We knew that in the initial stages of the PebblePad implementation there would be limited organisational knowledge and support resources available. We were also aware that there would be an expectation across the university to deliver signifi-cant innovation. We were also cognisant that we would need to quickly nurture our talented, experienced and ‘new to ePortfolios’ teaching staff whilst generating imme-diate successes and supporting increasing levels of use throughout the first 3–5 years.
At the same time, we would need to be aware that all of these practitioners have many other commitments (in particular research activities) and therefore the process would need to be streamlined to meet their needs within the shortest possible amount of time. As a result, the Griffith Sciences Blended Learning Model was developed. The purpose/s of this model were as follows:
• To find grass-roots projects within the Sciences involving ePortfolios;
• To give willing academics incentive and time (via funding) to develop learning and teaching outcomes within their course or program;
8 C. N. Allan and D. Green Phase 1: Expression of Interest
Learning Fund Grass roots projects Focus on strategic areas Evidence based (literature / case studies)
Establishment of community of usable scholarly practice
Phase 2: Design & Develop Scoping project
Learning design workflows Training, advice & support Developing resources and workspaces
Phase 3: Run Activity &
Gather Evidence Implement task Community meetings to discuss issues and successes Gathering student and staff evidence
Phase 4: Evaluation, Promotion &
Sharing
Findings evaluated and compared with other projects
Principles developed
Examples of good practice / case studies
Dissemination – local &
international
Fig. 1.1 Griffith Sciences Blended Learning Model
• To develop scholarly practice including lessons learned, principles of good practice in STEM and ePortfolios and research outputs for practitioners;
• To create a community of newly experienced practitioners armed with a variety of strategies and resources that they could use to develop better practice; and
• To share these resources in a way that would support the next generation of users in the coming years.
The Griffith Sciences Blended Learning Model was simple in conception but involved a series of interconnecting components that would allow us to quickly build expertise and knowledge in the use of ePortfolios, share this knowledge amongst a medium-sized group of people, in the first instance, and then expand that group and our reach in future iterations of the project. It was developed as a four-phase implementation plan that include: (1) an initial call for interested parties, (2) pre-trimester design and development, (3) running the activity and evidence gathering, and (4) evaluation, promotion and sharing (see Fig.1.1for more details).
1 Introduction 9
1.6.1 Phase 1: Expression of Interest—Blended Learning Fund
The initial phase focused on developing a shared vision built from grass-roots initia-tives and modifying existing reward structures to encourage and promote innovative practice. At the beginning of 2017, the Dean of Learning and Teaching, Griffith Sci-ences, called for interested parties to express an interest for blended learning funding to undertake a project using PebblePad. All Griffith Sciences academic staff had the opportunity to generate/articulate an idea (a paragraph or two) that could be funded.
Funding was provided for program-based initiatives, course-based initiatives and initiatives to support staff using ePortfolios for their own professional development.
Applicants could nominate for more than one area, and they could use the funding to buy out teaching time, to attend or present at a conference (it did not have to be related to this funding), to purchase equipment or for any legitimate use that would benefit the academic. Thirty-three projects from various disciplines within STEM were funded.
An overarching ethics application was created early in this process to allow aca-demics to use the information and evidence gathered in their scholarly activities as part of their research. The ethics application included the potential for a survey or focus group, the collection of digital artefacts and usage data, student evaluation surveys and demographic data. Ethics approval for this project was granted prior to the gathering of any data included in any of the chapters.
1.6.2 Phase 2: Design and Develop Within a Theoretical Framework
The second phase transitioned our learning framework into disseminating effective learning and teaching practice, developing a shared vision and starting a process for developing reflective teaching practice. The key strategies used to disseminate effec-tive practice was providing bespoke PebblePad training (focusing on learning and teaching applications of PebblePad), guided support for developing each initiative and providing the relevant literature (via an EndNote library) to all participants. The major strategy for developing reflective practice was an initial scoping document for each task, an initial community of practice meeting and one-on-one support provided by the learning and teaching team. A community of practice was used to help develop a shared vision amongst innovators, creating an outlet for them to share practice and, in the initial instance, to develop their learning design.
Each successful applicant in the EOI process was sent an email asking them to complete a scoping document or course improvement template. The template pro-vided information relating to the blended learning fund and also acted as a course improvement plan designed within the system that they were about to use (to hope-fully normalise the technology and make people aware of its capabilities from the
362 C. N. Allan et al.
Roberts, P. (2018). Developing reflection through an ePortfolio-based learning environment: Design principles for further implementation. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 27(3), 313–326.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2018.1447989.
Roberts, P., Maor, D., & Herrington, J. (2016). ePortfolio-based learning environments: Recom-mendations for effective scaffolding of reflective thinking in Higher Education. Educational Technology & Society, 19(4), 22–33.
Rodgers, C. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230–253.https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.72.2.5631743606m15751.
Shavelson, R. J., Phillips, D. C., Towne, L., & Feuer, M. J. (2003). On the science of education design studies. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 25–28.https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001025.
Smith, K., & Hill, J. (2018). Defining the nature of blended learning through its depiction in current research. Higher Education Research & Development.https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.
1517732.
Sutherland, S., Brotchie, J., & Chesney, S. (2011). Pebblegogy: Ideas and activities to inspire and engage learners. Pebble Learning Limited, e-Innovative Centre: University of Wolverhampton, United Kingdom.
Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load.
Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123–138.https://doi.org/10.1107/s10648-010-9128-5.
Taylor, J. A., & Newton, D. (2013). Beyond blended learning: A case study of institutional change at an Australian regional university. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 54–60.https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.10.003.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Massachusetts, United States: Harvard Business School.
Wieman, C. (2017). Improving how universities teach science: Lessons from the Science Education Initiative. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Wingate, U. (2006). Doing away with ‘study skills’. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(4), 457–469.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600874268.
Yorke, M., & Knight, P. T. (2006). Embedding employability into the curriculum. Higher Education Academy.
Christopher N. Allan is a Learning and Teaching Consultant for Griffith Sciences, Griffith Uni-versity. Christopher has extensive experience in blended learning, learning design and the imple-mentation of technology to support and enhance learning and teaching. Christopher has 20 years’
experience in all forms of education and more than 10 years working in Higher Education. The work Christopher has undertaken has been recently recognized with his being awarded a Senior Fellow with the Higher Education Academy and he is also a Senior Fellow of the Griffith Learning and Teaching Academy.
Dr. Julie Crough is a Learning and Teaching Consultant (Curriculum) for Griffith Sciences as well as a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and Griffith Learning and Teaching Academy. Her extensive experience and background in science education spans more than 25 years working collaboratively with, and for, higher education institutions and scientific research organisations in curriculum development and innovation. Her curiosity and drive to learn (BSc (Hons); Grad Dip Ed.; M Sc (Sc. Ed.); and DTEM) is foregrounded by her passion to purpose-fully integrate active and authentic learning experiences in STEM higher education.
David Green is a Learning and Teaching Consultant (Design) within the Sciences Group at Grif-fith University and a Senior Fellow of the GrifGrif-fith Learning and Teaching Academy. His engage-ment with education and technology spans more than 30 years in a variety of roles ranging from
18 Designing Rich, Evidence-Based Learning Experiences … 363
primary to tertiary education. David has a particular interest in promoting the purposeful and cre-ative integration of technology into education with the focus remaining firmly on the student learn-ing outcomes and experience. David is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and has presented at education conferences across Australia and Europe.
Gayle Brent is a Learning and Teaching Consultant (Curriculum) in the Griffith Sciences. Gayle’s specialist area of interest is developing and implementing strategies to enhance staff and stu-dent understanding of employability, in both curricular and extra-curricular contexts. Gayle has a unique perspective on the challenges students experience at various stages of the student life cycle, having worked in roles that span outreach, orientation and transition, career development and alumni engagement. She applies innovative, creative solutions to enhance student engagement with employability-based learning.