Changes in the use of online and blended learning

Forty per cent of survey respondents said they would increase numbers of online and sandwich courses, and all interviewees expressed very strong levels of support for increased use of blended, online and mobile learning to develop business strategically, improve teaching and learning, and support student learning. The caveat to this was that there were across-the-board reservations about the extent to which virtual modes of learning would replace face-to-face learning, and there was a preference for increased use of blended learning modes than entirely virtual online courses. The use of virtual learning environments (VLEs) for blended

learning was anticipated across all disciplines, with the highest increase being humanities at 90% (18 responses) with STEM subjects likely to see the lowest increases in the use of VLEs although this was still high at 77%. Across the research, and in relation to all subjects and disciplines, the expectation was that VLEs would be used as an addition to, rather than as a replacement for, existing provision.

The development of online, blended modes as an opportunity to generate business include the example of a post-1992 institution who saw it as part of their growth strategy for part-time students studying degrees in the workplace, in business, health and social care, construction, and to a lesser extent engineering. For this particular institution, the “large number of students now studying off-campus and through distance learning in the workplace, international partnerships, UK partnerships, [was] a big part of the business” (Post3). The pre- 1992s had a similar orientation to growing online markets but those institutions in this research, at least, were most likely to focus on “niche areas, all postgraduate taught, where we've identified particular markets where distance learning seems appropriate” (Pre2, planning); a view corroborated by Pre3 who had also identified expansion opportunities in online off-campus courses with “part-time, particularly postgraduate students” whose off-campus learning would be supplemented by “coming on to university [and the] benefits from being on the campus” (Pre 3).

In addition to online modes as a business enhancement strategy, the benefits of online modes in teaching and learning terms were widely recognised. As already noted, online and distance learning was seen primarily as a supplement not a replacement for face-to-face courses. This comment from a specialist institution is

representative of the views of most respondents:

“We are more interested than we were in thinking about blended learning but we do see ourselves as a face-to-face institution, so while one or two programmes have developed or might want to develop in the future a wholly distance learning mode, that's not our prime business … Our reputation is on our face-to- face learning and […] the higher quality the students can expect in the classroom, of each other as well as of the academics because they come from such a wide range of backgrounds.” (Spec 2)

Many university leaders emphasised the importance of the social aspects of learning in taught groups and seminars as being the main reason for the endurance of face-to-face modes of learning. There was some reference to the belief that a university’s duty is to provide learners with a repertoire of skills in online environments to enable them to work within contexts of increasingly global connectivity.

In the light of this ongoing allegiance to face-to-face modes of learning, most institutions were doing innovative work to integrate new online modes with traditional modes. Examples of this work in the research included: flipped classrooms which enables students to access the lecture before they leave home for the seminar (Spec2); lecture capture in which everything the lecturer says is captured on audio and released immediately to students along with the lecture PowerPoints and annotations (Pre3); and the widespread use of virtual learning environments for course handbooks, students’ e-portfolios, reflective journaling and assignment submission. Moodle and Blackboard were the most widely used VLEs.

Indeed, the integration of VLEs into blended learning modes was ubiquitous across institutions. VLEs were: “Just the culture now. I'm sure that if I look really hard I'll find there's one or two that aren't doing it but, no, it's an institutional norm basically. It's what students expect” (Pre3).

Having said this, course variation in the use of online modes remained an important feature of the map of provision. For example, Spec1 (planning) said the nature of their provision demanded that: “The majority of what we do does tend to be practically done in a room with bodies … at the moment” (Spec1); while for another institution, the disciplinary differences remained salient: “I'm a geographer so field classes, field class preparation, is great and you don't want virtual field classes in my opinion.” (Pre3)

One interesting development was the provision of mobile devices to support student learning. The pioneer in this respect was Post1 institution which provided all first years with iPads with preloaded apps and

courseware. While this had led to systems compatibility and course equity issues, there was an

acknowledgement that iPads had the potential to make use of estates more efficient, and to increase the mobile learning opportunities for disadvantaged students who had to take long bus journeys to campus. For this university (Post1), the iPad project nicely combined business sense, marketing opportunities and learning development.

In contrast to the positive local institutional change initiatives regarding the use of online and blended learning, the purported power of MOOCs (massive online open courses) to transform the nature of higher education in the UK was met with considerable scepticism. A comment about the fetishisation of MOOCs which were really just “rubbishy online courses”, on which:

“The student experience is pretty awful in most of them, the throughput rate is woeful for anybody who hasn’t already got a degree usually, [and] there are all kinds of problems around quality.” (Post2)

was pretty representative of all universities’ attitudes to MOOCS. One pre-1992 expressed the view that: “MOOCs … will remain a niche activity, they're not going to change higher education radically and I think that's partly because they're essentially parasitic of established higher education and partly because they're essentially old-fashioned, you know, it's about the talking head ... and I don't see online discussion groups replacing seminars, I just don't think that's as effective or what students really want. So I think there'll be a role for MOOCs … [in doing] assessment in an automatic way which, again, is hopeless for history. So for all those reasons I don't think we see MOOCs as being the future in any way, apart from specific niche activities.” (Pre2, planning)

Other objections to MOOCs included the apparent reputational gain that seemed to be attached to MOOCs, deriving from the fact that the prestigious universities (such as Harvard) have already gone down the MOOC route. Scepticism was also expressed about the business model and here, criticism focused on MOOCs which purported to be philanthropic, open and inclusive but whose business-driven processes entail courses funded by alumni donations and taught by poorly-paid doctoral students working as academic interns. On the other hand, some thought that MOOCs aimed at professional development may provide a sensible business model, but only if they were of sufficiently high quality.

The potential power of MOOCs was identified in relation to the likelihood of prestigious universities beginning to attach credits to their MOOCs. If that happened, then there would be a real move towards credit transfer between institutions but this was more likely to happen with SOCs (small open courses) rather than MOOCs.