Volume Two - Academic Conferences

Marie Sams et al.
throughout learning, and an emphasis on the value to students from shifting towards a peer learning
approach to amplify the richness of their experiences (Nicol 2007, Daly et al 2010).
As the new module was being developed, it was understood that formative feedback would provide
part of the process in engaging students on the weeks in which they were expected to participate
online. Initial feedback would be encouraged through peer engagament and the design of activities,
and then at later stages by the facilitators.
Logistics
The online arena gives great flexibility in the logistical delivery of programmes (Smith and Rupp 2004,
Owens and Price 2010), both for the lecturer and the learner. However, the development work and
online feedback to students in an online environment takes significant groundwork to ensure the
student has a worthwhile experience underpinned by the learning outcomes of the module.
Additionally, for larger module groups, the consideration of the number of online facilitators is key to
the student learning experience.
Nagel and Kotze (2010) indicated that different researchers have put the ideal size of an online class
anything from 12 to 30 students. At Coventry, each online group needed to be facilitated and in this
case students were put into groups of 25-30, due to the size of the module and numbers of teaching
staff allocated. The module was split across 20 weeks, with every other week delivered being ‘online
learning’. The first summative assessment developed was a multiple choice questionnaire and the
second was a summer written exam. Dermo (2009) suggests that students expect some form of eassessment
in their studies and also that students are capable of dealing with the complexity of the
learning.
It was the researchers intention to prepare students for the multiple choice e-assessment by training
them on using the platform for delivery (Moodle) and giving them examples of the types/format of
questions they might be asked. This was embedded into both face to face delivery and online content
and was quite flexible and adaptive, depending on the needs and abilities of the students. This
encouraged and developed a more student centred approach to e-assessment and eLearning.
Engagement and motivation
Motivation is a key driver in the engagement with any online or blended delivery programme. Key to
this is the consideration of feeding back to students on their progress. Pachler et al (2010) question
the usefulness of generic feedback to students (for example based on a certain grade range).
Somyurek (2009) also suggests that the learning needs to be customised to each learner based on
their diverse backgrounds and requirements, however it was felt that feedback to the online phase
test would incorporate an element of generic feedback that could be provided to students more
instantaneously, this allowed the students to have a more in depth detailed response to their
assessment, which could also be followed up with each student in face to face sessions.
As MOB was intended to run as a blended learning module consideration was given to how to ‘weave’
topics through face to face and online environments to provide some continuity and maintain interest.
Ellis et al (2009) gathered from their research into blended learning that students who performed
poorly face to face did not engage well online. This suggested that a greater emphasis on how
eLearning is introduced at the outset carries great importance to ensure students understand the
benefits of engaging in an online environment, not only from their lecturers but also from their peers.
The first week developed an online lecture for students to view before their first face to face
lecture/seminar.
Feedback from the facilitators would be implemented through discussion forums however would take
the form of questioning, probing and guiding to stimulate debate and discussion rather than students
hanging back and waiting a ‘model’ answer, to encourage deeper, self directed and peer learning.
It was important to the MOB team to attempt the generation of peer learning. Although eLearning is
increasing, it is more frequently used in smaller student groups. Mompo and Redoli (2010) suggest
that collaborative learning is especially beneficial to those being taught in large groups which
encourages self directed learning.
725