims to encapsulate a more dynamic, transformative and future-focused understanding of the concept.

The current reality is that there are many definitions of blended learning in the literature and even leading proponents of the concept do not always agree on what they mean by the term. While Garrison and Kanuka’s (2004) definition that ‘At its simplest, blended learning is the integration of classroom face-to-face learning experiences with online learning experiences’ (p.96) is frequently cited, and this conception is reiterated in the original Handbook of Blended Learning (Graham, 2006), there is still no singularly accepted definition in the literature.

This point begs the question, what is unique about the EMBED Project and the focus on blended education?

After all, the idea of blending is not new and there have been many efforts over the past decade to describe the different affordances of pedagogically rich blended learning experiences. For example, the “COFA videos” produced by Simon McIntyre and colleagues at the University of New South Wales in Australia as part of the multi-award winning “Learning to Teach Online” project, which first began in 2009, and later evolved into a high profile MOOC offered on the Coursera platform, continue to be used for professional learning purposes.

Blend

One of the important lessons from this innovative project, and the literature more generally over the past decade (see for example, Daniel, 2016; Oliver & Trigwell, 2005; Siemens, Gasevuc & Dawson, 2015), is that popular conceptions of blended learning often fail to encapsulate a sense of pedagogical disruption. According to Norm Vaughan (2007), a valued member of the NIDL’s International Advisory Board, blended learning should be seen as an opportunity to fundamentally redesign or transform how we approach teaching and learning so that higher education institutions may benefit from increased effectiveness, convenience and efficiency.

In this sense, the concept of blended learning (or education) goes beyond the mere integration of face-to-face learning with online activities at the micro-level. As Garrison and Vaughan (2008) argue in their seminal book on the topic, ‘Blended learning is not an addition that simply builds another expensive educational layer’ (p.5). On the contrary, it should challenge us to do things differently and serve as a catalyst for helping educators to reimagine the nature of teaching and learning in the digital-era.

Put another way, blended education should be seen as an opportunity to rethink, redesign and where appropriate fundamentally transform the traditional model, structure and delivery methods of higher education. Borrowing the words of Moskal, Dziuban and Hartman (2013), blended learning [education] is a dangerous idea as it questions the status quo and has the potential to seriously challenge many traditional sacred cows of what constitutes good pedagogy.

What does this line of thinking mean for the EMBED project?

In simple terms the concept of blended learning means different things to different people. The key point is that there is an inherent tension between traditional conceptions of blended learning, which attempt to merely “tame” the potential of digital technology based on relatively conventional pedagogies, as opposed to more transformative efforts to fully “exploit” the affordances of new digital technologies as part of a wider strategy to modernise the higher education system.

IMG_5046The challenge for the project team is to recognise, carefully navigate and strike a balance between these competing and co-existing perspectives. A related challenge is that the concept of a maturity model is potentially an oxymoron in an era of such rapid and dynamic change. As the project evolves, therefore, we will need to grapple with and develop creative solutions to how we frame the idea of maturity at the different levels (micro, meso and macro) in ways that recognise the fluid and rapidly evolving nature of the field. In other words, we have set ourselves a challenge of focusing greater attention, rather than narrowly the focus, on blended education in the context of the wider changing higher education landscape.

Footnote: We hope to launch the EMBED Project website in the next few weeks.

References

Daniel, J. (2016). Making sense of blended learning: Treasuring an older tradition or finding a better future? Contact North, Canada.

Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), pp. 95105.

Garrison, R., & Vaughan, N. (2008) Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Graham, C. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions (pp. 3–21). In C. Bonk & C. Graham (eds.) The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Moskal, P., Dziuban, C., & Hartman, J. (2013). Blended learning: A dangerous idea? Internet and Higher Education 18: pp. 15–23.

Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can blended learning be redeemed? E-learning 2(1). pp. 17–26.

Siemens, G., Gasevuc, D., & Dawson, S. (2015). Preparing for the digital university: A review of the history and current state of distance, blended, and online learning. Athabasca University.

Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), pp. 81-94.

Reflections on the MaharaIRL Autumn Webinar

By Lisa Donaldson

The MaharaIRL user group met for our first online webinar on September 19th 2017 following on from the success of the inaugural face-to-face meeting in April. The group was founded in early 2017 to build a community to share information, support learning, and aid collaboration on eportfolios across Ireland.

MaharaLogo2017_300x95
Originating from a small group of pilot leads adopting eportfolios in Dublin City University (DCU), the wider MaharaIRL community encompasses faculty, learning technologists and technical staff from many Higher Education institutions. Attendees from eight institutions were represented at the webinar which was aligned with the theme “Using eportfolios to support and assess students on work placement and to track competencies”.

Anne Stevens, a Learning Technology Leader from New Zealand, presented a fascinating insight to using Mahara eportfolios to track competencies of graduate nurses. Lively conversation ensued around the delicate balance between providing structure and inhibiting creativity when using a template approach with students as well as the positive impact of eportfolio grading on the assessors.

4

A Q&A session around using eportfolios to support work placement highlighted that the majority of programmes had a work placement element but there was a three way split between those using, not using and those about to consider using eportfolios to support same. Time, technical support, money, and resistance to change were identified as the main impediments to integrating eportfolios.

Fingers were flying across keyboards as those currently using eportfolios in this capacity offered examples of how they were assessing experiential learning and what supports they were providing. Supports referenced included:

  • short videos
  • introductory lectures
  • followup emails
  • FAQ’s, prompt sheets
  • lectures on professional development and critical thinking
  • webinars
  • handbooks
  • weekly supervision
  • online forums, and
  • student eterns

The collaborative nature of the group was evident through the many offers to share these valuable resources.

The majority of cases discussed did not feature a peer-to-peer component but this came out strongly as an area attendees were interested in exploring further. Conversation again turned to templates and whether templating helps or hinders the development of the placement portfolio and digital literacies. Templates, prompts and rubrics proved to be commonly used among the group particularly when first introducing eportfolios to students.

The webinar then moved on to Kristina’s Corner. A specially recorded piece by Kristina Hoeppner (Catalyst IT) on tracking competencies through Smart Evidence – many thanks Kristina. The functionality of Smart Evidence proved appealing and the video was posted online for further review. An earlier and longer presentation by Kristina on this theme is available in the following video…

With time against us, we had a whistle stop tour through attendees Wow moments and Woe moments when integrating eportfolios. Sample Wows included:

  • an oral showcase of final year portfolios
  • student expressing gratitude for the “space” provided by the portfolio, and
  • graduates reporting huge success in securing teaching jobs through presenting their portfolios at interview.

The inevitable Woes featured educators own lack of experience; students not being able to see past the need for technical skills; and a desire to see greater focus on softer skills/graduate attributes.

3

The webinar closed after an hour of amazing and generous interaction with a suggestion for a next face-to-face meeting/eportfolio day and perhaps a regular Twitter chat. We hope to plan for those before the end of 2017. Watch this space for more information! If anyone would like to join our ongoing conversations around sharing impactful eportfolio practice, please contact lisa.donaldson@dcu.ie

Many thanks to attendees from Dublin City University, Marino Institute of Education, Hibernia College, National College of Ireland, Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology, Sligo Institute of Technology, Mary Immaculate College, and the National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning. 

Footnote: A special “eportfolio Unconference” on the theme of “Integrating Authentic Assessment” will take place at DCU, with funding from the National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning, on Friday, 26th January 2018 from 10:00am to 4:00pm. Click here to find out more information and register for this event.