THE PROBLEM WITH E-LEARNING
To date, as Ramsden (2003: 151-152) argues, the most serious inadequacies in our use of ICT in education derive from a false assumption that their mere use can lead to good learning. All too frequently, in conjunction with naïve technological determinism, what we see is ‘the failure to articulate principles for designing [e-learning] teaching materials,’ and, worse still perhaps, ‘the use of potentially interactive media in a passive way that takes no account of the individual learner’ (151). The latter is, arguably, the most noticeable problem, with the risk that we are ‘becoming rich in information but poor in knowledge’ (Hart, 1987: 172). Or, as Race (2005: 177) puts it, ‘the hub of the problem we currently face with e-learning is that most of it is presently just e-information, not yet e-learning’. Biggs (2003: 218) points out, for example, that even the use of simple applications like PowerPoint, at least when used in isolation, ‘reinforces the view that good teaching is a one-way transfer of information’. The task, then, is to consider the use not of information technology as such, but, what Biggs (2003: 213-228) terms ‘educational technology’. Fundamentally, his point is that we need to consider how technologies can be constructively aligned with educational aims and objectives.
At the same time of conducting the current project, York St John University moved over to the use of Blackboard (having previously been using WebCT). At an institutional level, it was argued the move to this new VLE would enable a much more dynamic digital environment. The rhetoric was very much about a shift away from simply presenting e-information, towards ‘richer methods of delivery such as video and audio and emerging technologies like podcasting, wikis, blogging and mobile learning’ (York St John's e-learning department). Yet, whilst greater enhancement of the use of Blackboard is highly desirable, there remain initial access barriers; problems not so much to do with physical access to computers or appropriate IT skills, but rather with students being ‘comfortable’ using the VLE, or being able to see the benefits it can offer. The findings of this project suggest that the general ‘experience’ of Blackboard (how, for example, it maps out and gives identity to a module and how teaching and learning materials online are used and understood by students) is extremely varied, but significantly does not seem to represent a demand from students for dynamic features in the VLE, but rather more basic consistency and ease of access to e-information. Responses to a University-wide online questionnaire about Blackboard overwhelmingly revealed concerns over basic login problems and slow server speeds.
It is important to note, Blackboard is not used in isolation on the modules examined in this project, nor is it even close to being a primary mode of delivery. Instead the modules are conducted through group classroom sessions (whether lecturers or workshops), seminars and tutorials, which perhaps more usefully leads to a consideration of Blended Learning – a term that has ‘gained considerable currency in recent years as a description of particular forms of teaching with technology’ (Oliver and Trigwell, 2005, p.17). As noted previously, this pedagogic approach is central to York St John University’s commitment to widen participation. However, picking up on Oliver and Trigwell’s (2005) paper ‘Can ‘Blended Learning’ Be Redeemed?’ (E–Learning, Volume 2, Number 1, 2005, p.17-26), a convincing argument can be made to explain how Blended Learning is an empty term, or at least a catch all term that does not help focus on what really needs to be done to improve learning. As they suggest, it ‘simply describes practice within higher education more generally, and it attributes to learning something that, in terms of what we know, only applies to teaching of instruction’ (21).
Potentially, then, the term ‘blended teaching’ is more appropriate since the concept of Blended Learning only really describes varied styles of instructional delivery. Against which Oliver and Trigwell argue ‘the word “learning” be rightfully returned to the learner’, by shifting ‘away from manipulating the blend as seen by the teacher, to an in-depth analysis of the variation in the experience of the learning of the student in the blended learning context’ (24). The findings emerging from the current project seem to fit with this point of view, but equally suggest the need for a pragmatic response. It remains beneficial to understand more clearly what is going on from the ‘teacher side’ – to get ‘blended teaching’ right, since students demonstrate a keen awareness of their learning environment and its resources.
