Author: Sarah Nicholoson, s.nicholson@arts.gla.ac.uk

JISC e-Learning Activity Area: Technology-enhanced Learning Environments

Higher Education Academy Subject Centre: Philosophical and Religious Studies

This case study illustrates...an effect on learning, an effect on student personal development, student satisfaction with e-learning, innovation in learning and teaching, staff satisfaction with e-learning, staff personal development, a positive effect on recruitment, a positive effect on retention, an influence on policy, use of resources, modifications to learning spaces, management of learning assets, an effect on social equality

Background & Context

Why did you use this e-learning approach?

The Department of Theology and Religious Studies was running a paper-based distance-taught BD degree: 15 modules of 20 credits each and a 60-credit dissertation. In 2005 we decided to progress to e-learning: we wanted to make it more immediately available to our distance students, and to use the learning materials with our 'regular' (campus-based) students. We also hoped that putting it in a VLE would help us to market the degree overseas and to market individual modules as stand-alone modules. We had about three enquiries per week from overseas students, but were ultimately unable to develop either the full online degree or an overseas recruitment strategy because the Arts Faculty discontinued the degree.

What was the context in which you used this e-learning approach?

Glasgow is an ancient university, and this has some cultural implications. Long after newer universities in Glasgow were using VLEs, Glasgow was still considering whether it would invest in one (although individual departments in the university were using a variety of VLEs). Eventually Moodle became Glasgow's 'official' VLE.

Learner groups were initially composed of distance students of a wide variety of backgrounds (some with no IT experience at all) and staff with varying levels of interest in e-learning. The second of the distance modules to be developed for e-learning (Biblical Studies 1A) was then used with Level 1 campus-based students in addition to the distance students, so both groups were using the material simultaneously. This involved an average of 6 distance students per session and 60 campus-based students per session. There were three lecturers involved in teaching (although only two taught in any one session): me, Dr. Sherwood and Dr. Hunter. Dr. Hunter went on to develop Moodles for his other campus-taught courses. I wished to develop a Moodle for my other Level 1 course (Biblical Hebrew) but human factors (my unplanned pregnancy) intervened and that work remains to be done.

Prior to an e-learning approach some of this teaching was a paper-based distance-taught programme. The Moodles later developed by Dr. Hunter were structured on his Level 2, 3 and Honours courses.

We anticipated some staff resistance and a little student resistance to new approaches, particularly the time required to learn the new system. The lecturer developing the pilot module (Dr. Orr, Reformation Theologies) was sceptical about the return for the effort: she indicated that the time involved in developing e-learning materials was likely to be considered excessive by other lecturing staff in the department and that the benefits were unlikely to provide sufficient motivation.

What was the design?

The design reflected the paper-based course material, which itself had been developed with input and advice from GUIDE. Each module was divided into 10 units. Learning activities were incorporated at several strategic points in each unit and each unit ended with a summary. The nature of the learning activities depended on the material being taught. For example, in a unit on Abraham's near-sacrifice of Isaac, Dr. Sherwood has designed enquiry-based learning activities that ask students to engage with, reflect on, and critique the history of the interpretation of the text. This is closely related to Dr. Sherwood's current research and is therefore addressing the university's primary strategic aim in L&T. Using the VLE enabled us to incorporate some new design features such as news, interactive spaces and discussion.

Assessment of the courses involved two short essays (each 10%), a 1500 word essay (50%) and a one hour exam (30%). This is an unusual set of weightings in the institution: Level 1 exams are usually weighted more heavily. The low exam weighting at Level 1 was intended to ensure that students with non-traditional backgrounds were not disadvantaged by lack of recent (if any) exam experience. Course convenors implementing VLE-based courses worked with staff in GUIDE, who were available for consultation on technological and pedagogical issues. GUIDE comprised academic staff, project managers, and learning technicians, and they were an invaluable resource to our department because they were able to advise on all levels of design, including the pedagogy of e-learning in distance education. They advised us, for example, to use Moodle's function to reveal material to students weekly, which worked well even though Dr. Hunter and I revealed our material in advance of teaching it, while Dr. Sherwood preferred to reveal material after teaching it. Interestingly, student feedback indicated they were generally happy with both approaches.

However, the e-learning materials did not make full use of Moodle's features, and the modules were not as pedagogically grounded as they might have been. The material could be better differentiated and more use could be made of communication tools such as discussion boards. That said, it must be stated that the department did not provide developmental resources (e.g. time to develop the online modules) and the result is probably as good as it can be in the circumstances.

How did you implement and embed this e-learning approach?

We used a Level 2 course as a trial. The convenor, Dr. Orr, received training from GUIDE prior to and during the development of materials. Students in this course came to Glasgow and met with GUIDE staff for an induction in using Moodle.

Student progress was monitored both through the VLE and by contact with Dr. Orr. In addition, the students were asked to describe their experiences with the VLE and compare it to their experiences of the paper based courses. There were regular team discussions between the course convener and the distance learning team about the progress of the course.

The anticipated problems did materialise but since they were anticipated we were able to cope with them reasonably well. No unanticipated problems arose at that stage. All the students who enrolled completed and passed the course. We overcame the students' fears about technology by offering increased support, and by offering a paper version of the module just in that group to allay fears. One student really did not seem to get to grips with the VLE and submitted essays by post. A more serious problem was staff anxieties about using the VLE, which we addressed by sharing positive experiences about usefulness of the VLE, but we were not as successful as we hoped at enlisting colleagues in the VLE experience.

The most serious setback was the decision by the Arts Faculty to discontinue the distance degree on the basis that all the students were part-time and therefore were regarded as fees-only students. It was argued that the degree was losing money since none of the students attracted SFC block grant. This is not strictly true since block grant is awarded in 'full-time equivalent students' rather than in full-times places. However, we could have made a stronger argument to continue the degree if we had developed the e-learning materials quickly enough to pursue an overseas marketing strategy, which would have shown additional income. Staff resistance to developing e-learning materials may have been a factor in the demise of the distance degree. There is not really enough evidence to draw a strong conclusion here.