Teaching for Better Learning: A Blended
Learning Pilot Project with First-Year
Geography Undergraduates
NIAMH MOORE* & MARY GILMARTIN**
*School of Geography, Planning & Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, Ireland, **Department of
Geography, NUI Maynooth, Ireland
ABSTRACT Internationally, recognition is growing that the transition between post-primary and
higher education is raising a number of challenges for both students and educators. Simultaneously
with growing class sizes, resources have become more constrained and there is a new set of
expectations from the “net generation” (Mohanna, 2007, p. 211) The use of e-learning in medical
education, Postgraduate Medical Journal, 83, p. 211). Within this transforming context, modes of
instruction that cater for different paces of learning and learning styles by combining traditional and
electronic media have become increasingly important. This paper discusses the transformation of an
introductory human geography module at University College Dublin using a blended learning
approach that extends beyond the media used to incorporate all aspects of, and inputs into, the
learning process. Our experience highlights how blended learning can aid the achievement of a
range of objectives in relation to student engagement and the promotion of deeper learning.
However, blended learning is not a quick-fix solution to all issues relating to new university students
and our analysis draws out a more complex relationship than anticipated between blended learning
and student retention that will require further examination.
KEY WORDS: Blended learning, communities of enquiry, first year, student engagement
Introduction
As universities and other higher education institutions face growing student numbers,
constraints of space and a more diverse student mix, the sole dependence on the traditional
face-to-face lecture is no longer possible or appropriate in many contexts (El Mansour &
Mupinga, 2007). Garrison and Vaughan (2008, p. ix) have even suggested that “those who
have grown up with interactive technology are not always comfortable with the
information transmission approach of large lectures. Students expect a relevant and
engaging learning approach”. Promoting a more student-centred approach to learning
while meeting the competing demands on academic time is not easy but Dalsgaard and
Godsk (2007) have suggested that blended learning techniques have the potential to
facilitate this process. By comprising a significant online element to complement the
ISSN 0309-8265 Print/1466-1845 Online/10/030327-18 q 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/03098265.2010.501552
Correspondence Address: Niamh Moore, School of Geography, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4,
Ireland. Email: niamh.moore@ucd.ie
Journal of Geography in Higher Education
Vol. 34, No. 3, 327–344, August 2010
face-to-face component of particular modules, the learning environment becomes more
flexible in terms of the timing and pace of learning as well as the approaches adopted.
Drawing on the work of Hinterberger et al. (2004), we argue that blended learning is
more than just the combination of face-to-face and online learning, but rather involves
more general mixes of teaching and learning approaches. A blended learning design may
therefore encourage more active learning and engagement with particular topics and
modules. While the online component allows students to access the necessary content, the
reduced numbers of face-to-face lectures result in the students being forced to investigate
topics themselves or with their peers, rather than depending on the lecturer to provide all
the answers in class. In the first year of university, the traditional lecture environment can
be alien and overwhelming. This is especially the case in programmes and institutions
where there may be very large classes of over 200 students in one lecture theatre. In this
situation, it is easy to rely on a didactic, teacher-centred approach to education where the
lecturer is considered an expert rather than the facilitator of knowledge acquisition.
Students, through no fault of their own, can very quickly become socialized into a passive
approach to learning with an overall detrimental impact on their academic development. A
key advantage of blended learning is that the online discussion boards, chat rooms and
other tools can facilitate questioning, investigation and discussion with both their mentors
and peers in a way that is more difficult in a crowded lecture theatre. The online
component also facilitates content availability, and supports self-directed learning.
Additionally, it supports operational and/or administrative activities such as the
management of groups or the circulation of important notices and instructions (Vogel &
Oliver, 2006). Through the use of a range of synchronous and asynchronous
communication tools, as well as audio, video, text, graphics and other resources in the
virtual learning component, greater interest in particular topics may be stimulated (El
Mansour & Mupinga, 2007) and a heightened sense of a learning community created
(Rovai & Jordan, 2004; O’Rourke, 2007). It is no surprise that this approach has become
very popular throughout the sciences, particularly in Medicine and Veterinary
programmes, given that it has been most closely associated with the facilitation of
problem-based learning simulating real-life clinical or technical scenarios (Ginns & Ellis,
2007). However, generally within the Humanities and Social Sciences, although there are
similar opportunities for blended learning to take place, the adoption of this approach
appears to have been much slower.
The slow pace of adoption may be because blended learning has been subject to some
criticism. Oliver and Trigwell (2005) argue that it creates unnecessary dichotomies, is
conceptually fuzzy and should be at least reconceived, if not abandoned, as a learning
approach. They suggest that it does not place enough emphasis on the learner as it is
primarily concerned with the mechanics of teaching and learning. While this may be true
in some contexts, in general, these criticisms appear harsh and ignore the underlying
motivations of many educators who adopt a blended learning approach. In their learning
styles research, Felder and Soloman (undated) clearly suggest that the relationship
between course design and student learning style is very clear. If a blended learning design
using a range of media, engaging students in a variety of activities and promoting a
diversity of learning environments—from online to lecture hall—is developed, it seems
reasonable to assume that the adoption of a more active learning style incorporating time
for thinking, doing and reflecting will be fostered (Healey & Roberts, 2004). Similarly,
Entwistle and Smith (2002) have argued that the way in which students perceive a learning
328 N. Moore & M. Gilmartin
situation is what determines their learning approach. Students who are encouraged to
question, value equally, engage with and see the synergies between the face-to-face and
online components will be more likely to benefit from a blended learning approach. This
may be driven by the opportunities provided to them to adopt a more heuristic approach
and self-regulate their depth and pace of learning. The knowledge that face-to-face classes
will complement and clarify the online component as needed provides the necessary
‘safety net’ to allow students to move beyond the more traditional or ‘normal’ strictures
of learning.
Building on the existing literature and drawing on our own experiences, we argue that a
blended learning approach offers significant potential for geographers who wish to engage
students in active learning, particularly in large-group and introductory classes. In making
this assertion, we argue for an expanded understanding of blended learning. This broader
perspective sees blended learning as a combination of both the online and face-to-face
incorporating a range of learning materials, resources, types of assessments and in-class
activities. The remainder of this paper outlines and assesses this approach to blended
learning in practice, drawing on the redesign and delivery of a first-year introductory
human geography module.
Blended Learning and the University College Dublin Large Class Teaching Project
Geography is now one of the most popular subjects in Arts degree programmes in the
Republic of Ireland. In University College Dublin (UCD), close to 900 students take
geography modules over the three years of the BA degree programme. Numbers in firstyear
introductory modules have grown significantly, and first-year modules with an upper
limit of 400 students are regularly oversubscribed. BA students at UCD do not choose their
majors until second year, so first-year modules are important in attracting students to the
discipline, awakening their interest in the subject and helping them to see geography as an
engaging and interesting degree subject. However, our ability to employ small group
teaching approaches is curtailed by our limited staff numbers, which have not increased
despite the growth in undergraduate numbers. As a result, we rely on postgraduate
students—often, relatively inexperienced one-year Masters students—for small group
teaching in first-year tutorials.
We first taught this module in 2005–2006, and did so using a conventional approach:
lectures, tutorials, an assigned textbook and an end-of-semester examination. While
student evaluations were generally positive, on reflection we felt that we had not
encouraged or facilitated deep learning among students, and the result was a more
superficial engagement with ideas and concepts than we would have liked. Poor
attendance was also an issue, not unique to this particular module but a problem right
across the large first-year Arts and Science classes in the university. We had used the
university-supported online learning environment, Blackboard, to provide resources to
students but we felt its structure hampered our efforts to encourage deep learning. In
particular, the hierarchical organization of Blackboard provided few opportunities for
interlinking or cross-referencing information. While one of the key stated learning
outcomes was that students would by the end of the module be able to make connections
between different concepts and ideas introduced in class, detailed reflection uncovered a
disconnect between the learning outcomes that we desired and the way in which we could
provide resources to students.
Teaching for Better Learning 329
Enhancing the student learning experience, promoting autonomous learning, promoting
lifelong and flexible learning, and developing communities of enquiry are at the heart of
the UCD vision of tertiary education. When we were asked to take part in a pilot Large
Class Teaching Project (LCTP) in UCD, we welcomed the opportunity to contribute to the
development of these objectives and a blended learning design offered us the potential to
do so. The focus of the LCTP was specifically to improve the first-year experience in UCD
and a pilot module was also developed in the School of Biological Sciences. Under the
framework of this project, mentoring from the Centre for Teaching and Learning and
senior academics with responsibility for teaching and learning at the university level, as
well as technical and small-scale financial support, was made available to us. Our role was
to radically redesign the first-year geography module in terms of content and delivery,
with the goal of enhancing student engagement and retention. As well as the concerns that
we had already identified around student engagement, attendance and attitudes to learning,
we also took the opportunity to better incorporate generic learning skills into our module
and to encourage the formation of social networks for learning. The dramatic increase in
student numbers in the last five years had resulted in the removal of fieldwork and practical
classes, a traditional way of meeting peers and developing social networks and skills, from
our first-year curriculum. We viewed the LCTP as an opportunity to address the skills
deficit and to promote better social interaction, a real concern as evidence has shown that
first-year students in large classes can very quickly feel disconnected and isolated, leading
to disengagement and lack of success (UCD; First-Year Experience Survey, 2007).
Although many writers have cited a range of logistical reasons for a move to blended
learning (Rovai & Jordan, 2004; El Mansour & Mupinga, 2007), our rationale was
primarily driven by a desire to enhance the student experience. Ellis et al. (2006) argue that
blended learning can be an important way of encouraging student discussion as the online
and face-to-face environments provide diverse opportunities for discussion and peer
engagement that may accommodate different kinds of learning styles and personalities.
It is reasonable to suggest that the combination of environments and media used provides
more opportunity to match teaching with a range of learning styles, potentially stimulates
more interest and better engagement (El Mansour & Mupinga, 2007) and encourages
greater democratization of the learning process. Garrison and Vaughan (2008, p. 30)
suggest that “the fusion of real and virtual experiences [through blended learning] creates
unique communities of enquiry that are accessible regardless of time and location”. While
this was a critical aspect of module redesign, we were wary neither to overburden students
nor to place competing time demands on them (Ellis et al., 2006).
Ginns and Ellis (2007) have suggested that in adopting a blended learning approach,
students must perceive the virtual learning component as a critical part of the module and
understand its role in supporting the module as a whole. Underpinning the new learning
design of our module were questions regarding how we might get students to routinely use
the virtual learning environment (VLE), an acknowledged difficulty in other contexts, and
how to make different parts of the course available at selected intervals so that they would
engage with all parts of an integrated learning experience. This was critical as evidence
found by Davies and Graff (2005) in relation to a first-year undergraduate business module
suggests that students who failed the module had spent a significantly lower proportion of
time in the group and communication sections of the course website.
We also believe that the concept of blended learning, broadly applied, allows us to move
beyond the strictures of other popular approaches like problem-based learning (Spronken-
330 N. Moore & M. Gilmartin
Smith, 2005). One of the difficulties with problem-based learning from our perspective is
that it involves intensive use of resources. Spronken-Smith (2005), for example, wrote of a
third-year research methods class with between 60 and 75 students, taught by a variety of
people including six tutors, many of whom were lecturers. In her study, group sizes of 7–8
were, in retrospect, felt to be too large. In our case, we had 370 students, two lecturers and
tutorial groups of 15 taught by postgraduates with limited experience of teaching at the
university level. Therefore, to improve the student experience of first-year geography,
within the confines of resource restrictions, blended learning offered us a way of drawing
on recent initiatives, particularly in terms of enquiry-based learning.
Transforming Introduction to Human Geography I
Bearing in mind the desires of the university in relation to the LCTP, the critical issues
identified by the module coordinators and lessons from the relevant literature, module
redesign was guided by a number of overarching principles:
. to present material in a thematic rather than compartmentalized way to align with
the desired learning outcomes;
. to allow students to engage in learning activities rather than passively receiving
information;
. to integrate module content with the development of generic skills and the
fostering of social networks or communities of learning.
Our particular approach had at its core, enquiry-based learning. As a form of problembased
learning, this offers “another dimension to undergraduate education as it purports to
strengthen teaching–research links by bringing teachers and students together in a
community of enquiry, and is inherently learning-centred” (Spronken-Smith, 2005, p. 2;
Spronken-Smith et al., 2008). Hodge et al. (2008) have also suggested that the use of new
technologies provide newfound opportunities to promote research-based learning and to
develop students as scholars from an early stage. We began redesign with these factors in
mind in March 2006, with a view to delivery in January 2007, and guidance was provided
by the Centre for Teaching and Learning within the university.
Adopting a student-centred or ‘student as partners’ approach characterized this module
from the outset. In contrast to the arguments made by Oliver and Trigwell (2005), the
blended learning approach provided opportunities to do this from design to evaluation. In
summer 2006, three undergraduate students who had successfully completed their second
year were employed to develop module content. At that point, the learning design was in
place and the coordinators had identified four case studies that would unify the module
content (see Appendix 1). The students were then given the freedom to source/develop
content that they considered to be appropriate and potentially helpful for learning. Weekly
meetings between the students and the module coordinators took place to review progress,
resolve difficulties and provide general guidance. The students were provided with access
to iMac computers, video cameras, digital photo cameras and the Internet and were
encouraged to demonstrate a range of research skills that they had learnt during their own
studies including fieldwork, interviewing and documentary analysis. They were given full
control of the design of the VLE and at the end of the internship, the coordinators reviewed
the completed case studies and discussed with the students how the material would be used
and adjusted if necessary.
Teaching for Better Learning 331
In this new design, the number of formal lecture hours per week was reduced from two
to one, to allow time for students to engage with the online materials and to carry out
independent research (Choules, 2006). The second dedicated hour was reserved for
consultation, to allow time for student group work and to add in an additional lecture, if it
was considered necessary for purposes of clarifying material. In general, the module was
designed to facilitate more self-directed and, critically, peer learning. Assessments were
organized around the four case studies, each worth 20 per cent, and an ongoing group
project also worth 20 per cent. Assessment for each case study followed the model
outlined in Figure 1 with weekly assignments. These were a mix of online, face-to-face,
individual and group work and became more challenging as the module progressed. The
rationale drew on research by Garrick (1998) who suggests that effective learning entails a
student-centred approach that fosters the independent thinking, team-working and
enterprise skills required by employers. However, we also recognized that some students
are less intrinsically motivated than others and we constructed our assessment strategy to
incentivize attendance and participation in tutorials as well as ongoing engagement with
the learning materials.
Delivering the Module
Our module ran in its revised form for the first time from January to May 2007. Over the
course of a 12-week-teaching semester, we met with the students in a formal lecture setting
Figure 1. Example of the learning sequence for case study 1
332 N. Moore & M. Gilmartin
for at least one and at most two hours a week. At the start of the semester, students were
organized into online groups of seven to eight people for discussion and group work. Two
of these small groups were combined for face-to-face tutorials and each student
participated in four of these tutorials over the course of the semester.
Lectures and Tutorials
From the beginning, we attempted to make the lectures as interactive as possible. We both
attended and presented lectures, switching positions and roles at regular intervals. After
the second week, we asked students to sit in their tutorial groups so we could ensure that all
lectures involved some form of group activity and conversation. Generally, this involved
introducing the case study theme, outlining a number of important questions and asking
students to think about and discuss them with their groups. We moved between the groups,
asking questions, encouraging debate and then asking group members to outline their
findings to the lecture hall, holding a microphone in front of them. Though the students
remained in their seats and in their groups for this, many were shy and reluctant to speak in
public. We did not force anyone to speak, but were able to identify and encourage those
who wanted to speak but were lacking some confidence. Much of this discussion fed
directly into a subsequent assignment that encouraged further consideration of and
reflection on ideas that had been raised in class.
Tutorials were 50 minutes in length, and were run by geography postgraduate students,
both MA and PhD. They were inserted into the module programme in weeks 2, 5, 8 and 11,
which corresponded to the middle of each case study, as we considered this the most
important times for small-group face-to-face discussion and debate. We designed the
tutorials, provided training on content for tutors and also coordinated an MA module on
Teaching Skills to ensure that the postgraduate students were fully skilled in leading small
group discussion. In advance of tutorials, students were assigned preparatory work. The
tutorials were designed on the basis that the preparatory work had been completed, and
involved debates, discussions, group map work and statistical analysis. Students were
awarded marks for their preparation, attendance and participation in tutorials in line with
clearly specified criteria that were published in the online forum (Table 1).
Table 1. Grading criteria for tutorials
Award Criteria
5 Marks Critical thinking beyond that normally expected
at Stage 1, active participation in
tutorial, evidence of good preparation and
attendance at tutorial
4 Marks Active participation, evidence of good preparation
and attendance at tutorial
3 Marks Evidence of good preparation and attendance
at tutorial
2 Marks Attendance at tutorial
0 Marks Non-attendance
Teaching for Better Learning 333
Online Learning Environment
Though UCD institutionally supports Blackboard as the recommended VLE, the use of
Moodle was facilitated on a pilot basis for this project after we argued the case for
delivering our module using this system. The site was hosted and supported by a
commercial company. We designed the Moodle site in advance, so our interaction with the
site during the semester primarily involved posting news items and clarifications, dealing
with problems, monitoring student and tutor activity, and grading online assignments. We
did not use the site to post lecture notes or PowerPoint presentations, and encouraged
students who missed lectures to talk to their online groups, tutors or us about the material
that was covered.
Our Changing Roles
Managing a class size of 370 in a lecture theatre is demanding. Prior to this and in the more
traditional lecture format, we had described our roles as the intersection of entertainment
and crowd control. Through the performance of a lecture, we attempted to attract students
to a lecture, retain them in the theatre, distract them from distracting others and get them
interested in and inspired by our material. Often, however, crowd control dominated, and
our conversations about teaching focused on what to do with problems such as students
talking to each other, texting or surfing on Bebo, or walking in and out of the lecture
theatre at random times. In this module, we changed our focus. Rather than delivering our
lecture in a didactic manner, we worked on making the hour more interactive. Rather than
worrying about conversation, we encouraged it. Rather than being concerned with
movement, we facilitated it. The lecture hours were, as a consequence, less rigid, more
chaotic and significantly more interactive. We wrote and planned our lecture structure and
material immediately prior to the lecture hour responding to ideas raised in student
assignments and student concerns. Frequently, those concerns were with how things
worked—the website, the assignments and the library—rather than with ideas. As a
consequence, we often felt more like module managers than teachers, but this related more
to our perception of what teaching should be rather than the reality of teaching large
classes. The most significant change related to how we used our time. During the teaching
semester, we spent significantly less time preparing lectures, and significantly more time
responding to student questions and concerns, tutor queries and problems, grading
assignments, and monitoring the VLE.
One of the key areas we focused on was integrating the online environment, the tutorials
and the lecture. We did this in a number of ways. At the start of every lecture, we directed
students to the online material, and highlighted upcoming activities such as tutorials and
assignments. However, our most important innovation was incorporating student work
into our lectures. We took student-generated material from online discussions, submitted
assignments and tutorials, and used it as content for our lectures. For example, we used
examples of conflict that students had identified in their groups as the basis for a lecture
focusing on power and conflict (see Table 2) and as a springboard into concepts such as
agents of landscape change. For another class, we scanned maps that students had
produced in tutorials and used them as part of a lecture on global migration patterns (see
Figure 2). At all times, we identified the source of the material by group number, which led
initially to embarrassment and later to pleasure when the group’s contribution was used as
334 N. Moore & M. Gilmartin
Figure 2. Student material produced in tutorials and incorporated into lectures
Table 2. Student-generated lecture content
Group number and topic Key geographical issues
Group 1A: Sellafield Conflict between Irish Government, Irish population,
Irish Fishing Industry, Norwegian Government, British
Government, Green Peace, Sellafield power plant
Exercise power either by political discussion sanctions,
by protest or else they rely on their government to
voice their concerns
Group 9B: Sellafield Conflict is over the environment (resource)
International and regional scale: Irish Government
have made pleas to the United
Nations and the European Union directly
concerning Sellafield
Group 25A: Occupation of Iraq Ideological, territorial, and resource-centred major actors
are USA-led coalition forces, as well
as the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish ethnic groups, and
finally the foreign-based insurgents
Exercise their power through force, mostly armed military
or paramilitary force, while at the same time those in
government hope to exert political force
in order to guide the country
as they see fit
Teaching for Better Learning 335
an example of good work. Through our efforts, some students began to see the lecture, and
the module, as collaborative rather than didactic, and gave positive feedback and comment
on being able to contribute to lecture content and the development of the module.
Evaluating the Module
This module was evaluated both formally and informally on an ongoing basis by the
module coordinators and colleagues from the School of Psychology. We monitored online
group discussions and dealt promptly with issues or difficulties as they arose. We also
encouraged the tutors to monitor discussions in their groups and in tutorials, and to use the
teacher forum in the online environment to raise any issues of concern and also to discuss
with other tutors how they felt the module was going. Students and tutors gave us informal
feedback after class, in the corridor, during office hours, or through the School Staff–
Student Committee. This gave us an insight into how the module was being received by
both students and tutors, and enabled us to be responsive to their needs and anxieties.
More formal evaluation of the module also took place through the Students’
Experiences of Teaching and Learning Questionnaire that was administered to students at
three time points during the semester. Time 1 was during week 1, time 2 was during week
6 and time 3 was during week 11. A descriptive analysis was undertaken and frequency
tables were produced that reported on the responses across the three time periods. A series
of paired sample t-tests were also conducted to examine whether student perceptions
changed during the course of the semester. Issues of engagement, attendance, social
experience and general perceptions were investigated. The final questionnaire also
included a set of questions designed to gauge student perceptions of this module in
comparison to the other geography modules in the first-year programme. In order to
investigate the results and add depth to the quantitative findings, a small number of focus
groups were undertaken with first-year students. These were organized on a voluntary
basis and involved general discussions on the experience of the module and student
reactions to it. Focus groups were also held with the tutors at two points in the semester,
one midway through the module and one at the end.
Discussion
A number of key findings emerged from the evaluations and our reflections on the
experience of redesigning and delivering a first-year module in a blended learning
environment. Although group work is an important aspect of collaborative and enquirybased
learning, it also brings with it a number of challenges. The ongoing group
assignment was the production of a Group Glossary on key geographical themes and,
unsurprisingly, during the module, student concerns were raised about the unequal
contributions being made to the assignment by some members of particular groups.
Although we initially adopted a ‘hands-off’ approach and encouraged students to try to
motivate their peers and develop skills in group dynamics, major concerns remained. As a
result, it was necessary to make a specific intervention by developing a more nuanced
approach to grading the glossary. After discussion with each other and with student
representatives, we decided that 12/20 marks would be allocated to the glossary content
produced by the group and 8/20 marks would be attributed to the individual contribution to
the group assignment. This ratio was chosen to ensure that an incentive remained to
336 N. Moore & M. Gilmartin
engage in group activity. Difficulties with group work are not unique to this module; other
studies have identified the problems students have in coping with group dynamics when
collaborative learning is employed (e.g. Plowright & Watkins, 2004). These difficulties
regularly surfaced in responses to an open-ended question at the end of the questionnaire,
when students suggested that we “change amount of group work; it can be hard to meet
with your group and it affects your mark”, or “get rid of group work”. However, and in
contrast, other students suggested that we “encourage the groups to meet more” and have
“more group assignments; it strengthens team work”. Group work emerged as a key issue
in some of the quantitative responses, which indicated that it can actually play a hugely
positive role from a practical as well as a learning perspective. In a question asking
students to score eight reasons for attending lectures and tutorials in order of importance,
“feeling responsibility to my group to be there” was ranked 1, 2 or 3 by 49.7 per cent of
students. This suggests that peer motivation and a sense of collective responsibility was a
key factor influencing attendance and engagement with this module.
Analysis of the results also suggests that assessing the module by tutorial participation
and a range of continuous assessments throughout the semester has played an important
role in keeping students engaged and motivated them to attend lectures and tutorials
(Figure 3). Students rate the relevance of the tutorials to the assignments as critical in their
decision-making processes, highlighting the absolute necessity of ensuring constructive
alignment of all elements of the module, but more importantly, incentivization of
attendance and participation emerged as the crucial factor in promoting better engagement
and attendance. Of those who responded (n ¼ 203), 24 per cent of students reported that
the most important reason they attended tutorials was because they get marks for them.
While we may idealistically believe that attendance at tutorials should be expected, these
findings suggest that an understanding of student motivation is crucial in developing
methods of enhancing student engagement. Student engagement during this module does
appear to have been much higher than in modules delivered in a more traditional manner,
and as this was a core objective of our redesign, it was an encouraging finding. While we
had a general sense that this was the case from early on in the module, the results of the
evaluation supported this assertion very clearly. Ninety-two per cent of the respondents to
I go to tutorials because I get marks for them
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Level of importance (highest to lowest)
Numberofstudents
Figure 3. Reasons for attendance at lectures and tutorials
Teaching for Better Learning 337
the survey were also taking at least one other, if not more, geography module as part of
their first year. They were asked to score their participation in this module and in their
other geography modules using a Likert scale. The results in Table 3 demonstrate that on a
number of widely accepted measures of engagement (NSSE, 2009), students participated
much more actively in Introduction to Human Geography I (GEOG 10030). This was
particularly evident in the time that they spent preparing for lectures, the work that they
did with classmates outside the lecture or tutorial room and their use of the electronic
medium, a core element in the blended learning approach. However, while engagement
was generally higher than in other modules, patterns of activity monitored in the online
environment demonstrated that this was again primarily driven by the pattern of
assessments. Logs of activity demonstrate marked increases in activity in the days
immediately prior to an assignment deadline. It might reasonably be suggested that while
student behaviour changed to the extent that there was more regular engagement with the
material and classes, some old behaviour patterns in relation to ‘cramming the night before
an exam’, or in this case an assessment, remained evident. Additionally, because the
assessment was by short online submissions, plagiarism became a major issue with which
we had to contend. Some students heavily depended on resources such as Wikipedia and
the ease with which they could ‘cut and paste’ was quickly discovered. While we deducted
grades and outlined the seriousness of plagiarism within a university setting, some
students still persisted. More recently, an online skills tutorial on plagiarism and
appropriate referencing has been incorporated into the module. Students must produce a
written statement with their assignments stating that they have taken the tutorial and are
aware of the seriousness and implications of plagiarism. Providing this resource has
allowed us to adopt a zero-tolerance policy to plagiarism and the extent to which it is now
occurring has been substantially reduced.
However, one of the most significant changes in relation to student behaviour was their
embrace of social learning networks, facilitated through the online discussion board and
the regulatory role that they adopted with each other. This only occurred gradually and
after much encouragement as one of the key issues for us, early in this module, was to
promote the idea of self-directed learning. For many students, this was a significant
challenge and they experienced some difficulty in taking responsibility for the pace and
progression of their learning. In particular, learning to follow exactly instructions
regarding assignments, getting used to the idea that they had to prepare and actively
participate in tutorials, and attending lectures that were more discursive and raising
Table 3. Participation in GEOG 10030 compared with other geography modules
Worked hard with
classmates outside
class
Used electronic
medium
Spent time preparing
for lectures Attended tutorials
GEOG
10030
Other
modules
GEOG
10030
Other
modules
GEOG
10030
Other
modules
GEOG
10030
Other
modules
Never 14 117 11 91 5 54 4 10
Sometimes 53 45 41 44 42 56 18 45
Often 50 10 53 26 68 55 40 57
Very often 82 13 94 24 84 20 136 73
338 N. Moore & M. Gilmartin
questions rather than being content-driven and providing answers required major
adjustment. Spending more time discussing and developing an understanding of selfdirected
learning is something that the module coordinators will do in future years, as well
as ensuring that instructions for assignments and other work are written without any
assumption of prior skills or knowledge. Nonetheless, as the module progressed, the kinds
of interaction taking place suggested that levels of self-confidence were growing and
students began actively monitoring as well as facilitating each others’ learning within the
groups. They appeared to act as effective motivators to each other, as exemplified in this
exchange in one of the learning groups:
Student A: Alright, anyone else online now to do this thing on globalization?
Student B: Yeah, so any ideas?
Student C: Hi there . . . yeah I am also online so we should probably try and get
some work done. Have you read the articles?
Student A: Think we should get started with some ideas, from a few places I’ve
looked globalization has been defined as the ever-growing unification and
interdependence of the global community. If we all start posting ideas then we
can put it all together and submit our answer.
Student D: We could start with a definition, and then have a detailed example,
maybe some pros and cons and that would be around the required word count.
Any ideas? A con for globalization is that some believe it is killing local
traditions and local trade. Starbucks were targeted several times by antiglobalization
protestors as their continuous opening of new shops was destroying
the local coffee shop businesses, some of which had been around for decades.
This was a worry in Madrid.
Student C: Right so why don’t we all read the articles, then post about 100 words
on globalization by this evening or tomorrow. We can put our answer together
then when everybody’s submitted something?
As well as these significant behavioural changes illustrating a marked increase in active
learning and the successful formation of social networks for learning, students’ perception
of the module also changed throughout the course of the semester. While many students
stated at the beginning that they were taking the module because of its perceived easiness,
during the first six weeks, the quantitative data shows a significant change and students
were much less likely to consider it an easy option. This levelled out during the second part
of the module, suggesting that students were initially surprised by the amount and
regularity of work that this module demanded, but that they rose to the challenges they
encountered. However, in comparing the end-of-module results with the results from the
previous year when a more traditional approach was adopted, there is a clear shift in the
overall pattern of performance. In 2005/2006, when a similar module was delivered in a
traditional manner, the results displayed a normal distribution with the mean around
the C/C2 grade (Figure 4). However, in 2006/2007, following the introduction of a
blended learning approach, a bimodal distribution emerged (Figure 5). Almost 11 per cent
of students received A grades in comparison to less than 2 per cent in the previous year.
Choules (2006, p. 216) has argued in relation to e-learning and blended learning that “as
with most teaching modalities, deep rather than superficial learners appear to enjoy the
greatest benefit” and the results of GEOG 10030 would appear to bear this out. Those
students who engaged with the new approach did significantly better than in the more
Teaching for Better Learning 339
traditional approach. However, on the contrary, we also see that students who failed to
engage were penalized by the blended approach, which demanded more of them on a more
regular basis.
Another pattern of note was that within the first two weeks of the module beginning,
almost 60 students withdrew from the module. This is higher than the previous year and
higher than other geography modules on offer in the same semester. While it is difficult to
pinpoint the reason, it may be reasonable to assume that for many students, the challenges
of the blended learning approach were considered too difficult to meet or that students did
not wish to put in the extra and more regular effort which this module demanded from an
early stage. The other key issue was that close to 30 students registered to the module had
not logged on by the end of case study 1, one-quarter of the way through the module. To
encourage these students, we wrote to them at their home postal address explaining the
importance of the online component, outlining what had been missed by their lack of
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
A+ A A– B+ B B– C+ C C– D+ D D– E FM
Grades awarded
Percentageofstudents
Figure 4. GEOG 10030 module results in 2005/2006
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
A+ A A– B+ B B– C+ C C– D+ D D– E FM
Grades awarded
Percentageofstudents
Figure 5. GEOG 10030 module results in 2006/2007
340 N. Moore & M. Gilmartin
engagement and asking them to come to see us in person so we could discuss some
remedial action. In the subsequent year, students were informed repeatedly in class from
late semester 1 and by email over the Christmas break about the importance of the online
component and encouraged to login as soon as possible. This was followed by repeated
announcements in class and by email in the first week of term and the effect appears to
have been overwhelmingly positive.
Conclusion
This paper focuses on the use of a blended learning approach to transform an introductory
human geography module at UCD. Though the term blended learning is more often used to
signify mixed methods of delivery, incorporating online and face-to-face interactions, we
believe it has broader application. In particular, we see blended learning as a collaborative
approach that involves students, tutors and teachers at design and implementation stage
across a range of delivery media. In this way, our understanding of blended learning
extends beyond the media used to incorporate all aspects of, and inputs into, the learning
process.
The original impetus for the transformation of the module came from a combination of
factors, including institutional concerns about student engagement and retention, and our
concerns about the structure, content and learning outcomes of our original first-year
module. Our findings support studies elsewhere that the constructive alignment of
assessment with learning goals is crucial to student engagement (Biggs, 1999; Jackson,
2002). However, we did discover during our reflections that students had not read as much
academic material as we would have liked. For future years, we will encourage more
reading through the provision of links to journal articles and the incorporation of key
readings into assignments to encourage engagement beyond just basic web resources. Our
findings also show the importance of social interaction, with peers and with tutors and
staff, for student engagement. This clearly demonstrates the significance of the active
creation and maintenance of communities of enquiry for effective student learning
(Garrison & Vaughan, 2008). Our widened definition of blended learning, particularly our
encouragement of students as partners, facilitated this process. Some students responded
very positively to this blended learning approach, and performed extremely well. For these
students, the module redesign helped shift the learning experience “from a passive-centred
approach to a transactional collaborative approach” (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008, p. 144),
in contrast to the arguments of Oliver and Trigwell (2005). However, a higher proportion
of students performed more poorly than in the original, more traditional structure,
primarily because the redesigned module required continuous engagement and left no
room for traditional ‘cramming’. It is clear that the blended learning approach was
successful in addressing issues of engagement and deep learning, but the relationship with
student retention needs further exploration.
Young (2002) has argued that successful blended learning depends on questioning given
norms. We did this in a variety of ways. We broke away from the traditional twice weekly
lecture format and the usual assessment strategies employed at UCD; we fundamentally
changed our approach to lectures by encouraging more participation and interaction; and
we adopted a ‘students as partners’ approach throughout. The delivery of the redesigned
module was resource-intensive, but no more so than the traditional approach. Rather, our
time was used differently, facilitated by our willingness to surrender our position as
Teaching for Better Learning 341
didactic teachers and to embrace a new role as facilitators of learning. The effective use of
a blended learning approach requires detailed planning, engagement with a range of
professionals, and willingness to question and change accepted practices. It requires
investment in module design, and in training and supporting tutors. The framing of this
module as a pilot within a University LCTP facilitated these developments and provided
the institutional support necessary to be as innovative as possible. However, since the
module was first delivered, there has been growing international acceptance of the need to
develop such modules to enhance first-year student engagement and we believe that most
institutions would now embrace such approaches quite readily.
The results of our project, in terms of the experiences of both teacher and learner, mean
that blended learning as a technique provides an opportunity and a useful tool to
inventively deal with the challenges of student engagement posed by large class sizes. The
approach also helps facilitate the achievement of key institutional objectives for researchintensive
universities including the development of communities of enquiry (O’Rourke,
2007) and the laying of the early foundations for the cultivation of the “Student as
Scholar” (Hodge et al., 2008) ideal, while simultaneously enhancing the student learning
experience.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the UCD Office of the Registrar through the Large Class Teaching Project, an
initiative of the Vice-Principals of the Colleges of Human Sciences and Life Sciences, Prof. Bairbre Redmond
and Prof. Michael Monaghan. Suzanne Guerin and Arlene Egan, both from the School of Psychology, facilitated
the evaluation of this module and we would like to extend our sincere gratitude to them. We would also like to
thank Geraldine O’Neill and Richard Arnett for their assistance in developing the module, Joe Brady and Gerald
Mills for their support, and Karen O’Connell, Eoin Hughes, Shane Willoughby and Stuart Duffy for giving up
their summer to work on the module design.
References
Biggs, J. (1999) Teaching for Quality Learning at University (Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press).
Choules, A. P. (2006) The use of e-learning in medical education: A review of the current situation, Postgraduate
Medical Journal, 83, pp. 212–216.
Dalsgaard, C. & Godsk, M. (2007) Transforming traditional lectures into problem-based blended learning:
Challenges and experiences, Open Learning: Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 22(1), pp. 29–42.
Davies, J. & Graff, M. (2005) Performance in e-learning: Online participation and student grades, British Journal
of Educational Technology, 36(4), pp. 657–663.
El Mansour, B. & Mupinga, D. M. (2007) Students’ positive and negative experiences in hybrid and online
classes, College Student Journal, 41(1), pp. 242–248.
Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P., Prosser, M. & O’Hara, A. (2006) How and what university students learn through
online and face-to-face discussion: Conceptions, intentions and approaches, Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 22(4), pp. 244–256.
Entwistle, N. & Smith, C. (2002) Personal understanding and target understanding: Mapping influences on the
outcomes of learning, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(3), pp. 321–342.
Felder, R. M. & Soloman, B. A. (undated) Learning Styles and Strategies, Available at http://www4.ncsu.edu/
unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ILSdir/styles.htm (accessed February 2009).
Garrick, J. (1998) Informal Learning in the Workplace (London: Routledge).
Garrison, D. R. & Vaughan, N. D. (2008) Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles and
Guidelines (San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass).
Ginns, P. & Ellis, R. A. (2007) Quality in blended learning: Exploring the relationships between on-line and
face-to-face teaching and learning, Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), pp. 53–64.
342 N. Moore & M. Gilmartin
Healey, M. & Roberts, J. (Eds) (2004) Engaging Students in Active Learning: Case Studies in Geography,
Environment and Related Disciplines (Cheltenham: Geography Discipline Network and School of
Environment, University of Gloucestershire). Available at http://www2.glos.ac.uk/gdn/active/student.htm
(accessed February 2009).
Hinterberger, H., Fa¨ssler, L. & Bauer-Messmer, B. (2004) From hybrid courses to blended learning: A case study.
ICNEE, 27–30 September 2004. Neuchaˆtel/Switzerland.
Hodge, D., Haynes, C., LePore, P., Pasquesi, K. & Hirsh, M. (2008) From enquiry to discovery: Developing the
student as scholar in a networked world. Keynote address at Learning Through Enquiry Alliance Inquiry in a
Networked World Conference, 25–27 June, University of Sheffield. Available at http://www.miami.muohio.
edu/president/reports_and_speeches/ (accessed February 2009).
Jackson, N. (2002) QAA: Champion for Constructive Alignment! (New York: LTSN).
Mohanna, K. (2007) The use of e-learning in medical education, Postgraduate Medical Journal, 83, p. 211.
NSSE (2009) National Survey of Student Engagement. Available at http://nsse.iub.edu/html/quick_facts.cfm
(accessed February 2009).
O’Rourke, K. (2007) Enquiry-based learning: Collaborative learning and communities of practice. Keynote
address at Inaugural International Colloquium on University Teaching and Learning, June 12, University
College Dublin.
Oliver, M. & Trigwell, K. (2005) Can ‘blended learning’ be redeemed? E-learning, 2(1), pp. 17–26.
Plowright, D. & Watkins, M. (2004) There are no problems to be solved, only inquiries to be made, in social work
education, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(2), pp. 185–206.
Rovai, A. P. & Jordan, H. M. (2004) Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with
traditional and fully online graduate courses, International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 5(2), pp. 1–13.
Spronken-Smith, R. (2005) Implementing a problem-based learning approach for teaching research methods in
Geography, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29(2), pp. 203–221.
Spronken-Smith, R., Bullard, J., Ray, W., Roberts, C. & Keiffer, A. (2008) Where might sand dunes be on Mars?
Engaging students through enquiry-based learning in Geography, Journal of Geography in Higher
Education, 32(1), pp. 71–86.
Vogel, M. & Oliver, M. (2006) Learning design tools project: Design for learning in virtual learning
environments—insider perspectives. Available at http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/D4L_VLE_r
eport_final.pdf (accessed July 2008).
Young, J. R. (2002) Hybrid teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online instruction, Chronicle
of Higher Education, 48(28), pp. 33–34.
Appendix 1. Topical Case Studies Utilized in Introduction to Human Geography 1
From bean to cup: Global networks. This case study focuses on the story of coffee, tracing
its journey from producer to consumer. Key themes such as globalization, interdependence
and networks are considered through the lens of a commodity chain. Students are
encouraged to develop their own research on a particular commodity and outline how it
can be used to exemplify the central themes identified.
Contested places: Tara and the M3 motorway. In a country like Ireland where economic
and social change has occurred so rapidly in the last decade, particular places have become
key sites of conflict and debate. This case study looks at the debate over the construction of
the proposed M3 motorway close to Tara, a national heritage site. Key geographical
concepts addressed include place, landscape and identity, and broad questions about the
relationship between heritage and economic development and the relative power of
various stakeholders within major developments are investigated.
Roots and routes: Ireland and migration. Ireland’s recent transformation from a place
of emigration to one of immigration is considered. Key aspects include the various scales
of migration and the impacts of migration on familiar landscapes. Additionally, the
Teaching for Better Learning 343
migrant experience is explored through online resources and through individual interviews
carried out by students with a migrant of their choice.
The Corrib gas pipeline development. In the final case study, conflicts over power and
resources are investigated, with particular emphasis on the Corrib gas pipeline in Mayo.
Themes such as the relationship between economic development and the environment,
power and resistance are explored and students are asked to identify similar international
conflicts based on territorial, resource or ideological issues.
344 N. Moore & M. Gilmartin
Copyright of Journal of Geography in Higher Education is the property of Routledge and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.