Traditional Face to Face and Online Assessment in Higher Learning Institutions - Essay Example

Blended Learning: Traditional Face to Face and Online Assessment in Higher Learning in Private s: A Literature Review IntroductionThe future of higher education is found to be closely associated with the future of technology, and the development of advanced information and communication technologies (ICTs). Traditional campus-based institutions have a long history of conducting distance teaching and learning programmes using innovative mediums with new technologies. ICTs appear to challenge traditional assumptions of college-level studies, by offering “new and different ways of producing, distributing and consuming higher education” (Orton-Johnson, 2008: 1). There is an increasing focus on blending face to face teaching with web-based materials to form the approach termed “blended learning” (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004: 95). The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on blended learning used in higher education in private institutions; and to examine the concern about the decline in performance and learning outcomes of students in a number of courses. The reasons for students’ learning difficulties attributed to the current blended programme of study will be evaluated. The students’ perspective that the course should be redesigned for the future, will be taken into consideration. Discussion Blended Learning in Higher Education Implemented in Private Institutions Online learning is becoming a vital aspect of higher education, compelling educators to introduce appropriate changes in the existing assumptions of teaching and learning in higher education. Garrison & Kanuka (2004: 95-96) state that blended learning is an effective and low-risk strategy which positions institutions to meet the connectivity demands of prospective students, and meet growing expectations and requirements for higher quality learning experiences and outcomes. Internet information and communication technologies are transforming much of society, and there is every reason to believe that it will continue to define innovation and development of learning and teaching in higher studies. Optimally effective strategies in blended learning are considered to be the appropriate integration of the two main components: face-to-face and Internet technology, in such as way that it does not mean merely adding to the existing approach to learning. A blended learning design represents a significant departure from either face-to-face or fully Internet-based learning experience. “It represents a fundamental reconceptualization and reorganization of the teaching and learning dynamic, starting with various specific contextual needs and contingencies” (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004: 97) such as the academic discipline, developmental level, and resources. In this respect, no two blended learning designs are identical, indicating the complexity of blended learning. Online course materials are widely considered to have positive benefits for student achievement and on evaluations of courses (O’Toole & Absalom, 2003: 179; Boyle et al, 2003: 165). Complying with constructivist pedagogical models they are believed to foster a flexible learning environment where student autonomy, reflexivity and exploration are encouraged (Orton-Johnson, 2008: 2). From research evidence, Heterick & Twigg (2003) state that a large enrolment course typically replaces one or two lectures each week with a combination of online discussion groups, simulations, research projects, multimedia lessons, tutorials, assignments, quizzes and digital content. These activities are generally facilitated by teaching assistants under the supervision of a professor, who then has more time to spare for individual students, as well as to focus on sustained course development, innovation and teaching development. On the other hand, the use of new technologies alongside more traditional methods of scholarship can be problematic and learning in a blended environment can pose significant challenges. Research has pointed to students’ technical frustrations, difficulties and confusion surrounding appropriate ways to utilise web-based materials (Parkinson et al, 2003: 22). Decline in Performance and Learning Outcomes of Students Using Blended Learning There is a paucity of research focused specifically on student experience, as found by the Joint Information Systems Committee’s study of undergraduate blended learning. The available literature reveals an “inconsistent and contested picture of how students use and understand their use of these resources” (Condie & Livingston, 2007: 337). The primary contributing factors for non-use of technology were believed to be non-access to a networked computer, social exclusion and notions of a digital divide producing the technology “haves and have nots” (Selwyn, 2006: 273). However, a more complex picture of learning and technology use emerge. The attributes of the blended learning resources, rather than issues of access or provision were found to be more important determinants of students’ use and non-use of technology (Orton-Johnson, 2008: 4). Set reading lists of books and journal articles sourced from the library were perceived by students as more academic and reliable to structure and guide their work; while online sources were not viewed as a primary source of academic information. “The desire to draw on traditional and textual materials was not a result of ignorance of Internet technologies and their capabilities” (Orton-Johnson, 2008: 5). For the intricacies and nuances of disciplines such as Sociology, information from the internet was believed to be too abstract and lacking in specificity. Further, students were often confused over what constituted plagiarism, and were anxious about correct referencing. Generally students assumed that for lecturers only “real” academic texts were adequate for inclusion in assessed work. This interplay between issues of trust, authenticity and perception of online study materials resulted in the students avoiding the use of technology. On the other hand, Tang & Byrne (2007: 257) found that students appeared to be more satisfied with the blended mode of delivery, over strictly online or regular classroom formats. However, quantitative analysis showed that student satisfaction with online and regular courses, and online and regular instruction appeared equal. Similarly, it appeared that all students acquired course content equally regardless of delivery mode. The Relevance of Redesigning the Course for Future Students Instructional design and development in distance education is composed of several elements such as technologies, types of interactions, learner autonomy, learner control and in many other ways including an emphasis on costs. “Key to any one of the technologies chosen is how it allows or does not allow the other elements of the course to behave in a systems environment where all the elements or variables interact” (Moore, 2007: 219). The way in which a course will be presented and its method of functioning are determined by critical factors that need to be reviewed. These factors are: the audience characteristics, geographic dispersion of the audience, the technologies available to the audience, the goals of the learners, the mission of the institution, market competition and costs that must be recovered, and faculty compensations and other costs. Further, the interaction between three key variables: dialogue, structure and learner autonomy forms the basis of the theory of transactional distance. Also, economy of scale is one of the main cornerstones that distance education programmes benefit from, since it facilitates the growth of educational opportunities for accessibility by the general public. For online learning, course designers add greater interactivity between the student and the instructor, thereby limiting the number of students that a faculty member can effectively interact with (Moore, 2007: 225). The idea of course shelf life and return on investment are crucial criteria which are fulfilled by allowing faculty and authors of online learning materials a great deal of flexibility in updating and revising courses. Striving for content presentation that can be stable for three to five years will ensure a certain degree of shelf life. Establishing a balance between the desire for continuous improvement of academic quality and the need for economies of scale is important. Designers of distance education courses need to take decisions regarding course design, keeping in mind the impact upon both development and delivery costs which ultimately impact the bottomline of the institution as well as the students’ academic expenses (Moore, 2007: 226). Conclusion This paper has highlighted blended learning used in higher education in private institutions, examined the concern about the decline in performance and learning outcomes of students undertaking blended learning courses, the reasons for students’ learning difficulties were evaluated, and the students’ perspective that the course should be redesigned was examined from the point of view of the economic viability and relevance of the redesigning of courses. The benefits of blended learning in the form of improved academic learning and competitive advantages are clear; only the determination and the commitment to implement meaningfully integrated courses, are required to a greater degree. In this direction, it is vital that higher education institutions should be learning centred and should facilitate a higher learning experience. Further, assessment and evaluation of the effectiveness of blended learning by tracking transformations with respect to learning outcomes, student satisfacton, retention and achievement, are important measures of change. Moreover, assessing and evaluating the effects of blended learning on the learning process is a priority, in terms of the impact on higher levels of learning such as critical and reflective thinking. Future research needs to focus on how blended learning can be improved further for the purpose of achieving more meaningful learning experiences (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004: 104). References Boyle, T., Bradley, C., Chalk, P., Jones, R. & Pickard, P. 2003. Using blended learning to improve student success rates in learning to programme. Journal of Educational Media, 28 (2-3): 165-178. Condie, R. & Livingston, K. 2007. Blending online learning with traditional approaches: changing practices. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38 (2): 337-348. Garrison, D.R. & Kanuka, H. 2004. Blended learning: uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7 (2): 95-105. Heterick, B. & Twigg, C. February, 2003. The learning MarketSpace. Retrieved on 3rd November, 2008 from: http://www.center.rpi.edu/LForum/LM/Feb03.html. Moore, Michael G. 2007. Handbook of distance education. London: Routledge. Orton-Johnson, K. 2008. “I’ve stuck to the path I’m afraid”: exploring student non-use of blended learning. British Journal of Educational Technology. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00860.x O’Toole, J.M. & Absalom, D.J. 2003. The impact of blended learning on student outcomes: is there room on the horse for two? Journal of Educational Media, 28 (2-3): 179-190. Parkinson, D., Greene, W., Kim, Y. & Marioni, J. 2003. Emerging themes of student satisfaction in a traditional course and a blended distance course. TechTrends, 47 (4): 22-28. Selwyn, N. 2006. Digital divisions or digital decision? A study of non-users and low-users of computers. Poetics: Journal of Empirical Research in Culture, Media and the Arts, 34 (4-5): 273-292. Tang, M. & Byrne, R. 2007. Regular versus online versus blended: A qualitative description of the advantages of the electronic modes and a quantitative evaluation. International Journal of E-Learning, 6 (2): 257-266. Read More