Author: Ian Ruffell, i.ruffell@classics.arts.gla.ac.uk

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

Higher Education Academy Subject Centre: History, Classics and Archaeology

This case study illustrates...an effect on learning, an effect on exam results, an effect on student personal development, innovation in learning and teaching, staff satisfaction with e-learning, an influence on policy, an effect on social equality

Background & Context

Why did you use this e-learning approach?

The principal reason for deciding on an e-learning approach was a strong personal commitment to encouraging students to take an active role in learning and to become critical thinkers. All my honours-level courses emphasise these elements, whether in the classroom or online, and two of them involve formal and assessed online elements. I also wanted to use online learning to foster a sense of community among the students.

These pedagogic aims stem in part from a social and political view of higher education as a means to develop active and engaged citizens.

Supplementary reasons included encouragement within the Faculty and University to develop e-learning approaches, and factors involving accessibility, although I am conscious that online learning represents a double-edged sword in this respect.

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

Glasgow Classics courses have traditionally been of the 'chalk-and-talk' variety. Despite some moves towards seminars, our courses at both pre-honours (team-taught in years 1 & 2) and honours level (largely taught by individual lecturers) are both heavily based around lectures. Having said that, there has been strong support from my Head of Department for the development of e-learning and in many ways the department more generally is supportive, if not always proactive in this respect.

Honours courses range from ten to forty. At thirteen, my group was at the low end of this scale. In a similarly structured and delivered (but not identical) course last year, the numbers were slightly but not significantly higher. The smaller group sizes were potentially useful for encouraging more focused discussion both in seminars and online.

Although some of the students had experienced the previous partially-online ('blended') course and specifically said that they were opting for a similar course, the majority of students on the course had not had prior experience (either because they were junior honours/3rd year) or for other reasons. Given the lack of prior experience in online learning, this was a potential problem.

What was the design?

The course was a thematic and generic one, examining the Greek genre of paroidia (hexameter parodic verse) and some related/comparative material (satyr play, comedy, parodic vase-painting, prose parodies by Lucian).

The aim was to integrate online and face-to-face learning. Two students per week would post online reports on related (but not identical) aspects of the topic under discussion, two days before a face-to-face seminar. Students were expected to contribute ahead of the seminar by discussion online in response to the posted reports. The students who posted the reports were expected to introduce the seminar discussion and all students were expected to provide follow-up comments.

Assessment for the course consisted of the following elements:

• online reports on the topic (usually text or genre) of the week (20%)
• online discussion (10%)
• seminar contributions (20%)
• end of module project (50%)

The end of module project was left open as to format and medium, although it could include a standard essay or an online or offline electronic contribution of some form.

In addition, the majority of the texts studied were provided online rather than a print medium. Partly this was a choice driven by the lack of available translations and partly because of cost implications (the range of texts studied). However, one aim originally was that this might lead students to use texts in creative ways (e.g. hypertext or via a wiki).

The design decisions were partly influenced by background reading on online course design, partly by awareness of the existing student experience at Glasgow and partly by some reflections on previous online experiments in Glasgow. In particular the assessed components reflect less successful unassessed online discussion at both honours and pre-honours level, and the reports were an attempt to provide more focus to the discussion.

For further details about the design, see our Honours handbook (scroll down to CL7: Putting the Gods in Their Place).

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

There was no specific training for staff or students. All students at Glasgow have to pass a basic certificate of IT competence in their pre-honours years.

There was considerable discussion of the 'project' component of the course, and as part of that ad hoc training was offered (e.g. in web design) as part of the negotiation over topic and method. In practice, more support was needed for face-to-face components, particularly the seminar-leading element, which had one student originally seeking to leave the course.

There was no formal evaluation for this course, although there was (as with similar courses I have run), an informal dialogue on process as part of both face-to-face and online encounters.

In terms of problems in implementation, the provision and use of texts online was less successful than I would have liked: the former owing to time pressures (which led to some out-of-copyright texts being used rather than translating them myself) and the latter needed a lot more thought (see Lessons Learned). Discussion was patchier than I had wanted (see Lessons Learned).