The document outlines a workshop on blended learning held in May 2015, addressing the definition of blended learning, digital literacies, and the integration of technology into teaching. It emphasizes the importance of aligning technology use with learning outcomes, and discusses various digital tools for in-class interaction, group work, and curation. It also critiques common assumptions about digital learners and presents alternative models for understanding digital behaviors.

1. Blended Learning
DTS ProgrammeWorkshop – May 2015

2. Overview
• Comments on the HEA article?
• Defining blended learning
• Location and time
• Constructive alignment
• Your experiences of blended learning
• Digital literacies
• Digital learners
• Digital visitors and residents
• Designing a learning event with technology
• Academic practices
• Some useful educational technologies (‘edtech’)
2

3. HEA Review of Blended Learning Experience (2006)
Use of blended learning (Ch 2)
• VLE as repository
• Support for academic practices
• Holistic use
Theories of learning (Ch 3)
• Associationist
• Constructivist
• Situative
3

4. A common definition
Face-to-
face
Online
4
Blended

5. An unhelpful dichotomy?
Face-to-
face
Online
5
Blended
Human
Technology-
mediated

6. Supporting interactions – where and when
Experiential
Outside
class
In class
6
Synchronous use
- poll
- answer board
- Twitter
- webinar
- Skype
Asynchronous use
- video / podcast
- wiki / blog
- Office 365
- forum (Bb/FB)
- e-portfolio
- curation

7. Aligning technology use with learning and teaching
7
Learning outcome Activities Assessment
Monitor, evaluate and
reflect on your teaching
and the learning of your
students
• Seminar on reflective
practice supported by a
group blog
• Sharing progress updates
with mentor
• Gather student feedback
using online polls and
VLE access logs
• Formatively assessed
through:
• mentor observation
of teaching
• tutor comments in
the blog
• Summatively assessed in
a reflective report
including a discussion of
student data (including
ethical issues)
(Inspired by Rogerson-Revell 2015)

8. Digital literacies

9. Digital learners

10. Digital learners
• ‘Digital natives’ Prensky (2001a, 2001b)
• Technologically deterministic “othering of youth” (Herring 2008)
• A “dangerous opposition” (Bayne and Ross 2007)
• Uncritical assumptions
• Savvy or superficial users?
• Little attention to international students, mature learners, and disabilities
• Second-order digital divide (Brotcorne et al. 2010)
• An alternative metaphor
• the digital visitor/resident continuum (White and Le Cornu 2011)

11. Digital lecturers

12. Mapping digital behaviours (White & Le Cornu 2011)
Internet as a tool used to fulfil a
specific goal (e.g. looking up a
Wikipedia entry or a news website).
Visitors are not ‘less’ digitally literate.
The visitor’s instrumental behaviour
has value in education contexts since
it is goal-oriented.
Internet as a place which gives
residents “a sense of being present
with others… with the effect of
foregrounding a sense of digital
identity”.
‘Residents’ contribute and share
information (e.g. by creating or
responding to a blog post or tweet)
and develop social networks in the
process.
12

13. Mapping your digital residency profile
13
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=126&v=MSK1Iw1XtwQ

14. An example
14

15. Digital literacies (JISC 2014)
15

16. Alternative models of digital literacies
16
van Dijk & van Deursen (2014)Beetham & Sharpe 2009, 2010

17. Coffee break

18. Design task

19. Digital pedagogy: aligning technology
• Select a learning event (course, module, or lecture)
• List the intended learning outcome(s)
• Consider student needs
• Select a technology
• What issues for you?
• What issues for students?
• Fit for purpose?
• Present to your group
19

20. Types of technology
In-class
interaction
• Clickers
• AnswerGarden
• GoSoapBox
• Socrative
Groupwork
• Facebook group
• Group blog
• Forum
• wiki
• Trello, Asana
• Padlet
Curation
• Delicious/Diigo
• Mendeley/Zotero
• Scoop it
• Paper.li
• Flipboard
Multimodality
• Video
• Screencast
• Podcast
• Skype
• Webinar
20

21. In-class interaction:AnswerGarden
http://answergarden.ch/view/173465

22. In-class interaction: GoSoapBox
22
https://app.gosoapbox.com/

23. 23

24. Groupwork: Padlet
24
http://padlet.com/daveowhite/visitorsandresidents

25. Groupwork:Trello project board
25
http://trello.com

26. Curation: Diigo (social bookmarking)
26

27. Curation: Paper.li
27
http://paper.li/tag/edtech

28. Multimedia: podcast
28
https://soundcloud.com/nicholas-pegg/ukip-shipping-forecast
Note: I hope this podcast will not offend anyone.This podcast is a spoof of the BBC’s
shipping forecast based around the blunders of UKIP party members in 2014.

29. Multimedia: Example screencast (on QR codes)
29
https://youtu.be/RoMjtYqsQ_0

30. In summary
• Align technology to learning outcomes, activities and assessment
• Consider where and when to use learning technologies
• Starting small is OK
• Start introducing technology in the first year
• Map your strengths and play to them
• Play to your students’ strengths too
• Consider the professional value of technology for students’ future careers
30

31. 31

32. References
• Bayne, S., and J. Ross (2007) ‘The ‘digital native’ and ‘digital immigrant’: a dangerous opposition’. In Annual Conference of the Society for Research into Higher
Education. Brighton.Accessed from: http://www.malts.ed.ac.uk/staff/sian/natives_final.pdf.
• Biggs, J.B. andTang,C.S. (2011) Teaching For Quality Learning At University:What the Student Does. 4th ed. Maidenhead:Open University Press.
• Brotcorne, P., Damhuis, L., Laurent,V.,Valenduc,G., andVendramin, P. (2010) The Second Order Digital Divide:Synthesis of the Research Report [online]
Namur, BE: Foundation Université-Travail.
• Herring, S.C. (2008) ‘Questioning the Generational Divide:Technological Exoticism and AdultConstructions of OnlineYouth Identity’. In Buckingham, D. (ed)
Youth, Identity, and Digital Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 71–92
• Mayes,T. and de Freitas, S. (2007) ‘Learning and E-Learning:The Role ofTheory’. In Beetham, H. and Sharpe, R. (eds) Rethinking Pedagogy in the Digital Age.
London: Routledge, 13–25
• McLoughlin, C.E. and Alam, S.L. (2014) ‘A Case Study of Instructor Scaffolding UsingWeb 2.0Tools toTeach Social Informatics’. Journal of Information
Systems Education 25 (2), 125-136
• Prensky, M. (2001a) ‘Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants - Part I’. On the Horizon, 9 (5), 1–6.
• Prensky, M. (2001b) ‘Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants - Part II: DoThey ReallyThink Differently?’. On the Horizon, 9 (6), 1–9.
• Rogerson-Revell, P. (2015) ‘ConstructivelyAligningTechnologies with Learning andAssessment in a Distance Education Master’s Programme’. Distance
Education 36 (1), 129–147
• Sharpe, R., Benfield,G., Roberts,G., and Francis, R. (2006) The Undergraduate Experience of Blended E-Learning: A Review of UK Literature and Practice
[online]York: Higher EducationAcademy.Accessed from http://wales.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/archive/blended_elearning_exec_summary_1.pdf
• Van Dijk, J.A.G.M. and van Deursen, A.J.A.M. (2014) DigitalSkills: Unlocking the Information Society. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
• White, D.S., and A. Le Cornu (2011). ‘Visitors and residents: a new typology for online engagement’. First Monday, 16 (9). Accessed from:
http://firstmonday.org/article/view/3171/3049
32