Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic represents an unprecedented challenge for wider society and has impacted all facets of life, including Higher Education Institution (HEIs) provision for teaching and learning – demanding an immediate digital response. The core challenge lies with the inherent choice made by students upon embarking on an undergraduate degree; that face-to-face learning was their preference. Now, HEIs must address this by utilising a range of digital solutions – that crucially, must also be embraced by those that no longer have the luxury to be risk averse or believe that digital solutions align with their existing pedagogical approaches. Higher Education Institutions should be – to an extent – well placed to deliver online provision. This paper aims to explore pertinent literature surrounding blended approaches with regards to key pedagogical and learning theories, with an overall aim of suggesting the Online and Campus (OaC) model as a potential ‘blueprint’ that incorporates campus, synchronous and asynchronous learning experiences. We refer to asynchronous as flexible, self-paced learning, and synchronous as an environment in which learners are in the same place at a given time (either online or campus) and accessing the same materials. For the purposes of this paper – and the OaC model – both asynchronous and synchronous learning refers to online provision, and we make the distinction between face-to-face teaching by reference to ‘Campus’.

Keywords

References

• Anthony, B., Kamaludin, A., Romli, A., Raffei, A. F. M., Phon, D. N. A. E., Abdullah, A., & Ming, G. L. (2020). Blended learning adoption and implementation in higher education: A theoretical and systematic review. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1-48. doi: 10.1007/s10758-020-09477-z.
• Alexander, R. J. (2017) Towards dialogic teaching: rethinking classroom talk (5th Ed), Dialogos: York.
• Arthur, L. (2020). Evaluating student satisfaction - restricting lecturer professionalism: outcomes of using the UK national student survey questionnaire for internal student evaluation of teaching. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45, 331-344. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1640863.
• Ashcroft, K. & Foreman-Peck, L. (1994). Managing teaching and learning in further and higher education. London: Routledge.
• Aubrey, K., & Riley, A. (2018). Understanding and using educational theories, (2^nd Ed). London: Sage.
• Alexander, R. J. (2017). Towards dialogic teaching: rethinking classroom talk (5th Ed). York: Dialogos.
• Azhar, M., Mustapa, S., Ibrahim, M., & Yusoff, A. (2015). Engaging vocational college students through blended learning: Improving class attendance and participation. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 204, 127-135. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.125.
• Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It's not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers & Education, 78, 227-236. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.006.
• Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Translated by Vern W. McFee. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.
• Bates, B. (2016). Learning theories simplified –and how to apply them to teaching. London: Sage
• Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011) Teaching for Quality Learning at University. (4^th Ed). Maidenhead: OUP.
• Boud, D., Ajjawi, R., Dawson, P., & Tai, J. (2018). Developing evaluative judgement in higher education: Assessment for knowing and producing quality work. London: Routledge.
• Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1998). Unleashing the power of perceptual change: The potential of brain-based teaching. National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 82, 121.
• Chris, B., & Blackstock, D. (2017). Building on world-class quality (pp. 1-15, Rep.). Quality Assurance Agency.
• Chu, A., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2018). Between quality and control: what can we learn from higher education quality assurance policy in the Netherlands. Quality in higher education, 24, 260-270. doi: 10.1080/13538322.2018.1559513.
• Curzon, L. B. (2006). Teaching in further education (6^th ed). London: Continuum.
• Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., & Platt, M. B. (2004). Classroom participation and discussion effectiveness: Student-generated strategies. Communication Education, 53, 103–115. doi: 10.1080=0363452032000135805.
• Damşa, C., & De Lange, T. (2019). Student-centred learning environments in higher education. Uniped, 42, 9-26.
• Day, C., Gu, Q., & Sammons, P. (2016). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52, 221-258.
• Dennick, R. (2012). Twelve tips for incorporating educational theory into teaching practices. Medical Teacher, 34, 618-624. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.668244.
• Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 25-39.
• Francis, R. (2010). The decententering of the university. The future of (self)education in virtually figured worlds. London: Routledge.
• Glance, D. G. (2013, February 11). The business of MOOCs: How to profit from giving away something for nothing. The Conversation. Retrieved from
• https://theconversation.com/the-business-of-moocs-how-to-profit-from-giving-away-something-for-nothing-12141.
• Graham, C. R., Allen, S., & Ure, D. (2005). Benefits and challenges of blended learning environments. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology (pp. 253–259). Hershey: Idea Group.
• Greene, J. A., Oswald, C. A., & Pomerantz, J. (2015). Predictors of retention and achievement in a Massive Open Online Course. American Educational Research Journal, 52, 925-955.
• Gibbs, G. (1992). Improving the quality of student learning. Bristol: Technical and Educational Services Ltd.
• Gibson, S. (2012). Narrative accounts of university education: Socio-cultural perspectives of students with disabilities. Disability and Society, 27, 353-369.
• Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). Putting scaffolding to work: the contribution of scaffolding in articulating ESL education. Prospect, 20, 6–30.
• Hadi, S. M., & Rawson, R. (2016). Driving learner engagement and completion within MOOCs: a case for structured learning support. Paper presented at the European MOOCs Stakeholder Summit.
• Hayes, S. (2015). MOOCs and Quality: A review of the recent literature. Retrieved October 5, 2020, from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/MOOCs-and-Quality-Literature-Review-15.pdf
• Hew, K. F. (2016). Promoting engagement in online courses: What strategies can we learn from three highly rated MOOCS. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47, 320-341. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12235.
• Hone, K. S., & El Said, G, R. (2016). Exploring the Factors Affecting MOOC Retention: a Survey Study. Computers and Education, 98, 157-168.
• Jokinen, P., & Mikkonen, I. (2013). Teachers' experiences of teaching in a blended learning environment. Nurse Education in Practice, 13, 524–528.
• Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 60-70.
• Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4, 193-212.
• Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in action: applying modern principles of adult learning. Michigan: Wiley.
• Marks, R. B., Sibley, S. D., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2005). A structural equation model of predictors for effective online learning. Journal of Management Education, 29, 531-563.
• McCutcheon, K., Lohan, M., Traynor, M., & Martin, D. (2015). A systematic review evaluating the impact of online or blended learning vs. face-to-face learning of clinical skills in undergraduate nurse education. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 71, 255–270. doi: 10.1111/jan.12509.
• McVicar, A., Andrew, S., & Kemble, R. (2015). The ‘bioscience problem’ for nursing students: An integrative review of published evaluations of Year 1 bioscience, and proposed directions for curriculum development. Nurse Education Today, 35, 500-509. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2014.11.003.
• Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115, 1-47.
• Nicholls. G. (2002). Developing teaching and learning in higher education. London: Routledge.
• Petronzi, D., & Hadi, M. (2016). Exploring the factors associated with MOOC engagement, retention and the wider benefits for learners. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 19. doi: 10.1515/eurodl-2016-0011
• Rasheed, R. A., Kamsin, A., & Abdullah, N. A. (2020, January). Students and teachers' challenges of using technology in blended learning environments. In Proceedings of the 2020 the 3rd International Conference on Computers in Management and Business (pp. 195-200).
• Reece, L., & Walker, S. (2007). Teaching, training and learning (6^th Ed). Sunderland: Business Education Publishers.
• Shantakumari, N., & Sajith, P. (2015). Blended learning: The student viewpoint. Annals of Medical and Health Sciences Research, 5, 323-328. doi: 10.4103/2141-9248.165248.
• Shayer, M. (2003). Not just Piaget; not just Vygotsky, and certainly not Vygotsky as alternative to Piaget. Learning and instruction, 13, 465-485.
• Simpson, A. (2016). Designing pedagogic strategies for dialogic learning in higher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25, 135-151. doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2015.1038580.
• Skylar, A. A. (2009). A comparison of asynchronous online text-based lectures and synchronous interactive web conferencing lectures. Issues in Teacher education, 18, 69-84.
• Stein, J., & Graham, C. R. (2020) (2^nd Ed). Essentials for blended learning: A standards-based guide. New York: Routledge.
• Tight, M., Mok, K. H., Huisman, J., & Morphew, C. (Eds.). (2009). The Routledge international handbook of higher education. Routledge.
• Tubagus, M., Muslim, S., & Suriani, S. (2020). Development of learning management system-based blended learning model using claroline in higher education. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 14, 186-194. doi: 10.3991/ijim.v14i06.13399.
• Ustun, A. B., Tracey, M. W. (2020). An effective way of designing blended learning: A three phase design-based research approach. Education and Information Technologies, 1529–1552. doi: 1007/s10639-019-09999-9.
• Vallée, A., Blacher, J., Cariou, A., & Sorbets, E. (2020). Blended learning compared to traditional learning in medical education: systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22, doi: 10.2196/16504.
• Voss, B. D. (2013). Massive open online courses (MOOCs): A primer for university and college board members. AGB Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
• Witney, D., & Smallbone, T. (2011). Wiki work: Can using wikis enhance student collaboration for group assignment tasks? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 48, 101-110. doi: 10.12691/education-4-6-4.
• Ying, A. N. L., & Yang, I. (2017). Academics and learners’ perceptions on blended learning as a strategic initiative to improve student learning experience. In MATEC Web of Conferences (Vol. 87, p. 04005). EDP Sciences.

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.