Presentation during OOFHEC2018 Conference (10-12 October 2018) at Aarhus University in Aarhus, Denmark

1. University Teachersdevelopingcoursemodels
foraccommodatingtheneedsofbothonlineand
on-campusstudents
Thurídur Jóhannsdóttir, PhD senior lecturer
University of Iceland. School of Education

2. Historical
context
 In the University of Iceland, School of
Education and its forerunners most
courses have for a long time been
available online with face-to-face
sessions (blended)
 Since 1993 because of lack of teachers
esp. in rural areas in Iceland distance
education has been available
 The policy of the Iceland University of
Education (1998) was that all programs
should be available for distance learners

3. 2008
Merging with
University of
Iceland
 In 2008 – Iceland University of Education
merged with University of Iceland
 Different cultures regarding online teaching
 Programmes formerly run by University of
Iceland had no tradition for online teaching
 The policy of the IUE of offering all their
programmes online canceled
 Courses originating from UI traditional campus
based
 Confusing and frustrating for the students
 Different traditions were not dealt with

4. 2008.Financialcrash
2010.Blending
onlineandon
campusstudents
The financial crash caused cut
down of funding
2010 a new direction in the teaching
forms in School of Education
Both online and on-campus
students enrolled in the same
courses

5. Thepresumed
newmodel
 Teachers supposed to:
 Plan content and assignment for both
groups in Moodle (LMS)
 Communicating with online students
in Moodle (or by other means online)
 Meeting the campus students on a
weekly basis
 Organizing two face-to-face sessions
per semester for both online and
campus students

6. 2010–2011
Research onthe
blended model
Students
 Questionaires and interviews with teachers and
students
 The distance students complained that they were not
as well served in the co-teaching model
 They felt that they were left out in the co-teaching
model and the campus students were better
connected to the techers
 The campus-based students worried about getting
fewer face-to-face lessons
 The campus students sometimes found it disturbing
when lessons were being recorded for the distance
students or they were invited syncronized
participation

7. 2010–2011
Research onthe
blended model
Teachers
 Co-teaching the two groups is more complicated and
time-consuming, but less time allocated for teaching
 The teachers shared students‘ worries
 Distance students not as well served
 Less time for on-campus student
 Teachers were most worried about how passive the
distance students were and how difficult it was to
activate them on the course-webs
 Teachers complained over how time-consuming it is
to serve the distance students
 However, neither students nor teachers felt the new
model schould be abandonned - but developed

8. Teachers
developtheir
ownmodels
 The gap between the visions for good teaching and the
reality in teaching practice have caused frustration
among teachers
 Teachers’ visions are increasingly based on learner
centered pedagogy
 More developed communication technology for
supporting teaching and learning
 Groups of teachers have started developing their own
models
 Too many models might cause confusion?
 Students need to search for information on the teaching
form on course-basis
 Not necessarily coordinated within programmes

9. Howandwhyare
teachers changing
theteaching
models?
 In 2017–2018, a group of faculty members got the
agenda to:
 suggest models for the online and blended
learning for courses offered in the School of
Education
 I present here a part of the group’s work
 Interviews with teachers (16)
 to get insight into the ways teachers have
been developing their course models

10. Research
questions
 What makes teachers bend from the official model
for accommodating both campus and online
students?
 Which new models have teachers succeded in
developing?
 Which hindrances have teachers met in
developing their courses?
 What have supported teachers in successfully
developing their courses?
 What kind of support do they wish for sustaining
the changes and/or for scaling up the models?

11. 1. Questioning
Need state
2. Analysis
Double bind
3. Emerging
new model
4. Implementing
and testing the
new model
5.
Consolidating
the new
practice
Resistance
Adjustment
The expansive learning cycle (Engeström, 1999)

12. Severalmodels
identified
1. Real time (syncronous) online meetings with
distance students
2 different models presented here
2. Art teachers abandon the weekly schedule and the
devision of campus students and distance students.
Teach four whole days for both groups
3. Some teachers plan weekly activity assignments for
garanteing activity of students on the LMS Moodle
4. In a course on inclusive education teachers have
designed the course with ragard to principles of
Universal Design
 Students are offered a lot of choice and no
obligatory attendance is demanded.
 Students need to show active participation in the
learning community

13. Model1
Realtimemeeting
withdistance
students
1. Distance students participate in campus lessons
via Adobe Connect.
 Listen to lectures and can question and give
comments online – facilitated by a special teacher
who attend to them
 When the group is devided in smaller groups for
discussion, the distance studens have their group
meetings online with their teacher

14. 1. Questioning
Need state
2. Analysis
Double bind
3. Emerging new model
Learner centered pedagogy.
Strong relation to practice in
schools.
ICT used for online students
participation in lessons.
Special teacher serves the
online students in real time
4. Implementing
and testing the
new model
4. Consolidating
the new practice
Resistance
Adjustment
Contradiction: Gap between
teachers’ visions for good
teaching and the way they
were teaching in the
existing model
Challenge: to develop a model
that would better meet the
teachers criteria for quality of
good teaching and learning
Support: Learner centered
pedagogy, know-how in ICT,
Adobe Connect
Course planning: 70–80
students in their 5th year in
teacher education. Obligatory
attendance one day a week,
either online or on campus. 5-6
teachers.
Support: Responsibility for
enhancing professionalism of
the becoming teachers.
Technical problems
and lack of technical
support
Model 1:
Students attending lessons online
Syncronous online programme

15. Model 2
Realtimemeeting
withdistance
studens
 A course in the first year of graduate studies: Educational studies;
young children in preschools and primary schools (ca 60
students)
 Instead of weekly lessons for campus students, lessons are
planned every other week for both groups
 The first week: recorded lectures are published on Moodle (LMS)
together with reading materials and questions for discussion
 The second week: online real-time lessons are planned for
distance students for discussing the material with their teachers
(ca 20 stud attend)
 Similar lessons for the campus students (ca 20 stud attend)
 The third group can neither attend online nor on campus
 They perform their studies in th LMS – Moodle
 Question of different quality is demanding – and needs to be
attended to

16. What prevent
teahers totakeup
realtime
meetings?
 Lack of knowledge and support in use of ICT
 The success of Model 2 hangs on one teacher who is very
clever and secure in use of ICT
 A teacher in the preschool education explained that in
order to develop similar model they would need both
technical assistance and more time allocated for teaching
each course
 She was stuck in a dilemma – between wished
professional practice and the reality in her circumstances
 She felt that the distance students get less quality
education than campus students
 Unacceptable if the quality of education depends on
individual teachers know-how in ICT - ?

17. Theartteachers
model
 The art teachers have abandonned the weekly
based teaching
 Instead they teach both groups together four
whole days spread over the semester
 They claim that arts as subjects need longer
contact time with hands-on work
 The whole day sessions sometimes planned on
Fridays or Mondays for giving students
opportunity to use the specialized art classrooms
for working on their projects
 The number of enrolled students have increased
 The courses serve teahers continuous
development

18. Whatisthe
problem?
From the point of view of
teachers
 Teachers call for more time for being
able to serve both groups in a way thar
meet their criteria for quality
 They call for more technical assistance
 Some teachers question the quality of the
distance programmes

19. Whatisthe
problem?
 From the point of view of the students
 In a recent survey
 85% of students are content with the distance
education in the School of Education.
 51% of students choose distance learning
because they are working
 81% work more than 31 hour per week – 34%
work full time or more
 23% choose distance learning because they live
in the countryside long distance from Reykjavík

20. Whatisthe
problem?
 From the point of view of the
administration
 Teachers use their own models which do not
neccessarily take the rules set by administation into
account
 Course forms are not neccessarily coordinated on
programme level
 Providing students with clear information on study
forms is difficult
 when course are planned differently based on teachers
preferences and/or know-how
 Should the administation be concerned about the
quality of the courses and programmes offered?

21. Newreports
 Henderikx, P., & Jansen, D. (2018). The Changing
Pedagogical Landscape: In search of patterns in policies
and practices of new modes of teaching and learning.
Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/CPLreport2018
 Huertas, E.(ed.), Considerations for quality assurance of
e-learning provision, ENQA, 2018.
See: http://www.enqa.eu/indirme/papers-and-
reports/occasionalpapers/Considerations%20for%20QA
%20of%20e-learning%20provision.pdf
 Online Learning in Continuing Higher Education,a new
report from Learning House and the Association for
Continuing Higher Education (ACHE).