Jennifer Chiok Foong Loke
The University of Hull
j.loke@hull.ac.uk

This paper is intended as a contribution to the debate about the use of Blackboard (Bb) as a Virtual Learning Environment in a blended approach to learning in a higher educational institution. The use of a case study seems necessary to illustrate the impact of administrative and attitudinal issues to highlight those surrounding e-learning in higher education. This paper provides an overview of the applications of teaching and learning theories in the practice of e-learning using Bb, while considering some of the lecturers’ and students’ concerns, which might have posed as resistance for adopting the e-learning strategy effectively. It then recommends how such educational change in the approach of using Bb can be managed for educational success.

Blackboard (Bb), a virtual learning environment (VLE) was introduced in the Faculty of Health and Social Care (FHSC) in England in a local university in 2001. It is part of the major step in implementing the university’s e-learning strategy (Anonymous 2003) in joining the rest of the world in the relentless push of technology. In the FHSC, programmes offered are either health or health-related studies and are commissioned by the Department of Health (DoH). Thus, the mode of educational delivery is, unsurprisingly, affected by the views the National Health Service (NHS) has of e-learning, in which e-learning is believed to be an emerging approach to life-long learning and flexible learning for health and social care education and practice (Department of Health (DoH) 2002). For these reasons, e-learning is actively promoted in the faculty, and there is even a recent formation of an e-learning development group, aimed to facilitate the strategic development of e-learning/blended learning across the faculty.

For the purpose of discussion, this paper focuses on issues surrounding e-learning based on an existing module that utilises Bb. The issues raised in this module are those confronted by the FHSC at large. Discussion includes the application of some teaching and learning theories, and attention is directed at their potential and real effects of e-learning in the module, mirroring other Health & Social Care education within the faculty. Towards the end, this paper attempts to provide some ideas on how the learning environment and course design could have been changed to enable students and lecturers to make full use of the resources in Bb.

In the FHSC, most modules and programmes tend to use a ‘blended’ learning approach. Such an approach which uses more than one mode of delivery (Singh & Reed 2001) has existed as long as education exists (Smith 2004). However, with the increasing trend toward technologies for their great potential in solving problems, particularly in areas related to time and flexibility in a fast moving globalized society, teaching strategies which demand e-learning are increasingly dominating the ‘blended approach’ to learning. Although in this faculty, it is not uncommon to have a myriad of approaches of instructor-led classrooms and lectures, hands-on clinical laboratory sessions and workshops, clinical placements and coaching in the form of academic supervision—e-learning is bound to be used at some stage. Bb in its purest form of e-learning with postings of documents and web pages and online communications is often encouraged to be used in the blend.

Educational delivery of a post qualification module for health care professionals at academic level 5 used for this discussion, is an example which uses Bb in its blended approach at a simple level of a combination of face-to-face lectures, coaching, and VLE. The approach may just be at the simplest level of blending offline and online learning—it has no difference to any other blended approach in that the focus was on the learning objectives (Singh & Reed 2001).

In view of the constructivist theories based on the work of Bruner, Vygotsky and Feurestein, among others; learning is a building process, whereby learners construct their own meanings of current experiences from previous exposures (KristinsdÓttir 2001). The use of Bb in this module was to provide students the opportunity to build and construct knowledge on what was learnt in a face-to-face dimension. Underpinning the approach was the strategic purpose in embracing redundancy (Rossett, Douglis & Frazee 2003), in which the use of Bb was to allow students opportunities to receive the same classroom information, but in its elaborated forms from various sources in various formats spreading over a period of time.

This module was offered on a part-time basis, and the contact hours were equivalent to nine days (three blocks of three days) spread over a 12-week academic semester. Face-to-face lectures were delivered in the first three weekdays of the first, sixth and eleventh week. Bb, equipped with discussion software, was to provide the flexibility for students (two from Scotland, four from other parts of England with the remaining five from the local region) to increase the contact hours through sharing their clinical experiences in the form of threaded-topic discussion in the period when the students are away from the face-to-face sessions. The sense of community (Smart 2003) for learning was then possible as distance learning could be achieved via a cheap and flexible way of communication (Ravotto 2003).

It was also suggested that knowledge is constructed not just from individual learner’s attribution of meaning to each own’s experience, but is also created via the interactions of learners within that community of learning (Hein 2004). Hence, this module expected online interactions of students in Bb, allowing learning to parallel the constructivist approach, in which learning is not confined to hyperlinks in the pages and web documents but from a complex web of knowledge.

The coupling of constructivism and online collaborative learning (Klemm & Snell 1996) in Bb which integrates and enriches the face-to-face learning as it increases interactions between teachers and students, and among students for more learning opportunities (Ravotto 2003) is no doubt, a promising strategy for producing academic deliverables. Still, it can be adversely affected by no other reason more basic than the lack of technical skills. A one-hour session was then set aside in the first week to establish students’ capability to use computers and their competence in accessing Bb. Extra face-to-face coaching (out of lesson hours) was also given to up-skill some students so that no one was disadvantaged technologically. This basic but strategic step is familiar to all who have read Salmon’s 5-step model in e-learning, which is in line with the view that scaffolding is an integral part of the meaning making process in a collaborative learning environment. The view is based on Vygotsky’s ‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD) - the difference between what an individual can do alone and what s/he can do with assistance (Conway 1997). Hence, the session was aimed to build on students’ experiences and to provide ‘intellectual scaffolding’ to help students start learning.

As explained earlier, the inclusion of Bb as a VLE in the module was designed to teach thinking in contexts which were rich in content in the need for general strategies. All were based on thoughts that parallel constructivism, in which learners construct their own knowledge through access to rich environments which facilitate learning (Hein 1991) whereby reasons for learning were meant to be embedded in the threaded discussions. However, there was no sign of access in the threaded discussion in the first week to take advantage of this. Personal email were sent and telephone calls were made in view of the absence of postings. As reassured by Salmon (2004), in the first step of her model, the continuous motivating and supporting of students did generate responses to the threaded-topic in the second week, but it was a shocking result of just one student! The general lack in participation did not generate any discussion.

On return to the faculty four weeks later, it was made known that two of the eleven students had not been able to access Bb, despite additional time and efforts for a step-by-step guide to be provided via email. Further investigation found these two students’ passwords for access were not the ‘norm’ - instead of birth dates, they were the students’ registration numbers. This exemplifies how issues, when addressed at module level without an intact infrastructure (at the University level), support to students is as much as those from the institution, which in this case was almost non-existent. However useful Salmon’s model can be for guiding practice, things do not happen in the ways expected.

It can be argued that the lack of administrative support was an excuse for students not to access Bb as planned. For those who had no problem accessing Bb only downloaded articles and web pages that were posted by the module leader. It was discovered in the face-to-face discussion, that although there was a strong preference for online learning used in conjunction with paper-based learning, there was no desire for discussion facilities to communicate with peers and even with the module leader—the academic supervisor. Students preferred communication on a one-to-one basis, via email ,telephones or face-to face meetings for learning.

According to Knowles’ Theory of Andragogy Learning (1990), adults learn best by having hands-on experience. This view was supported by Ge, Yamashiro and Lee (2000) who concluded that pre-class instructions on the use of online collaboration tools were important for students to feel comfortable participating and engaging in online collaboration. In this case, the first and essential step to start the learners’ journey to e-learning was in place in the first week of the semester, but was done using the module leader’s login ID and password, because many students had not registered with the computer centre, while some had not even registered with the FHSC for the module at the time when the pre-class planning was conducted. Out of the eleven students, nine were using identical login IDs and passwords, and hence, were denied a good learning experience for online socialisation in that hour and had never been scaffolded adequately for online collaborative learning activities.

The problems and the surrounding issues highlighted here are not isolated in this module, but are present in all others in the faculty. Consequently, the concept of Blackboard (Bb) as a virtual learning environment is alien to most. Before one even thinks about having Bb as a VLE and encourage students to use it for learning, the problems with regards to registration have to be resolved. If Bb is to be used in the blended approach in all modules across the faculty, then student registration for admission to the faculty for programme/module of study and for access to Bb for the named programme/module is integral to the process. Due to the lack of integration of an administrative/registration system, step 2 of Salmon’s 5-step model, which Odin (2002) considered as a critical preparatory stage for participants to set the social context of learning was not possible in this case. It is obvious why technical infrastructure as the fundamental basis for successful learning has to be intact (Agostinho, Lefoe & Hedbeg 1997), and Troha (2002) has clearly pointed out that any blending initiatives need to be strategically planned before the actual implementation, otherwise, one is setting up for nothing but failure.

However, it might not have been a total failure in this case, as students did explore the web-based materials on Bb. Unfortunately, despite the opportunity to study the online material in an active and non-linear fashion by exploring the hyperlinks, students exclusively studied the material linearly. They also tended to focus on the core course materials, confining themselves to those that had a direct relationship with the topic that they had chosen as the focus of their written assignment. In other words, self-paced readings were reduced to the scope for producing a 3000 word case study, which is the summative assessment for this module. It was also discovered through the face-to-face discussion that Bb was exploited by students more for updating on the progress of the module and changes of any schedule for the simple reason that students had minimal face-to-face contact in this part-time module.

One cannot deny that the registration/administrative issue was a major barrier, but it is clear in this case that part of the problem lies with students’ frame of mind towards learning. It is recommended that in introducing changes, all people affected must be consulted even before the implementation to ensure success (Morrison 2003, Troha 2002). Although helping others to decide if they want to participate in an online community embraces a people-centred approach (Rossett et al. 2003), it is important to know that an over-emphasis of people centeredness gets nothing done, which is quite evident in this case. The other question is: can we afford a long negotiation process when changes are long overdue in a world which emphasizes quick fixes? Instead of going through a consultative phase, which resulted in utilising Bb no more than as an administrative tool and linear learning tool as seen here, the solution to the problem may be to include assessments in Bb.

This is then almost like compelling rather than motivating students to learn. However, without even getting students to enter the ‘gate’ of online socialising learning in Bb, how and when can we start motivating learning in the VLE? This strategy is suggested not just because assessments are what students perceive as the most important aspect of their programme or module (Quinn 2000); it is more because it is only through assessment that, whatever students construct can be credited while being moderated and graded. Students will collaborate if collaborative activities are linked to assessment (Agostinho et al. 1997) as it gives students real incentives to collaborate. Hence, assessments on online socialising learning opens avenues for students who are used to sitting passively in a class, fearful of taking on a more active learning for fear of failing in this situation. Such assessments also mean constant assessment, and students will try to (if not already) achieve deep learning, while maintaining their consistencies in threaded-topic discussions. When students’ efforts are recognised as achievements, a stronger sense of ownership of knowledge can be developed (Woudenberg 2003). This sense of belonging and self-worth heightens the learning process, because the more they learn the more they will want to learn, hence developing a lifelong learning attitude (Hsiao 1996).

Nevertheless, due to time constraints, there is concern that students might only be motivated to be actively participating in casting opinions and views instead of constructing knowledge while deep learning. It is therefore, important that assessments must be accompanied with constructive feedback to keep discussions focused and meaningful for building knowledge (Quinn 2000) because assessment is never just an exercise to judge the quality of students’ work, it is also a way to support their learning and appraise the learning outcome (Higher Educational Quality Council 1996). Assessments with constructive feedback to students who contributed provide facilitation and support to help the individual and his or her peers to construct knowledge to achieve the desire learning outcome.

When constructivism is fully endorsed, there is a shift from assessment of learning to assessment for learning. It is a grave mistake to think that assessment for threaded discussion is no different to ‘testing for appropriate knowledge at an appropriate stage’ (Hoare 2004) where these forms of assessments, although done at varying stages appear to be ongoing/continuous, is still, in itself a means to an end. It is in the new form of assessments for online learning that when meeting set criteria remains the priority, assessment can still be perceived by students and used by lecturers as more of a learning tool rather than a method of judgement. Lecturers are deceiving themselves that they can achieve the same effect by ‘mixing and matching’ assessment strategies, of which, each still aims to judge the amount of knowledge acquired, rather than how knowledge is and going to be acquired.  'Allowances' must be generously given and be reflected in the assessment process for ‘learners’ to ‘construct’ their own knowledge. But the extent to which these ‘allowances’ are permitted, so that the learning outcomes are still within ‘acceptable’ limits will have to come with the experience and skills of e-moderators in the subject area, where their expertise lies. Particularly in health professional and health related studies, where a large proportion of the knowledge is about the real world, scientific knowledge remains high in the hierarchy of knowledge (Habermus 1970). Having said that, lecturers who are the subject experts will need to change their role from source of knowledge to expertise in learning (Riel 1994), give up power, learn to coach in new content areas using techniques they, themselves may be unfamiliar with and must relinquish the comfortable position of knowing all the answers (Agostinho, et al 1997).

It may already be clear that a complex way of learning must be accompanied by a complex form of assessments and this will require new skills and knowledge of the lecturers. The thought of having e-moderators as facilitators is in large part wrong (Odin 2002), but this is still common in this faculty where some lecturers are still leading post qualification modules which are not their area of specialty and this case study is such an example. In order that the delivery of a module be successful, it will require the e-moderator who will be the subject expert (Odin 2002) not to just facilitate the learning process, but to inspire learning (Salmon 2004) within the acceptable limits of whichever the discipline of learning lies. It should never be taken for granted that online assessment is no more than assessing online socialising skills, critical approach to discussion and all other technical aspects associated with online threaded topic discussion.

Learning based on social constructivism is meant for ill-structured domains or higher-level learning (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt 1991). Thus, lecturers must spend more time preparing the constructivist learning environments, a context for learning that supports both autonomy and relatedness, otherwise, students are likely to see the threaded discussion with little relevance. When the problem is compounded by a strong emphasis on evidence based learning (Knapper 2004) particularly for health and health-related education, low levels of engagement in activities will be adopted (Agostinho et al. 1997). Consequently, learners will continue to be uncomfortable with the increased ambiguity accompanying other complex problems in online socialisation learning.

It has been suggested that teaching should suit different learning styles. No doubt using teaching/assessing strategies that suit the styles of learners is conducive for learning (Morrison 2003), but we have to be realistic that no teaching/assessing style will be a 100% match to each individual in any group, plus in any individual, learning styles vary at different times (Morrison 2003). The assessment strategies decided by lecturers to only map content types and quality issues may not be warmly welcomed by learners, but, given no other choice, people will adopt and adapt (Morrison 2003). In fact, it is by not struggling to achieve a perfect fit for learning styles, that the ethos of effective learning from having to problem solve, risk take, and meet challenges in the rough journey in learning that effective learning can be achieved (Morrison 2003). Nevertheless, lecturers will have to be very careful to ensure that these risks and challenges are introduced in manageable chunks otherwise they can become serious deterrents to effective learning not just pertaining to e-learning via Bb, but e-learning as a whole.

The role of lecturers as e-moderators is much more complex compared to the one role of face-to face teaching; it requires a lot of commitment to deal with threaded discussion timely and appropriately so that students will feel well supported while constructing knowledge ‘on their own’ (Odin 2002). It is perhaps appreciated why it is even more important that strategic planning and institutional support must be in place to ease the lecturers’ burden by ensuring the use of technology is a seamless process for students and lecturers. Besides what has been mentioned earlier, there should also be time set aside for technology training and support (Agostinho et al. 1997). For students, the use of Bb can be supplied outside the normal lecture time, or as part of the first meeting, with a support person available 24/7 for trouble-shooting any technological problems. This would be particularly useful for the post registration students who are generally lacking in technological competence. It should be emphasized that with threaded-topic discussions, the commitment in time and effort for e-moderators is far greater than other approaches (Berge 1995). Unlike what is seen in this case study, many other modules have a ratio of more than twenty students to one lecturer; this may push some lecturers to continue to use the problems they encountered with administration/registration as reasons to not use Bb as a teaching tool. So for lecturers, institutional support for staff development for new skills and new knowledge in e-moderating is not adequate; lecturers require reassurance from the faculty that it is working out the students/lecturer ratio realistically for effective e-moderating. Otherwise, instead of moving across to use Bb as a VLE, the persistent high students/lecturer ratio, and the continuous assigning of lecturers to lead modules—not within their expertise, will continue to encourage the use of Bb as an administrative tool only.

Allowing students and the faculty to be well prepared way before the actual module starts will definitely remove a large part of the negative feelings about the use of Bb in the blended approach to learning, and will certainly help to drive the agenda for e-learning forward. However, as warned by Rossett et al. (2003) blending should rivet attention on how to combine resources to achieve a strategic purpose, and must not be limited to the types of resources and the proportion of each in the combination. It requires any lecturer in the faculty to be committed in working out the most ideal blend. Therefore it is not suggested in this paper that Bb must be included in any blend. There must be good reasons for it as in this case, a discussion on Bb can be used as an extension to a face-to-face teaching, for the fact that students and lecturers rarely meet (Smart 2003).

On the other hand, even if Bb was accepted for use as a VLE for good reasons, its use will not be valued if it is implemented by those who are not committed to ensure that a mediocre attitude towards education is not carried forward to e-learning (Morrison 2003). The use of Bb as a means for administrative purposes only—to put up announcements, mass emailing students and to furnish students with lectures notes already presented in a classroom is not wrong, but, surely this limited concept of the use of Bb can be expanded to a teaching and learning tool in a blended approach to customize and integrate learning. Committed lecturers need adequate institutional support to realise the potential of Bb as a successful teaching and learning tool otherwise it will be viewed as a "white elephant". Consequently, the online communities that Bb offers to encourage and enhance non-linear learning and thinking which are so essential for today’s complex world will be missed.

The practices, concerns and issues regarding the use of Bb in e-learning and reform in teaching and learning, which confront this faculty, extend beyond a level within which a module or programme leader can manage. It is not expected that within a higher educational institution, where the emphasis is on quality education delivery, the infrastructure does not support the use of Bb in a seamless fashion. This is out of the ordinary and most unfortunate—worse when it occurs at the initial stage of educational provision. Problems occurring at the very first stage in students’ e-learning experience, and for some, even before the educational journey starts, will inevitably contribute to the initial general lack of engagement in Bb and subsequent e-learning and learning experience as a whole. Besides the lack in confidence about its potential, additional reasons for lack of engagement in e-learning and enthusiasm for e-learning amongst lecturers may not be just the lack of institutional support and resources to acquire skills and knowledge to function as e-moderators, but more because of the lack in organisational support for lecturers to undertake the e-moderator’s role effectively.

The use of Bb is not, and no longer can be the field of interest for only those who are involved in distance learning; neither is it a passing interest for members of the faculty, but an integral and an effective blend with traditional face-to-face provision. However as illustrated in this case, the underlying issues for the slow uptake go beyond the attitude of individual lecturers and students. Until institutional support is perceived and received, Bb will remain in its limited role as an administrative tool in the faculty.