e-learning or less learning? reflections from two ...

IADIS International Journal on WWW/Internet Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 1-15 ISSN: 1645 - 7641

E-LEARNING OR LESS LEARNING? REFLECTIONS FROM TWO CONTRASTING APPROACHES Linda See School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

ABSTRACT This paper presents two different approaches to e-learning, which have been implemented in the School of Geography, University of Leeds. The first is largely characterized by the direct transfer of traditional face-to-face approaches to an e-learning environment but has evolved over time to include more dialogue and interaction. The second approach has resulted from a partnership with the UKeUniversities and the World Universities Network, where collaboration and interaction have had much greater prominence in the development of the programme from the beginning. The two approaches are contrasted from a pedagogical, technological and operational perspective. The result has been to merge best practice from both approaches into a single hybrid one that is constantly adapting to student and peer feedback and to new developments in the field of e-learning. KEYWORDS E-Learning, Virtual Learning Environments, learning objects, open distance learning.

1. INTRODUCTION E-learning is the use of information and multimedia technologies with the Internet to enhance student learning and facilitate interaction and collaboration (European Communities, 2003). The development of virtual learning environments (VLEs), the proliferation of PCs, and the availability of faster internet connections have all contributed to the growth of e-learning, which is part of the learning revolution that has been taking place in higher education (Oblinger & Rush, 1997). E-learning has many guises; it can include the blending of face-to-face teaching with the Internet to enhance the overall learning experience (Ritter & Lemke, 2000) or the development of specific online learning and teaching resources for a module (Graham & McNeil, 1999), to name but two applications. When traditional face-to-face teaching, however, is simply 1

IADIS International Journal on WWW/Internet

transferred to a VLE in a first generation approach (Peters, 1998), the consequences can be detrimental to the learner and essentially result in less learning. This is all too often the case when teaching staff are encouraged to move to an online environment or to make more use of communication and information technology in their teaching. The aim of this paper is to contrast two different approaches to e-learning, which have been implemented as two separate masters degree programmes in the School of Geography, University of Leeds. The first approach has been characterized by a typical first generation transfer of face-to-face teaching to a VLE, but the programme has improved over time due to continual staff and student feedback, and better student support and mentoring. The second approach, in contrast, has been driven by good e-learning practice from the very start. However, the demands on staff time for both course development and student support in this second approach were considerably higher, and based on our experiences, did not necessarily correlate directly with a greater learning experience for the students. Demand on student time was also much higher in the second approach and as a result many of the activities designed as part of the learning material were left undone unless specifically assessed. Therefore, it is not surprising that these two different approaches have been merged, taking the best practice from each one. This has also been facilitated by the closure of the UKeU and the phasing out of the first masters programme in favour of the second one. This paper will outline the background to the development of these approaches, which has been a function of external events rather than a well thought out methodology. A description of the typical learner profile in the context of the development of the materials is also provided after which these two approaches will be outlined and contrasted.

2. BACKGROUND The School of Geography at the University of Leeds offers several face-to-face Masters programmes in Geographical Information Systems (GIS). The MA in GIS for Business and Service Planning (B&SP) exploits departmental expertise in retail decision support systems and geodemographics, and has been taught as a one-year full-time face-to-face programme since 1994. In 1999 a grant from the European Social Fund (ESF) was provided to convert the MA in GIS for B&SP to a part-time open distance learning (ODL) programme to be delivered using a VLE. The programme consists of 9 modules spread over 3 years as shown in Figure 1. After year 1, students can exit with a Postgraduate Certificate (PgC) or continue onto year 2. A similar exit point exists for the Postgraduate Diploma (PgD) or students can complete the MA by undertaking a dissertation in year 3. There are 2 intakes per year: October and March. The programme was launched in October 2000 with 10 students funded by the ESF grant, and the total is now more than 40.

2

E-LEARNING OR LESS LEARNING? REFLECTIONS FROM TWO CONTRASTING APPROACHES

Figure 1. The structure of the MA in GIS for B&SP by ODL programme

This initiative was and continues to be very much in line with the learning and teaching strategy of the University of Leeds, in particular the promotion of widening participation and lifelong learning, development of flexible modes of delivery and incorporation of innovative learning and teaching practices (University of Leeds, 2002). The initiative was also initially supported by teaching staff in the department because the prevailing attitude was that elearning represented a way of recruiting more students with less teaching, thereby freeing up time for other activities. In June 2003, the Schools of Geography at the Universities of Leeds and Southampton entered into a partnership with the UKeUniversities (UKeU), a brokering organization for the provision of e-learning for a variety of degree programmes from several universities across the UK. The partnership offered three main benefits: • • •

use of a bespoke VLE developed jointly by Sun Systems and the UKeU UK and international marketing of the programme pedagogical guidance on good practice in e-learning.

A new joint Leeds/Southampton MSc in GIS programme with increased flexibility was designed. The first year consists of core modules on GIS offered entirely at the University of Leeds. In the second year, students can choose 2 modules from 4 optional streams: Business (Leeds), Environment (Southampton), Health (Southampton) and Planning (Leeds) as shown below in Figure 2. The chosen stream determines the university that grants the final degree. The remaining optional modules are taken at Leeds followed by a one-year dissertation at either Leeds or Southampton, depending upon the stream chosen. The programme launched in October 2003 with 7 students: 1 in Brazil, 2 in Sudan and 4 in the UK, with the same two possible entry points per year as with the MA in GIS for B&SP (ODL).

3


Figure 2. The structure of the MSc in GIS (UKeU) programme

For the second intake in March 2004 we were not able to recruit any students onto the programme. Moreover, it emerged that the UKeU was having problems recruiting across all of its programmes. The UKeU was then audited in the spring of 2004 by the UK’s Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE) and it was finally shut down in July 2004. Despite having promised a bespoke VLE and undertaking international marketing for the programme, they were simply not able to deliver on either count. They did, however, provide some useful pedagogical guidance in the preparation of our e-learning materials, which were very different to those we used in the MA in GIS for B&SP (ODL). The reasons for the failure of the UKeU were discussed in countless news articles and on many different learning and teaching websites during 2004. One good example is Auricle (http://www.bath.ac.uk/dacs/cdntl/pMachine/morriblog.php), which is an education blog that has provided an interesting ongoing dialogue on the progress and failure of the UKeU. Greener and Perriton (2005) have also discussed the failure of the UKeU in the context of changes in online learning communities. Thus the UKeU experience has provided a good example of how not to run an e-learning organization. Once the official announcement was made regarding the closure of the UKeU, the Leeds and Southampton team decided to continue offering the MSc in GIS but under the umbrella of the Worldwide Universities Network (http://www.wun.ac.uk). The advantage of this unique collaboration is the ability to exchange expertise with the partner universities who belong to this organization, which consists of an international contingent. Both the Universities of Leeds and Southampton are already partners in this network. This then allowed us to forge a new agreement with another WUN organization: Pennsylvania State University for the exchange of specialist modules on the new MSc in GIS (WUN). Furthermore, it was decided that Leeds would stop further recruitment on the MA in GIS for B&SP (ODL), phasing this programme out in favour of the new MSc in GIS (WUN). As these programmes have been running in parallel and will continue to do so until the remaining MA students graduate, it has been possible to contrast the two approaches and to reflect upon the lessons learnt. 4


3. THE LEARNER PROFILE The part-time open distance learning programmes have attracted students with a very different learner profile than those in traditional higher education. Peters (1998) provides a list of typical distance learner characteristics, many of which are exemplified in our students. For example, they are generally older and working in full-time employment. Thus, they complete the degree part-time while attempting to balance work and personal lives. Figure 3 provides a graph showing the age distribution of our students, which provides an idea of how much work experience they bring to the degree, varying from fresh out of their first degree to a considerable amount.

Number of Students

Distribution of Students by Age 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 22 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 55 Age Range

Figure 3. Age distribution of students.

These students generally have a greater life and work experience, which affects their attitude to learning, e.g. they usually possess a higher level of motivation. For some students this is an opportunity to gain a first qualification in higher education, while for others the programme represents a way to effect career change or progress. However, they may have less fluency with information technology than a typical face-to-face cohort, which may impact learning if the VLE is difficult to use or if the speed of the Internet connection renders the system frustrating to use. In addition we have international students. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the country in which study takes place. These international students add a cultural dimension to the learner profile that can vary significantly from country to country. Finally, the student level of autonomy and their ability to learn independently varies across the spectrum. Although one might expect that masters students should automatically have a high level of autonomy, this assumption can result in frustration and doubt in ability when students are faced with material that is pitched at too high a level. The variation in level of autonomy in a face-to-face setting can often be compensated for through the fact that students work together in groups. The more independent and more isolated nature of distance learning can impact negatively upon those students who need help in working towards the attainment of higher levels of autonomy. This will ultimately affect student retention rates.

5


Table 1: The number of students in each country. Country of Study

Number of Students 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 41 3

Australia Brazil Cambodia Canada Argentina Greece Ireland Sudan Venezuela UK US

The need to respond to learner differences in the development of the course materials seems self-evident yet the first generation model of direct transfer of content does not usually involve additional preparatory instructions and learning aids. Instead a prevalent attitude observed by Peters (1998) in academic teachers within a scientific discipline is that that all students should be treated equally and that learning the material is a student’s own responsibility. This attitude was probably not quite so directly articulated in the School of Geography, but when coupled with a lack of expertise in distance education, it partly explains why a first generation approach was initially taken.

4. APPROACH ONE: MA IN GIS FOR B&SP (ODL) The approach taken in the development of course materials for this programme can be characterized by 3 major phases: (i) an initial phase in which ad hoc development of material took place; (ii) a second phase in which a staff member was hired to complete development and provide student support; and (iii) a third phase in which the module development was complete and improvements could be made in response to staff and student feedback and regular maintenance could be undertaken. As already mentioned, recruitment to this programme has been stopped although it will continue to run for the next 2 years while current students on the programme complete their studies. However, the materials have already been incorporated into the new MSc in GIS (WUN) programme.

4.1 Phase one: Initial development The initial approach to the development of modules was to transfer all face-to-face materials directly to the Nathan Bodington (NB) VLE, which is a freely available VLE developed by the University of Leeds (http://bodington.org/index.html). The NB is actually an application server that links a database to a web browser to implement an interactive website. Additional modules can be plugged into the application server so it has broader potential application beyond being a VLE. The NB was designed to be pedagogically neutral, i.e. there is no imposed programme or course structure. Instead the NB is organized into floors and rooms

6


that students enter via a clear navigational structure. Within the rooms, organization of the course materials is entirely flexible. Within the NB, there is a floor in this virtual building that contains all of the materials for the School of Geography at the University of Leeds. On this floor there is a room called the ODL Resource Center. Within this room we have organized a series of further rooms, one per module and others for general information. Each module is then organized into 8 to 10 units of material, which are placed into individual rooms. Figure 4 provides a screenshot from a module in the first year of the programme. The icons along the top of the screen allow the students to move between rooms easily as the building is organized into a hierarchy. Each additional room that is added below the ODL Resource Center moves the student further down into the building and therefore further down the hierarchy. A part-time researcher was assigned to take lecture material in the form of PowerPoint slides and practical handouts and place them in the VLE within the ODL resource center in much the same structure as that shown in Figure 4. The PowerPoint slides were first converted to a structured document, which is an html page split into frames. On the left hand side are hyperlinked headings that, when clicked, bring up the corresponding content on the right. Some supplementary explanations were added to the content as the material in the PowerPoint slides on their own was not sufficient. The students were expected to read the structured documents online and download any accompanying material such as practical handouts and assessment details. They were then expected to work independently through the practical materials and complete the assessments, which were unaltered from the face-to-face versions.

Figure 4. Example of materials in the Nathan Bodington VLE for one module on the programme.

Support was provided by an administrator via e-mail or telephone, and discussions rooms were set up to allow students to raise any issues. Any questions on course content were then directed to the original lecturer who supplied the material. The lecturer was also expected to mark the assignment and participate in an optional face-to-face tutorial during one afternoon,

7


if the students requested it. This model is characterized by a largely transmissive approach in the form of structured documents followed by a large leap in learner autonomy, where students were required to work through the unaltered practicals and assessments independently. In the face-to-face equivalents, these practicals would normally be sessions accompanied by a tutor and possibly other assistants.

4.2 Phase two: Further developments The first cohort of students ran under phase one for approximately 8 months before a lecturer in GIS (35% of full-time equivalent) was appointed to develop the additional 8 modules in the programme and to provide more support of both a course content and technical nature. As the course development was a mammoth task on its own, the initial support and mentoring aspects were kept to a minimum, but at least the original lecturers and the administrator were relieved of this support duty. An analysis of student feedback for the first 8 months was undertaken and the main criticism was, unsurprisingly, the lack of tutor support. The students felt that they were left entirely alone with very little guidance, especially when they encountered problems. Most of the original 10 European Objective 3 funded students had therefore decided they would exit the programme with a PgC as they did not appreciate being “guinea pigs” for a new programme. It was clear that these students were learning less under a distance e-learning approach than they would have done under a more traditional face-to-face programme. Ormond (2000) argues that student support is a key issue in aiding student retention, which was simply not considered sufficiently at the start of the programme. Another interesting discovery was that students did not read the structured documents online but copied the entire contents to a Word document, which they then printed for further study. Based on this feedback, a different approach was adopted for the transmission of the materials. For the three modules that were already in the structured document format, the material was transferred to a Word document, additional explanatory text was added and the documents were then placed into the VLE in Adobe Acrobat format. Figure 5 shows an example of how the materials were organized once they were transferred from structured documents to pdfs. The VLE was essentially relegated to a secure repository of documents as there was not enough time to populate discussion rooms and continue the additional course development. However, students were generally better supported via e-mail during this phase, which was clearly reflected in subsequent student feedback, and the optional face-to-face tutorials continued to provide a good opportunity to interact fully. At the same time for new modules, the emphasis shifted to the development of interactive workbooks, with activities peppered throughout conceptual material to better engage the learner. Activities involving discussion rooms were also added. This workbook approach has been continued for all subsequent modules.

8


Figure 5. Example of materials from one unit in the Nathan Bodington VLE for one module on the programme.

As a brief aside, one pleasant by-product of the MA in GIS for B&SP (ODL) has been in resolving face-to-face timetable conflicts. In these situations, face-to-face students have still been able to complete their degree requirements by taking a one-off ODL equivalent of a faceto-face module. This model has also been formally extended to an interdisciplinary degree in Informatics (MSc), where an optional geoinformatics stream can be selected. The stream consists of one ODL and one face-to-face module. This will continue under the new MSc in GIS (WUN) programme and may be extended in the future to add greater flexibility to other existing face-to-face programmes.

4.3 Phase three: Maintenance and updating During this final phase all course materials for the MA in GIS for B&SP (ODL) were completely developed although maintenance and updating were still undertaken. More time was devoted to student support and mentoring and discussion rooms were used more successfully than in the past. There will now be little further change to the materials as the old programme runs its course although they have already been incorporated into the new programme where they will continue to evolve.

9


5. APPROACH TWO: MSC IN GIS (UKEU/WUN) The second approach has been entirely different to the original one taken for the MA in GIS for B&SP (ODL). One of the main reasons is because the UKeU made use of learning objects as an integral part of their bespoke VLE, referred to as the UKeUniversities Learning Environment or UKeULE, but which is no longer available as a platform. A learning object can be defined as “any small, reusable chunk of instructional media” (Wiley, 2000, p.3), and these objects sit at the lowest level of a hierarchy that includes: modules, units (roughly equivalent to one topic in a module) and sessions (or unit sub-headings). The key idea behind learning objects is that they are reusable, and in the UKeULE they followed both IMS (Instructional Management Systems) and SCORM (Shareable Content Object Reference Model) standards. The use of learning objects immediately requires a new approach to the presentation of course material. Another key difference in the development of the two programmes lies in the fact that we received pedagogical guidance from the UKeU during the development of the course materials. We were encouraged to move away from a largely transmissive model to one that assumes higher learner autonomy and a deeper approach to learning, characteristic of a masters programme. The UKeU also suggested moving to a course team model similar to the kind employed by other distance education universities (Peters, 1998). Members of the course team would develop the material and a dedicated tutor within the team would then be assigned to run each module. In this way the modules become detached from their original creator, and would, therefore, scale up better when student numbers increased.

5.1 Development of the materials Due to the fixed launch date of October 2003, there was only a 3-month period for the development of both induction materials (the existence of which represents an improvement over the MA in GIS for B&SP) and the first module. Moreover, at the time the course team only consisted of one person, i.e. the same person involved in course development for the MA in GIS for B&SP (ODL). Recruitment of the course team was taking considerably longer than anticipated. As a result, a very simple model was employed consisting of: • • • •

short, downloadable conceptual documents readings (textbooks, web pages, journal articles) assimilation and analysis of results from Internet and literature searches group work.

Each of these components was then integrated into reflective activities, the results of which were: • • •

placed in a reflective or learning portfolio (an ongoing Word document providing evidence of study) shared with the whole group in a discussion forum, and/or shared between members of an assigned study group.

Learning objects for the induction were developed to cover technical issues such as the use of the platform, library and study skills, time management, expectations, plagiarism, etc. The discussion room was used as an integral part of the induction in order to familiarize students 10


with this tool before starting the first module, which was divided into 8 units of approximately 6 to 8 learning objects per unit. The material covered a 3-month study period of 150 hours. As the first module was largely theoretical, there was little opportunity for hands-on sessions. Unlike the MA in GIS for B&SP (ODL), this model is heavily reliant on the use of discussion rooms and the reflective portfolio. The conceptual documents are also brief as students are required to research topics and explain the material in their reflective portfolios or in a discussion forum, following a learning-by-research model (Peters, 1998). The materials are developed on a website in the School of Geography so that all parties, including the UKeU learning technologists, can view and provide ongoing feedback, prior to uploading the objects to the UKeULE. At the time our programme was used as an exemplar for the development of other programmes at the UKeU. The initial feedback gathered from the first cohort of students has been positive overall, despite several technical problems encountered with the UKeULE. The slow speed of both the platform and the Internet caused some frustration amongst the overseas students. As a result the discussion rooms were not used as effectively as they could have been, despite considerable efforts on the part of the tutor to encourage participation. However, given the small number of students, we were probably experiencing the critical mass problem as identified by Jackson (2003). One-to-one correspondence via e-mail was regular, and when asked, the students all recognized the potential of discussion rooms but they were still reluctant to participate. Jackson (2003) surveyed his students and found that if discussions were a compulsory element, then the students would more actively participate. One of the later modules in the programme assesses this element and when run, it was clear that students were more active. Finally, 3 of the 7 students deferred their studies during the first module due to a combination of personal and/or work commitments. Although student expectations are discussed during the induction module, students who are working in full-time employment with demanding work hours have been finding it difficult to study the recommended weekly 10 to 15 hours.

5.2 Current and future developments More multimedia technologies are being introduced into the programme. Through the World Universities Network partnership and the DIALOG PLUS project (funded by the National Science Foundation (USA) and the Joint Information Systems Committee (UK)), learning materials referred to as ‘learning nuggets’ are being developed to support GIS teaching. Flash animation is being used to illustrate different geographical concepts such as map projections and basic spatial analysis functions as well as creating interactive exercises such as drag and drop, short answer questions, etc. These animations will add an extra visual and interactive element to the programme. This will address previous concerns raised by students during tutorial sessions in which visual examples would have greatly aided understanding of what are difficult concepts when explained from a theoretical perspective. Other multimedia and Internet-based technologies are planned for integration in the future including short video master classes, audiographs and use of synchronous discussion facilities. The ‘learning nuggets’ from the DIALOG PLUS module are already incorporated in the next module for delivery. As many of the modules are still under development, there is the possibility to take advantage of different multimedia technologies from the start. However,

11


issues of Internet speed will need to be carefully considered when determining which technologies to use.

6. REFLECTION ON BOTH APPROACHES The two approaches to e-learning presented here are quite different and it is possible to contrast them based on pedagogical, technological and operational differences.

6.1 Pedagogical differences The first approach largely follows a transmissive or expository model characteristic of a first generation development. However, with experience gained from running the programme over several intakes, there has been a shift to include more interactive elements and collaborative learning in response to student and staff feedback. The second approach has discussion, interaction and reflection as the centerpiece of the learning process. However, we had problems with the first cohort of 4 students. Discussion rooms, which were fully integrated into the weekly student activities, were not used to their full potential. Other formative activities such as the reflective portfolio revealed some interesting evidence of learning that was not possible to demonstrate with the first approach, but the students found the both the amount of work and the level of the material higher than they had anticipated. The reflective portfolio did provide an ongoing mechanism of feedback and dialogue between student and tutor but this also impacted upon the workload of the tutor. With larger student numbers one could anticipate a potentially unmanageable tutor workload. The students also argued that the modules developed using the second approach more than exceeded the recommended 15 hours per week of study. It was therefore not possible to evaluate whether this second approach lead to greater student learning than the more transmissive approach. It became clear, however, that both approaches were almost on opposite ends of a spectrum. An approach more in the middle, which contained interaction and collaboration, but with a more reasonable workload was desirable as a way forward.

6.2 Technological differences The two programmes also differed technologically, in that they were offered on different VLEs. The Nathan Bodington is a basic document repository with secure access and a discussion facility. It simulates a virtual building with floors, rooms and pigeonholes for handing in of assignments. Student feedback has on the whole been positive but the recognition of the very basic role of document dispensary and support via discussion room has been acknowledged by the students. Organization of the materials in the Nathan Bodington is not prescribed as with the UKeULE, where material is specifically presented as learning objects. This second approach better promotes learner autonomy by allowing students to choose their own path through the materials. The workbook format of the first approach represents a much more linear learning process. However, student feedback from the UKeU programme indicated that they found the multiple object approach somewhat overwhelming at times, even though some objects were not that time consuming. Furthermore, once the UKeU

12


students had been migrated over to the new MSc in GIS (WUN), which used the workbook approach of the first programme, the students found the workbooks preferable. Another advantage of learning objects is that they are reusable although we were not able to utilize this advantage because we were at too early a stage of programme development when the UKeU closed. The issue of reusability did, however, also represent a major disadvantage, which is that objects must be independent of one another and therefore have no links between them, a result of the standards that the objects must follow, i.e. SCORM. This severely restricts the ability to place these objects within an overall learning context and has necessitated the development of ‘sacrificial’ learning objects. These are objects that do not conform to SCORM standards and are therefore not strictly reusable. However, they provide the necessary linkages between module components. These linkages have been much easier to make in the workbook format of the first programme. The learning object approach, therefore, is not one that we have continued to use. With regards to the platform, there was little additional functionality in the UKeULE over the Nathan Bodington VLE with the exception of built in support for multimedia technologies and the ability to view many different parts of the platform at the same time. For example, it was possible to carry on discussions while consulting any learning object; in the Nathan Bodington, two separate browsers would be required. However, the performance of the UKeULE was so poor in comparison to the NB VLE that even greatly improved capabilities would have been of little use because basic problems such as access and speed rended the platform virtually unusable. We had many work arounds such as sending materials to students on CD or via e-mail and moving discussions to an e-mail forum instead.

6.3 Operational differences Finally, it is possible to compare the two programmes operationally although many of the dayto-day issues raised are more a function of delivery via open distance learning as opposed to elearning in particular. The problems that have been encountered have, therefore, been similar for both programmes. One key area of difficulty has been in motivation. Encouraging lecturing staff to become involved has been problematic when student marking or presence at tutorials represents an additional workload to an already busy schedule. Although staff initially supported the ESF project, it soon became apparent how much extra work was involved to support learners and write materials. Additional workload has not been recognized by the department or the institution and yet is a key issue for the success of online course delivery (Schrum, 2000). We have also not yet fully embraced the course team approach to development of materials advocated by the UKeU and more organizational changes are needed before we can take full advantage of this arrangement. Other concerns that have been raised by students have been the lack of face-to-face contact with tutors and the feelings of isolation. We have found that face-to-face tutorials have been critical in helping students build relationships with their tutors and to form independent study groups although this has not been possible with overseas students as attendance at tutorials is not a required element. The amount of interaction that students have with one another in a face-to-face setting has been greatly underestimated and trying to emulate this aspect of the student experience has been incredibly difficult. Purcell-Robertson and Purcell (2000) emphasise the need to facilitate strong staff-to-student and student-to-student interaction in distance learning, both of which are improving with experience. Moreover, week long

13


residential courses are currently being considered for incorporation into the programme although this is one area where e-learning must have something real to offer in the future. Although the use of basic collaborative learning tools embedded within VLEs can facilitate a sense of belonging, it is not yet effective at reducing the feelings of isolation reported by the students. Use of web cams and other synchronous communication tools represent a potential way of improving contact although the technology must be stable, fast and easy to use before it will become commonplace.

6.4 A Hybrid approach With the shift of the existing MSc in GIS (UKeU) to the new WUN programme, and therefore moving from the UKeULE to the NB VLE, there was an opportunity to merge materials developed as part of the UKeU into our existing ODL materials. We liked many of the reflective activities that students were asked to undertake but we realized that there were too many of these in the UKeU materials. There were also 2 to 3 discussion fora per week, which many students could not keep up with, especially with deadlines in their own work places that were very demanding. The reflective portfolios were also deemed to be too much work in their current form so we have decided not to use them for the time being but we will revisit the idea of a learning log in the future. Instead of having only 1 general discussion room, we created ones that were associated with individual units where problems could be discussed and the results of certain reflective activities could be shared. We have decided to keep the workbook approach from the first programme but interaction with students and tutors is much more developed in the new MSc in GIS (WUN) programme. We have had 14 students start the new programme in October 2004. The discussion element of the first module was incredibly successful and the workload appeared to be more generally acceptable. This hybrid approach appears to be a good way forward for the new MSc programme although we will continue to make modifications based on feedback and sharing of best practice with others involved in distance learning.

7. CONCLUSIONS Two quite different approaches to e-learning have been presented in the paper, both of which are offered concurrently as separate masters programmes in GIS. Both make use of a VLE for the distribution of materials and for collaborative learning tools, but the organization of the materials and the degree of interaction and discussion differs greatly between the two programmes. However, the same types of operational problems are encountered in both programmes, which are more a function of distance education rather than e-learning per se. With the phasing out of the first programme in favour of the second one, and with the closure of the UKeU, we have had an opportunity to merge both approaches, taking the best practice from each one. Further student and peer feedback will be critical in continuing to evaluate the success of student learning in efforts to ensure that e-learning does not equate to less learning compared to an equivalent face-to-face setting. The need to reduce distance and student isolation will continue to be one of the biggest challenges to e-learning in the future yet the continuing technological advances make the prospect an exciting one.

14


REFERENCES European Communities. 2003. elearningeuropa.info, available at: http://www.elearningeuropa.info/glossary.php. Graham, D.T. and McNeil, J. 1999. Using the Internet as part of directed learning in social geography: developing web pages as an introduction to local social geography, Journal of Geography in Higher Education. Vol. 23, pp.181-194. Greener, I. and Perriton, L. 2005. The political economy of networked learning communities in higher education, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 67-79. Jackson, P. 2003. Ten Challenges for Introducing Web-supported Learning to Overseas Students in the Social Sciences. In Active Learning in Higher Education. Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 87-106. Oblinger, D.G. and Rush, S.C. 1997. The Learning Revolution: The Challenge of Information Technology in the Academy. Anker Publishing Company, Inc., Bolton MA, USA. Ormond, S. 2000. Supporting Students in Open and Distance Learning. Kogan Page Limited, London. Peters, O. 1998. Learning and Teaching in Distance Education: Pedagogical Analyses and Interpretations in an International Perspective. Kogan Page Limited, London. Purcell-Roberston, R.M. and Purcell, D.F. 2000. Interactive Distance Learning, In: L. Lau (Ed.), Distance Learning Technologies: Issues, Trends and Opportunities, Idea Group Publishing, London, pp.16-21. Ritter, M.E. and Lemke, K.A. 2000. Addressing the ‘Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education’ with Internet-enhanced Education, Journal of Geography in Higher Education. Vol. 24, pp.100-108. Schrum, L. 2000. Online Teaching and Learning: Essential Conditions for Success! In: L. Lau (Ed.), Distance Learning Technologies: Issues, Trends and Opportunities, Idea Group Publishing, London, pp.91-106. University of Leeds. 2002. Learning and Teaching Strategy 2002/3 – 2006/7. Leeds, UK. URL: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/qmeu/policy_strategy/ltstrat.html. Wiley, D. A. 2000. Connecting Learning Objects to Instructional Design Theory: A Definition, a Metaphor, and a Taxonomy, In: D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version, available at: http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc.

15