Creating a Community of Practice in Blended Learning using the talents of all?

How far does your CoP exist?

• Likelihood that Universities are at different stages with their community
• Certain things evolve
• May have a mix of lecturers that wish to see student uptake and those that wish to use as research
• Is tech there for ‘student support’ or is a ‘Community of Inquiry’ being created? Different technologies depending on what the answer is…

In this conference interchanged ‘Community of Inquiry’ and ‘Community of Practice’.

CoP are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly. (Wenger 2006) – do we have lots of small CoPs or what?

• A shared domain of interest
• A community that interacts with each other
• A share repertoire of resources leading to shared practice.

What is a community? How big should it be? Should say that there are lots of small communities of practice that fade in/out of existence and it’s more important that we’re here and aware of the skills we have.

What is Blended Learning?

• Use of appropriate tech
• Informed by pedagogy
• Enhancing student experience
• MANY – however, see it only in relation to certain activities
  • Supporting the full time curriculum to provide a more flexible support to student learning
  • Building it into the curriculum with p/t students receiving a mix of online & f2f
  • Using new technologies to drive pedagogical change?

QUESTION 1: Is there a recognised definition in your university? If so what activity do staff associate it with?

Hertfordshire does – may depend upon faculties, Solent’s is above, most don’t – those that don’t tend to have good bottom-up stuff going on, but if there’s a recognition that there’s over-arching strategy (not imposed), but bringing together the best practice. WebPet (web presence in every topic) – Flinder Uni, S. Aus. Now trying to move beyond that – easy in some, not others! Discussion tool, link to library page, link to help & support button.

SLIDE (http://tweetphoto.com/27641738) – everyone needs to sign up to Level 1 (equal provision) – how get it embedded? Is it a brain thing or is it social? Level 3 – more Community of Inquiry – more transformative/learn together. Can be hard to get to level 3? Does it come back to knowing your students? Depends on your subject – e.g. Computer Science = not a very discursive study. Level 2, not too many variables. Is it more difficult to get to the higher levels of interactivity with larger numbers or early on in the course? Nature of students, nature of disciplines. Wikis = great for problem based learning/interaction.

QUESTION 2: Is there a common focus or sharing of practice around (all sites on VLE fully stocked, using tools to support students as an individual, fostering online community where students work together on tasks? People work independently using support from central services?

VERY different practices in the same institution dependent upon the discipline. To some people, it’s about “that’s what we do”. Get a sense of evangelizing (there are more progressive uses of the VLE & we should be nudged?) – some of this information is helpful, but it can be dangerous. MUST be about your students. Where are your problems (e.g. getting students to read more) – start to look for solutions… Talk about learning aims, rather than systems & uses.

Even e.g. blogs – can be used differently – can get people speaking to each other naturally, or can push specific answers. Get more interaction if leave more open (less fear of having to get the question ‘right’).

Level 5, not a reading list, but offer 2 core texts they might want to buy, go out to read other materials, but we don’t put it there fore them – they have to be active. Social comes in – as can draw on each other’s material if it’s in a Wiki.

Need acquisition & participation.

To reach 3 – have to DO SOEMTHING different!

Can you stop/start things? Is it really a constellation of practice? Is there a definite group?

Is it a false environment? Do we need a clear purpose/are people getting together?

QUESTION 3: Are there interest groups that work together? (individuals, starting to move towards group work; definite communities)

What are the incentives for people to be involved. “You want me to give more of my time that I have very little of anyway.”

Quite circular – those who were new – in the centre, supported by others, those with more experience moving away to form interest groups as a result. Whose responsibility is it to support the use of new users (Faculties, central, or…?) Is there a community that works as mentoring? Is that not socialisation rather than mentoring? Natural formation? Different levels of granularity – a lot of it is to do with personality.

Can you belong to a community without knowing that you belong to it? Do we over-intellectualise this?

Constellations? Networks? Connect new staff to networks… Induction – specifically re: linking to new people, rather than introduce them to the technologies. CoP relates to projects, whereas networks go off and do another project.

Healthy organisation – how to break down barriers between these networks.

QUESTION 5: How to healthy networks interact (see above)

QUESTION 6: Is it an issue for you to use the ‘community’ to encourage more research into the pedagogy of blended learning? (Encouraging uptake, are there those actively looking for projects in the university, looking for projects outside the university, working partnerships & e-Champions leading the way for others into publication)

Hertfordshire – encouraged to write up & make something permanent – mostly about capturing and sharing practice & not reinventing the wheel.

Winchester – looking to blog or wiki for good or bad practice – but people don’t want to say what’s gone “wrong” in public – the idea of “the publication” limits things.

Are we writing it up as research or are we essentially reporting practice?

JISC projects are – how to do (rather than how not to) projects.

What is the community there for? Networked/sharing practice – not necessarily a communal thing – can be both, but not necessarily! For most it’s an idea of INDIVIDUAL research – rather come up with idea and then might COLLABORATE on it, but it’s not the driver for doing research. Are there projects where the community decides the research…

Hertfordshire, a great community – so e.g. Peter Bullen may give a paper, but 80% of his slides may have come from other members of the team. Communities come & go – e.g. CABLE core team = close knit, but not necessarily the entire…

WHO ACTUALLY HOLDS THE RESOURCES? How are they shared, is the holder also part of the community of practice?

USING THE TALENTS OF ALL TO CREATE A COMMUNITY IN BLENDED LEARNING (Staff,academic/support, Staff)

• What has worked?
  • Lots of relationships with many individuals – not very efficient, but people like it, but now need to build a repository of resources. Short videos of people talking ad-hoc about their practice. (Takes about 15 mins to get a 3 min video) – not v. academic, but gets engagement (they may talk with couple of PPT slides). E-Library of people doing anything interesting.
  • CABLE, v. successful, but need about £60k per year. 4 depts £10k each, and £20k to arrange social events to bring people together. Works like a dream.
  • Emerging Technology User Group meet once a ¼, meet to share practice in what people have been doing – but tend to be preaching to the converted. Still supporting those who are trying to push things forward.
• New ideas?
• Pitfalls?
• Targeted support (cognitive v social – where do you see the next course of action?)

London Knowledge Lab

Setting Expectations for the Talk: Talk about ideas, not about how to do something specific – think differently about what you’re doing anyway.

Roland Barthes Mythologies. Things presented as ‘common sense’/'natural’ and taken for granted… when they should be problematised more. The importance of myth.

Norm Friesman – Not about destructing ideas, but about clearing the ground in order to be able to have different conversations.

Can ‘Blended Learning’ be Redeemed? (Martin Oliver & Keith Trigwell) – talking about blended learning being more about a bringing together of modes rather than rethinking learning.

E-Learning often defined by anything using technology…

Face-to-face learning – tutors also have differing views about what their teaching consisted of – e.g. lectures = disseminating information or interactivity for students? Tutorials, also… Broad consistency, but the details were different – same terms, but different…

So Blended Learning is a mix of 2 kinds of teaching that don’t really exist…

Like Frankenstein’s Monster – has no place in the world – was created because it could be DONE.

Cloudworks pre-conference discussion – bringing specific uses of technology together – not just a random collection of technology. Blended education rather than blended learning? Purposeful integration, formal & informal contexts..

It’s about good, thoughtful design, not abou tmixing archetypal forms.

Jon Alltree – continuity across contexts, making the ‘backchat’ public. Has promise, but is Blended Learning the best term to use?

The myth of the categorically knowable student: The idea that students are different from us “otherness” – grand claims made about generational change, and the need for educational reform. Rather than being empirically & theoretically informed, it’s a form of academic ‘moral panic’.

For students who struggled (e.g. money to access computers) – online can privilege those voices that already strong – privilege’s those already privileged.

Etienne Wenger – corporeal fallacy – idea that we lose sense of the rest of the person and forget that the body needs to carry on moving, eating.. etc Why is this such a strong myth?

Mark Buckingham – the idea of the ‘digital generation’ – is a new case of an old problem. ‘Generation Gap’ always adult fears about the escalating pace of social change (e.g. Victorians fears of children reading novels).

Media Industries keep redefining sections of society – in order to sell more products – historically can see this development…

Not all one-way – people use these categories to position themselves, too. Age, gender, interests/friendship groups, and – of course – what people say isn’t always the same as what they do…Encourages us to think about people in neat boxes/categories!

Blackboard – marketing themselves “close the gap between the way students live and the way they learn”. Expectation within institutions that they can buy a product in a box and solve a problem that’s essentially intractable.

Wimba – excludes real lives of students (shyness, problems at home, etc. supported & overcome by the product in the box).

Remember ‘the cake is a lie’ – the enticements – need to be more suspicious about the descriptions.

KNOW our learners – don’t lump them into neat boxes and think we can ‘solve’ them.

Community of Inquiry – an educational community of inquiry is a group of individuals who collaboratively engage in purposeful critical discourse and reflection to construct personal meaning and confirm mutual understanding.” This is a descriptor – it doesn’t tell you how to generate it.

Community of Practice

Mutual engagement, joint enterprise, shared repertoire, accountability.

Trajectories can be inward-bound, outward-bound or peripheral.

Constellations of practice, nexus of multi-membership and identity as reconciliation.

Identity informed by the fact that they don’t understand the process – insurance claims assessors.

Swimmers, Wavers & Drowners: High drop-out on online courses – many can’t log in & others can’t cope with high numbers of previously posted members. Up the stakes on exclusion.

World of Warcraft – can’t do some elements of the games except through collaboration. (Playing as a couple – need to negotiate their home life/online life). Which relationships were more important – the game or the marriage?!

Online courses – synchronous – scheduled sessions – need computers capable of running specific environments. Elements of their identity which have to be managed…

Learning community – can’t be cosy/jargon for a group of students. We tend to ignore negative aspects – control, exclusion, policing, hostility.

Learning communities are not entertainment services – lack of challenge is not helpful..

Is it desirable to have one dominant course community – already lots of demands on their time through other communities (e.g. family, interests, etc.) – if you have one dominating community which they MUST engage with then this is problematic.

Think about learners first, purposes second & forms 3^rd. Can’t just reuse other’s material because if it’s any good, it’s been designed for specific students. Design for the students we KNOW – work with them, not just for them. Listen & learn, don’t just assume.

Be tolerant of difference & dissonance – plural communities, hegemony/inclusivity not necessarily compatible. When they’ve served their purpose, let them die.

QUESTIONS

• So much emphasis on communities – is it about ‘all being the same’ is this problematic? Why need to recognise that there are multiple communities. Original idea was that in CoP’s – would integrate materials from different disciplines.
• In massification – how do you get to know your students? Need to get balance between treating them as a homogenous mass & identifying those that can be helped. It is a problem – we have more students than we can maintain a relationship with.
• With so many technologies – the relationship between tutor/student moves into the public arena. Computers are stupid – have to tell them exactly what to do – so we have to be more explicit about how we teach. The trojan mouse – the technology comes in and makes us think about things we should have thought about before. These issues are old, fact there’s now a record of it that they weren’t before. So many academics find it hard to turn off at the end of the day and become someone else. Facebook – that’s just you, whereas others may have split identities in having a private/work persona. Do we need to learn from them through using seperate technologies?

Not about add-on technology, but fundamental rethinking of approaches to learning – we’re really just adding tools on top of courses that are deficient and ending up with 1.5 courses, rather than a good course…

Late 1990s was where the idea of campus-based online learning came from.

Marti Cleveland-Innes
Stuggled a bit with the denseness of this presentation – wasn’t just about the text size, found the debate a bit hard to follow..

• Detail Slide 1
• Detail Slide 2

7 Principles of Blended Learning

• Design for open communication & trust
• Design for critical reflection & discourse
• Create & sustain a sense of community
• Support purposeful inquiry
• Ensure studetns sustain collaboration
• Ensure that inquiry moves to resolution
• Ensure assessment is congruent with intended learning outcomes

Case Study: Mount Royal University, Alberta (Norm Vaughan)

Really focused on the first year courses – sets the tone for the rest of their time throughout the course. Undertook online surveys (annual surveys staff & students – their use), student focus group lunches, use of Blackboard, etc…

Those students who had the highest interactive/engagement in collaborative work – had higher marks (may have has a higher start mark, but still..)

Best Teaching Presence

• Provide frequent opportunities for both public and private interactions with students.
• Provide students with timely and supportive feedback.
• Restraing from being overly ‘present’ in online discussions, rather facilitate student interaction
• Apply collaborative learning principles to support small group discussion and collaborative projects.
• Design diverse, graded activities to be completed every week.

QUESTIONS

• Students have experienced a role adjustment as they move from offline to online – the instructor is explicitly away that they understand that they need to think differently and to expect some confusion, etc.
• Students start to think about the extra responsibility they take on. Really have to provide a lot of scaffolding & a sense of trust.
• Don’t dismiss any ‘weak blends’ if they are spaces in which they are providing an appropriate service – and can be developed…

Talking about ‘The Nudge Factor’

Canterbury Christ Church: DEBUT

1 technologist available per 5 Faculties.

Every new piece of software, staff needed training – wanted a new system where staff were CONFIDENT to experiment with new types of software.

Allan Martin, DigEULit Project

What is digital literacy? Not about the technology, about the culture – socially situated (what do you NEED? Different for different people).

Ask staff to evaluate themselves:

Awareness

Confidence

Evaluation

Reflection

Adaptability

Initial year – HEA funded, only academic staff. Offer 20-25 digital tools – participants are asked to choose 6 to learn which are appropriate to them! Their needs, their context.

Dealing with ‘unknown unknowns’. 2 launch events at beginning of the year, each participant must come to one. Explain what debut is, participants meet the developers (Each 5 minutes to ‘sell’ their tool).

Staff Development workshops are offered, depending on popularity of the tool, offer number of times on PRE-SET programme days. Build opportunity to share what they do with other participants & colleagues. Ongoing attendance to DEBUT (now taking in year 4). Initial HEA funding, crucial – blended learning researcher works in the system to evaluate (use evaluation from participants (& tools?)).

Internal marketing & senior staff buy in are crucial – now Heads of School build it into appraisals, etc. Offer programme of tools over the year – some nothing to do with the university, find gets people engaged. Essentially offer consultancy on what is needed, then the IT Trainers offer the training. (Other feedback, most using for T&L, but if linked to appraisal gets the staff into it.)

Participants have close working relationships with their learning technologists & carry on working with them after specific project. Range of approaches favoured, most efficient with group workshop. Participants wanted training grouped together as ‘debut days’ for all workshops, rather than individual workshops – at preferable times of year (start/end of term) & WHOLE days – more intense but more time efficient!

Did people see their digital literacy rise as a part of their input… Marked increase in digital literacy levels, very significant progress, but also more CONFIDENT in any digital tools…. Many have immediately integrated the use of their chosen tools into their practice.

Evaluate the tools – overall experience of DEBUT, but also the SPECIFIC tools… and then re-rank their perception of their digital literacy. Average score in 15.9, out 19.3 (out of 25). Later scores = lower entry levels – and they showed even more marked improvement – much better for them rather than tech whizzes!

Key success factors – awareness raising events at the outset of the programme, contextualised staff development… (can use it even if so no applicability, just have a go with it). Opportunity to range digital tools, explore intensely in short time frame. The support provided – get more support that others… are ‘debutantes’.

Main issue – TIME to spend (difficult to just spend time ‘playing’); mixed ability groups (more proficient = intimidating & time-hogging); relationships built on expertise and trust!

Have more understanding, more confident, can see how can add value and integrate, and see how their skills have developed.

Continue to run, evaluation changes with each cohort – now starting to assess IMPACT.

Now a recognition that digital literacy is really important, but the focus is on students, whereas if the staff are confident, then they are able to enable the students!

Su Westerman

http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/lteu

QUESTIONS

• Tried to manage expectations more now, and say it’s better for whizz-kids, if you’re good, come and work 1-2-1 on a consultancy basis.
• Workshops of around 8-10 participants. The day, book out 3 rooms, mix of workshops. In sessions primarily using the tools, whereas rest of work is consultancy. Most work is not standard staff development…
• Now conducting research on impact to close the loop.
• Have around 2000 staff, doing about 30 a year.
• Assimilated into the work of the central unit.
• What about if staff let you know of new software? Will then evaluate it – e.g. currently Prezi
• These courses are very much about digital literacy – core training provided by IT.

Facebook: Social or Learning Communities

Steve Woodward, Haydyn Blackey & Simon Jones

CELT (Centre for Excellence in Learning & Teaching) – a central unit

• Existing literature (narrow, but growing interest, because students use it so much)
  • Most relatively negative – we don’t want tutors poking their noses into our social space. (Jones, Blackey et al, 2009, p776)
  • Few use it for educational tasks, so do we need to respect that student want a separate work/social space (Ophus & Abbitt, 2009, p645)
  • Some institutions – tried to come up with bespoke versions – creating own student-social networks… (recognisably institutional and therefore controllable) e.g. Elgg or Ning – many log on once and decided that Facebook does it better. (Orandini & Saunders, 2007)
  • Learning – changing to be more of a community based activity, importance of informal learning (cop, personal networks) (Siemens, 2004)
  • Combinations work better… (Garrison & Vaughan + 2 other authors)
• Outline methodology
  • Ethnography – 360 learners, formal/informal FB mediated interactions to see how impacts on student learning experience. Anthropology & Human Geography.
  • Steve Jones Facebook page – 2006, still has alumni engaging with him. Able to give temporary access to prospective students. Personal account, but also a closed ‘Geography at the University of Glamorgan’ group. Share thoughts, photographs & advice on the course. Won’t apply a heavy hand to moderation (is spelt out on the site).
  • Group used for
    • Guest Lectures – set up events, invite students – events outside the normal university timetable. Student support – office hours? Make it easier to get hold of them…
    • Putting up video clips/photos, popular! Using tagging facility, not only names, but tagging e.g. flora & fauna, etc. Becomes a learning resource.
    • Messages & Chat = are particularly useful. Students rarely use formal university email system. Chat = quick Q&A sessions with the tutor. 2 way thing – he may initiate chat as well as them. Sent messages useful for more indepth… can reply directly through Facebook or ‘use more appropriate means’.
• Discoveries
  • Very important that no student comment was banned – useful for uni to know what students are thinking (what they don’t like, etc.) – far too many are afraid to hear it.
  • Keep the momentum going by giving titbits of information. Students know to use chat rather than emails… but being part of that community – not a gatekeeper of information, but a provider of information.
  • The moderating role… Immediacy of information – e.g. the volcano ash – can steer students to MORE effective websites. Using site where they are anyway… Great use for marketing – prospective students – can chat with current students, see the photos of field trips – that confidence = pays well. Pastoral care – no formal tutorial system.. discreet method of communication – get to hear some of the issues – are a gatekeeper to the solution.
  • Downsides – ?
  • Students liked immediacy of communication, especially when not on campus
  • Possible to chat re coursework that’s been given out, keep up to date with events, and view pics from field trips.
    • Students – wanted to keep separate, didn’t want tutors to know what they’d been doing, didn’t see what couldn’t be done via email. Worried tutors would be passing judgement on non-learning activities. “Delicate Balance”
    • Encourage stronger relationships & trust. Easiest way to communicate, especially out of hours, embarrassing photos or negative comments = a tension, but not the lecturer’s fault. If overhear ‘bad’ = like hearing conversation in student union, unless urgent…
• Future directions
  • Can’t develop an overarching pedagogical model, but individual academics, need to make informed judgements in consultant with their students.
  • Important to show that despite all the negative literature, here’s a clear example of what has worked…
  • http://celt.glam.ac.uk
• QUESTIONS
  • Can be in a group without being friends – removes many of those worries?
  • What about the worries about available 24-7?! This is an outstanding case – not many actually using it – available through FB in normal working hours… Need to set up expectations at the beginning of the course.
  • Tutor is not a great fan of the VLE, just uses for uploading resources.
  • 360 active users & growing. 85% alumni. Define participation… (talk to Simon)
  • What would he do retrospectively? Problems of being field trips (what occurs on tour stay on Facebook!). Needs to be sense of trust between students & tutors.
  • Another delegate, set up group 6 months ago, would concur with what has happened. Has set up a separate login as a tutor, separate from personal!
  • TO SUM UP: You can do it. Evidence here is it is possible to use it…

Peter Bullen: Changing Practice – Reflections on the Blended Learning Unit

Still fears every time using technology, help others to overcome these fears.

What things are critical to the success of the BLU?

What was BLU built on?

• University Strategy – university committed itself to exploiting technology, in the classroom & online.

• Studynet (the VLE) – developed in house, personalised environment, works well, MLE, easy to use. Enables staff to do things not formally possible. Automatically loaded with modules/students.

• A network of StudyNet champions – Faculty appointments, development group and a L&T Group (use of the technology). Use of technology was led by academics/practitioners.

• Innovation in L&T fund.

• A DIY not DIFM philosophy. Equip staff to use the technology, making it easy to use – allows the volume of activity to expand quickly.

• Influenced by personal experience, especially engineering experience & other people – systems thinking, management & organisations thinking, learning organisations *universities – good at discipline level but not institutional level, managing complexity. Applying ideas across disciplines. E.g. on the car works – not focusing on end-product inspection, but on in process inspection – improved things greatly – such systems thinking making its way into the public sector.

What is the BLU?

• Small core group + 12 per year practitioners seconded into the unit for 2 days a week – reflect all faculties – had contacts/developed networks across all levels of the uni.

• Already had well developed links with SMG, etc.

• Develop, promote and evaluate combinations of f2f & technology – emphasis is on benefits to students learning – increasing flexibility in how, when and where learning.

  • Minimising Barriers

  • BL innovation & development

  • Evaluation

  • Dissemination *communications and engagement

• Investment in infrastructure & technology – tablet laptops *portable, write on student work, etc. How do the rest of the staff view the central unit – usually as a bit of a pest (deal with actualities & perceptions). Partnerships, what problems staff have & how we might help, NOT here’s what we have, try it!

  • People who like technology – can be seen as nerdish, so found using students in some of those roles helped overcome those barriers in uptake of technology.

• Innovation & Development – focused on computer aided assessment, ca-collaborative learning & evaluating software

• Not just about technology, but about good practice in learning & teaching. Chickering & Gamson (1987)

  • Encourages contact between students & staff

  • Develops reciprocity & co-operation among students

  • Encourages active learning

  • Gives prompt feedback

  • Emphasises time on task

  • Communicates high expectations

  • Respects diverse talents and ways of learning

• Goal = evaluation – bringing the student experience to guide what we did. Pioneered use of video diaries for students. In BLU, Student Learning Consultant – liaise with students for their input.

• Dissemination – lots of things, including podcasting & conferences. Developed case studies from it. Case studies for staff – evaluated use, then ran workshops ‘isn’t is wonderful’ – you will leave the workshop knowing how to use it & committed to use in module, with help from a digital co-ordinator. Support from BLU to know it works!

• Moved from dissemination to transformation through a process of benchmarking. Led to CABLE. Most using e-learning IN ADDITION TO, rather than embedding..

  • Developed effective teams across disciplines

  • A focus on needs of the participating Schools

  • Academic led

  • Student involvement

  • Toolkit

• Significant number of people involved, but also had a significant impact on there.

• HEA: Enhancement Academy – works similarly to CABLE. Sophisticated, flexible & relevant change to the student experience – after 5 years of investment!

• Critical success factors

  • Teams of academics – can-do attitude, understand how use of technology relates to good practice

  • Taking the lead in integrating with teaching

  • Working in partnerships

  • Modelling good practice

  • Continually developing networks & communities

  • Learning from each other, from students & from the sector.

• Principles & Proceesses

  • Curriculum design – supports use of technology

  • Providing Blended Learning solutions to help the needs of academics

  • CABLE

  • Enhancement

  • Evidence of Impact

  • Institution – buy-in of all ‘stakeholders’ (strategy/infrastructure) to embed (otherwise it all stops when the money stops) – including peer-observation process – which expanded to look at the virtual. Engage with relevant committees – e.g. academic quality committees.

• The future
  • We need to adopt a philosophy of continuous improvement & the culture of a learning organisation (adaptive learning system) – looking to always improve what we’re doing/learn from our past. NOT writing procedures & hope they’ll change, but adapting procedures.
  • Try to better understand the ‘value’ of every ‘learning activity’ – focus on VALUE not cost. If you can walk into a classroom and do what you would do with no students present – DON’T DO IT!
  • Be aware of and seek to adopt some of the more sophisticated tools currently being develop to support staff to develop the blended learning curriculum, move from an emphasis on QA and QE.
  • JISC Curriculum Design – Cluster C Institutional Learning Design (pedagogical design), including Strathclyde.
  • Learning Design Support Environment (https://sites.google.com/a/lkl.ac.uk/ldse. Effective technology-enhanced learning.
  • Concentrate on VALUE to the learner. Reduce the emphasis on committees and build BL communities, in the disciplines and cross-discipline. Focus on improving the student learning experience.

• Banks, S. Lally, V. & McConnell, D. (2002) Collaborative E-Learning in Higher Education: Issues and Strategies, SPIE Publications
• Beetham, H. & Sharpe, R. (eds) (2007) Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age : designing and delivering e-learning, Routledge
• Bielawski, L. and Metcalf, D., (2005). Blended e-Learning – Integrating Knowledge, Performance Support and Online Learning, HRD Press Inc, Amherst, MA, USA
• Bonk, C.J. and Graham, C.R., (2005).  The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs, Pfeiffer, San Francisco, CA, USA.
• Bull, J & McKenna, C (2003), Blueprint for computer-assisted assessment, Routledge Falmer
• Burge, E. J. & Haughey, M (2001), Using Learning Technologies, Routledge Falmer
• Conole, G. and Oliver, M.(ed) (2007), Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research: themes, methods and impact on practice, part of the Open and Distance Learning Series, F. Lockwood, (ed), RoutledgeFalmer.
• Collis, B. & Moonen, J. (2001) Flexible Learning in a Digital World Kogan Page
• Cross, J. (2007), Informal learning : rediscovering the natural pathways that inspire innovation and performance, John Wiley
• Evans T. and Nation D. (2000) Changing University Teaching: reflections on creating educational technologies, Kogan Page
• Garrison, D.R. (2003) E-learning in the 21st century : a framework for research and practice, RoutledgeFalmer
• Jeffreys, M. (2001) E-learning : strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age, McGraw-Hill
• Koper, R. and Tattersall, C., (2005). Learning Design: A Handbook on Modelling and Delivering Networked Education and Training, Springer-Verlag,Berlin, Germany.
• Macdonald, J. (2008) Blended Learning and Online Tutoring: Planning Learning Support and Activity Design, Gower
• Maier, P. & Warren, A. (2000) Integr@ting Technology in learning and teaching, Kogan Page
• Mason, R. & Rennie, F.  (2008) E-learning and social networking handbook : resources for higher education Routledge
• McConnell, D. (2000) Implementing Computer Supported Cooperative Learning, Kogan Page
• Murphy,D, Walker, R. & Webb, G. (2001) Online Learning & Teaching with Technology Kogan Page
• Rice, W.H. (2006) Moodle : e-learning course development : a complete guide to successful learning using Moodle Packt
• Salmon, G. (2000) E-Moderating: the Key to Learning & Teaching On-line, London, Kogan Page
• Salmon, G (2002) E-tivities: the key to active online learning. Kogan Page.
• Stephenson, J. (Ed.) (2001) Teaching and Learning Online London: Kogan Page
• Squires, D, Conole, G & Jacobs, G (2000) The Changing Face of Learning Technology, Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
• Steeples, C & Jones, C (eds) (2001) Networked Learning: perspectives and issues, Springer Verlag

Also, what key websites would you recommend for use within the PGCLTHE programme aside from http://www.alt.ac.uk/; http://www.jisc.ac.uk/?

I’m really looking forward to working with The School of Media and Film this afternoon, in order to develop their social media presence, starting with Twitter, as this also provides data for our upcoming conference paper!

The presentation that I gave this evening to Postgraduate Research Students. My brief was ‘Blended Learning’, so I thought, I don’t know who this group is, but I’m sure they’ll want a mix of theory and practice – and something that they can potentially put to use as a new tool! So, I covered the new developments in Blended Learning, and some of the debates surrounding the students who are up-and-coming (working on the assumption that many of these students will end up doing some teaching!), before having a go at The Virtual Revolution web animals test. It was so interesting watching the students engaging with the test in different ways, and that I only took 10 minutes to do the test, whereas the group took around 25 minutes in total… clearly a web fox trait. An interesting mix of animals – ‘Web Leopard’ and ‘Web Elk’ I think in the forefront! My initial plan had been to get the group to set up the initial Twitter account, but I sensed that they weren’t too keen on setting up another account, and we were running out of time, so we went through some of the tools available, and I expect that next year I will offer a series of Web 2.0 events at the University!!

A presentation that I gave at the Faculty of Education, Health and Social Care at the University of Winchester this morning, followed by a presentation on Wimba with Prof Neil Marriott and Dr Audrey Chamberlain – got some good discussions going, and I look forward to working with the Faculty more!