Learning and Teaching Grant Report 2011 · 1 VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON Learning and Teaching Grant Report 2011 An exploration, evaluation and trial of a new blended learning

1

VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON

Learning and Teaching Grant Report 2011

An exploration, evaluation and trial of a new blended learning pedagogy incourse delivery and student learning support in a case study course (GIS 2.0)for use in joint Masters in Geographic Information Science (MGIS) programmewith the University of Canterbury.

Grant awarded to: Dr Mairead de Roiste, School of Geography, Environment and Earth Science.

Improving technologies have facilitated high-quality, synchronous and asynchronous remote teaching.

Students can be either physically or virtually in the same location as the lecturer. Cyberlearning can offer

significant advantages over more traditional, face-to-face approaches, such as matching the pace of learning

to the student’s schedule and needs. However, there are some obvious drawbacks to this approach, as

students may find it harder to relate to a more structured environment. Blended learning is a combination

of both cyber- or distance learning and more traditional approaches. By using technology to facilitate

teaching, the delivery of courses is not restricted to a single physical location. An extension of this flexibility

is the opening of the cross-institutional collaborative opportunities, such as the one supported by this

award.

In 2011 we piloted the co-delivery of courses on the New Canterbury MGIS (Masters in Geographic

Information Science) across accessgrid, Karen, scopia and related technologies. There are a number of

benefits to such a collaborative cross institution approach at a student, staff and institutional level. Victoria

directly benefits through access to a number of the courses for local students. There are additional benefits

for staff in terms of facilitating collaborative opportunities, the ability to specialise in postgraduate teaching

and attracting high quality students. At an institutional level, it provides a buffer for staff illnesses and

absences in a discipline where overlap is minimised within individual institutions.

This grant has supported the investigation of both technologies suited to the specialised teaching of GIS and

those more widely applicable to blended learning. The grant was based around the delivery of a pilot course

by Victoria. The pilot course was offered at Masters level by Victoria and was delivered as a special topic in

science (SCIE401: GIS 2.0). The course ran in the second trimester and was offered as an elective course in

Canterbury. The course required a spatial programming pre-requisite delivered by the University of

Canterbury in trimester 1.

Following the success of this pilot year, we launched a full cross-institution programme in 2012. Victoria

contributes to the MGIS by providing one distinct Masters course and teaching into core courses.

2


The aims of the project were to determine best practise, evaluate its implementation and share the

knowledge and experience of blended learning more broadly within the university. The project composed

of five steps. These steps are reviewed below with the outcomes for each.

1. The review and collation of best practise internationally in blended, distance and cyber learningand potential tools and their implications, such as Scopia and threaded discussion forums. Areference list and summary document will be made available to Victoria staff on the intranet.

A literature review was undertaken and a summary document was created (appendix 1). This documentwas also accepted for publication in the Journal of International Business and Education in February thisyear.

2. Attendance at an open source GIS workshop (http://www.sigte.udg.edu/summerschool2010/).This workshop will review and discuss new tools for GIS dissemination which can be adapted forthe delivery of GIS content to students and may form the core GIS based technology for the course.

Following on from attendance at the open source GIS workshop, a summary document of available opensource GIS tools was created (Appendix 2) and a single GIS was selected for teaching at both undergraduateand postgraduate courses in GIS at Victoria.

3. Implementation and trial of suitable learning technologies (based on review).Successful pilot of the GIS 2.0 course, resulting in the launch of the collaborative MGIS this year.

4. A review session of all MGIS staff to evaluate the first year of the programme and examine boththe positive and negative aspects of the programme based on staff experience and studentevaluations.

Run in November 2011. This session involved staff from both Canterbury and VUW and was held inCanterbury. The core focus of this workshop was to highlight and solve any issues experienced in the pilotyear of the collaborative Masters.

5. A blended learning workshop for Victoria staff to raise awareness of the alternative tools availableand to share and evaluate experiences of the diverse programmes available at Victoria.

This was postponed to fit with a wider VUW strategic direction in this area. The workshop is scheduled forApril 17th 2012.

Additionally, findings from the project were presented at Ako Victoria in April 2011 and preliminary detailsabout the project at the New Zealand ESRI User Conference in Wellington in 2010. A further presentationwill take place at Ako Victoria in 2012. A further paper on the issues of cross-institution collaboration wasalso submitted to the Journal of Higher Education.

3


Appendix 1: Blended Learning Report

Reference for this appendix: de Roiste, M. and Snider, A.M., 2012. Blended Learning: Terms, Tools,

Effectiveness and Limitations. Journal of International Business and Education, 3(1).

4


Blended Learning: Terms, Tools, Effectiveness and Limitations

Mairead de Roiste and Anne Marie Snider,

School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600,

Wellington, New Zealand.

Abstract

Exploring alternative ways of teaching can be a daunting proposition for academic staff. Juggling their

current teaching, research and administrative responsibilities can make learning about new teaching

methods a low priority. This report reviews blended learning in terms of current tools as well as their

effectiveness and limitations. This report is to be viewed as an introduction to this area rather than a

comprehensive guide. Where possible, the authors have given references for interested readers to find

information on relevant concepts or tools and, as such, the reference list is a resource in its own right.

Keywords: Blended learning, online learning, traditional learning, pedagogy

5


1. Introduction

Changing technology opens a wealth of opportunities for flexible delivery of courses which can benefit both

students and staff. However, gaining familiarity with the available technologies as well as understanding

issues surrounding their use and the limits of their effectiveness can seem too hard, discouraging staff from

applying potentially beneficial methods in teaching their subjects. This paper is a general introduction to

blended learning and provides staff with a guide to understanding this growing area. We begin by defining

the terms and the main tools associated with blended learning, then outline in the following sections the

theory, effectiveness, and limitations of this approach. Specifically, section 2 covers popular tools for

blended learning course delivery, and the licensing needed to access these systems. Section 3 discusses the

pedagogical theory associated with blended learning and research on the effectiveness and limitations of

this approach. In section 4, this paper summarizes the key points established in this paper, namely that

student interaction and information retention in blended learning is unlikely to be worse than for

traditional learning and many have a number of learning enhancing benefits. Additionally, online tools

associated with blended learning are best employed as a complement to, rather than replacements for, face-

to-face interactions.

a. Key concepts

The terms, online learning, traditional learning and blended learning have been used by many disciplines to

explain the different ways students explore and learn course material using different technological aids.

The definitions for online, traditional and blended learning vary and overlap. Here, we define each of the

terms as well as listing common pseudonyms:

Online or cyber learning. Online learning requires that over half the coursework be provided online, and

usually has little or no face-to-face interaction with other students or the course instructor (Allen & Seaman

2004; Bekele & Menchaca 2008; Chen et al. 2010).

Traditional/face-to-face/classroom learning. The traditional/face-to-face/classroom approach usually

excludes technology-supported learning (Bekele & Menchaca 2008). Key traditional learning methods

include lectures, class discussions, assignments and group projects. However, technology is increasingly

being integrated into the classroom. For example, classroom response systems or clickers that allow the

6


audience to respond to questions asked by the instructor have been found to enhance interaction during

classroom learning (DeBourgh 2008) and increase understanding of subject content matter (Roschelle et al.

2004).

Blended learning. Blended learning is a mix of traditional classroom learning and online learning (Reay

2001; Rooney 2003; Ward & LaBranche 2003). Content delivered online varies, but usually hovers

between 30-79%, while the remaining portion of the course is delivered through traditional on-campus

methods (Bekele & Menchaca 2008, p.3). Blended learning courses use a variety of tools to incorporate

online learning into traditional classrooms.

As evident in the above definitions, courses with the same content and delivery may be described as either

traditional or blended, while others qualify as both online and blended. The distinction between the

different definitions is not stark and the boundary between traditional or online and blended learning

differs from author to author and from study to study.

2. Blended learning tools

The following section details common tools currently employed in blended learning. These tools range

from single function software to comprehensive environments incorporating many of the different

individual tools.

a. Specific online learning tools

There are several well-known online learning tools which function independently or can be combined for

particular courses. Blogs are a popular Web 2.0 tool for both instructors and students working in blended

learning environments (Downes 2004). Blogs are websites that store notes in an inverse chronological

order. These notes are publically accessible over the Internet and typically offer website visitors the chance

to post comments on the different entries (Robles & Gonzalez-Barahona 2004; Nardi et al. 2004).

Instructors have used blogs for various reasons including keeping students updated on course

announcements and readings, posting annotated links, and instructional tips. Student-written blogs can be

used for E-portfolios, to turn in assignments, share course related content and reflect on course content.

E-portfolios, also known as webfolios and blogfolios, are used to hold, organize and reorder contents easily

and quickly. The e-portfolio user as the ability to re-work various components of the portfolio, including

7


photographs, video files and graphics. This reworking can be done as an individual or group (Mason et al.

2004). The re-working and storage of information is meant to enhance learning by allowing the user to

reflect on information over time in order to increase the learner’s ability to make sense of concrete

experiences (Mason et al. 2004). E-portfolios are typically assembled and stored by educational

institutions.

Wikis are a Web 2.0 tool and method of learning that facilitates group work in a distance learning setting,

allowing individuals in different locations to post and edit their, as well as others’, content - much like the

online tool, www.wikipedia.org (Mindel & Sameer 2006; Campbell & Ellingson 2010). A wiki is essentially

a blog that can be manipulated by multiple people online. Typically Wikis are used in group projects to

virtually collaborate and construct knowledge through a virtual community (Mindel & Sameer 2006;

Campbell & Ellingson 2010) and unlike blogs which are chronically organized, wiki pages are connected

nonlinearly (Beldarrian 2006). The advantages to using wiki have been outlined by Campbell and

Ellingston (2010). Wikiwikiweb was created in 1994 to promote peer-to-peer learning by providing a

common site for students to correct and augment each other’s work (Wagner 2004; Campbell & Ellingson

2010). Different types of wiki software are available for download. MediaWiki is suitable for education use

and is free under the GNU General Public License. Tikiwiki allows users to share more files and manage

course material and is also free. DokuWiki is mainly for writing documents and requires a license fee

(SiteGround 2012).

Podcasts are digital audio files distributed through the internet and downloaded through syndication

feedback systems such as RSS (Real Simple Syndication) feeds for playback on a computer or portable

player (Bersin 2005; Copley 2011). Podcasts can be ‘pushed’ to subscribers without user intervention,

providing the potential for ‘anytime, anywhere’ learning experiences (Boulos et al. 2006, p.1). Vodcasts are

the video version of a podcasts and can also be watched on the subscribers computer (e.g. using Windows

Media Player software) or portable video players (Boulos et al. 2006). Academics have integrated podcasts

into their course work in a several ways. Podcasts can duplicate the classroom lecture as a backup for

reviewing complex topics, share additional information with the student or introduce or prepare the learner

for new information that will be covered during the subsequent class period (Lane 2006; Hew 2009). Since

their introduction in 2004, podcasts have grown in popularity; eMarketer forecasted that while 6.5 million

8


people would download a podcast once a week by the end of 2008, 25 million people would be regular

podcast listeners by 2012 (Claxton & Woo 2008, p.149).

9


b. Learning Management Systems (LMSs)

Learning Management Systems (LMSs) are a common tool for the delivery of online courses and

increasingly form a core component of blended learning support. An LMS is software which can manage

the administration and content for different courses. Students can be registered for a single or multiple

courses and gain access to appropriate content such as lecture slides, class discussions and project

submission tools. The software will generally personalise the interface for each student or course

coordinator (Chen et al. 2010). Most LMSs are delivered online. LMSs are generally available through

proprietary licenses; however some are free and open source. Commonly used examples are:

Blackboard (now merged with WebCT) (www.blackboard.com) is the most commonly used

LMS among academics (Chen et al. 2010).

Moodle (www.moodle.org) is free open source software which manages and delivers courses

for 1000s of students (Fong & Wang 2007).

Other examples of less popular LMSs include:

ATutor (www.atutor.ca) is a tutorial management service with a membership fee, providing

fewer web based tools than most LMSs (ATutor 2011).

desire2learn (www.desire2learn.com) is a fairly new LMS offering ePortfoilios, learning

repositories to search for information, mobile links, analytical tools and the ability to

synchronize lectures (audio and video). Desire2Learn is not free (desire2learn 2012).

olat (www.olat.org) is a free open source LMS, and has the capacity to manage up to 700

students (olat 2011).

c. Video conferencing

Improvements in connection speeds have opened the way for high speed, high quality video sharing where

lectures and tutorials can be broadcast in real time to students. Video of students may also be broadcast to

other students and course instructors or students may use instant messaging to simultaneously interact

with the instructor or their peers. Files or desktops can also be shared, providing a problem solving

environment which replicates practical problem solving sessions. Scopia Desktop is a popular Internet

based video conferencing system that can be accessed by a web browser plug-in. Using high definition

10


video, Scopia Desktop handles multiple connections simultaneously with echo cancellation and background

noise suppression (Belawait et al. 2008). In other words, Scopia facilitates data sharing as well as

simultaneous video conferencing from multiple locations. Adobe Acrobat Connect (formally known as

Breeze) is another web-based video conferencing option that can be assessed as a real-time or recorded

video (Chuang 2009). Adobe Connect facilitates the sharing of visual displays, simultaneous video and

uploading of electronic files in asynchronous environments (Park & Bonk 2007).

Further information on videoconferencing research is available from JISC (2012).

3. The pedagogy, effectiveness and limitations of blended learning

Constructivism is often cited as the pedagogical theory behind blended learning models (Morphew 2000).

Hazari et al. (2009) define constructivism as inquiry-based, discovery learning in which learners construct

their personal interpretation of knowledge based on previous experience and apply that knowledge in a

particular context (Hazari et al. 2009, p.189). Blended learning environments use a mixture of discourse in

the classroom environment and visual media in the electronic environment to reinforce and build

knowledge. As such, the central components of the constructivist learning space are multimedia and

information retrieval concepts (Balram & Dragićević 2006, p.6). Clark et al. (2007) argue blended learning

is appropriate for constructivist and collaborative approaches to teaching and learning and for problem

solving. This notion is supported by a number of authors (Hill & Solent 1999; Hurley et al. 1999; Sui &

Bednarz 1999). Morphew (2000) outlined three basic structural assumptions of constuctivistism that are

essential to the theory behind blended learning. One, learners construct the meaning of knowledge, two,

learning occurs through social interaction and three, real world problem solving supports meaningful

learning (Balram & Dragićević 2007, p.3).

a. Effectiveness

The uptake of blended learning tools has prompted researchers to test the effectiveness of blended learning

environments in undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. The literature on blended learning

highlights that effective modes of learning have changed as students typically work 15 hours a week and

have less time to study (McInnis & Hartley 2002; Boulos et al. 2006; Phillips et al. 2007). Universities have

11


also adjusted their teaching methodologies since the 1990’s and many now include blended learning (Fong

& Wang 2007).

However, research on the effectiveness of blended learning has had mixed results. Some quantitative

studies that compare classroom instruction with online learning show that student achievement is equal in

online learning environments (Machtmes & Asher 2000; Cavanaugh 2001; Allen et al. 2002; Shachar &

Neumann 2003; Ungerleider & Burns 2003; Clark et al. 2007). And Bekele and Menchaca (2008) found

that “nearly as many studies have concluded that technology-supported learning makes no significant

difference as those that have found it does” (p. 1). Many of the studies on learning retention in blended

learning have wide variability in outcomes. Results from a meta-analysis of 232 studies, containing 688

independent achievement, attitude (or satisfaction) and retention outcomes of online learning literature

between 1985 and 2002, had “significant heterogeneity in each subset” (Bernard et al. 2004, p.29).

Although research is mixed on the benefits of blended learning over traditional learning, blended learning is

thought to improve pedagogy by providing environments through Web 2.0 tools that facilitate more student

interaction and alternative modes of learning than strictly face-to-face environments. As such, the

effectiveness of blended learning is not absolute and can be determined by a number of factors, such as

suitability of course content and student expectations. Within traditional environments, use of technology

is increasing and has been found to improve face-to-face learning. A number of authors have examined

how Web 2.0 technology can benefit students (Brittain et al. 2006; Cecebi & Tekdal 2006; Soloman &

Schrum 2007; Richardson 2008). For example, podcasts encourage active learning (Jenkins & Lynch

2006; Lum 2006), increase student participation in group activities (Berlanger 2005), and add a sense of

community. Students report that podcasts enhance the learning experience (Edirishingha et al. 2007), and

are useful in conjunction with lecture slides (Parson et al. 2009). Podcasts have also been cited to give

students more control over their learning (Minocha 2009) and time to think about course material

(Schultze-Mosgau et al. 2004; Goldberg et al. 2006), providing a deeper understanding of the material and

increased retention (Long & Fabey 2011, p.15). Hazari et al. (2009) note that online forums, such as blogs

and wikis, are thought to empower the student by letting them express their views. However, instructors

must learn how to moderate online discussions effectively before they use them in a course (Aycock et al.

2002). Online coursework may also help students with reading, writing, reflective and collaborative

learning skills (Leight 2008).

12


Recent research on blended learning indicates that online learning should not replace face-to-face

communication; rather online learning should enhance the classroom learning experience (Goldberg &

McKhann 2000; Signor 2003; Goldberg et al. 2006; Williams & Fardon 2007; Chen et al. 2010). Students

respond positively to the use of online learning tools in conjunction with traditional methods. Online

learning courses were rated as more effective and a more desirable method of learning when combined with

traditional courses. For example, Goldberg and McKhann (2000) delivered a series of online courses

alongside traditional lectures for 40 undergraduate psychology students. Exam scores were higher by

approximately 14% for those students who participated in the enhanced course. Goldberg and McKhann

(2000) hypothesized this may have been the result of the extra control over the delivery of the lecture,

allowing students the chance to learn at their own pace, in a variety of modalities. Soong et al.’s (2006)

research on the use of online learning suggests that video recorded lectures have benefited students, with

94.4% of the 1160 graduates and undergraduates reporting video recorded lectures as useful (p.790). These

videos were voted particularly helpful for reviewing difficult parts of the lecture and for exam preparation

(Soong et al. 2006). The use of asynchronous audio feedback over text-based feedback has been cited by

students as enhancing teaching presence and the students’ sense of community in the classroom (Ice et al.

2007, p.5). Chen et al. (2010) found a generally positive relationship between the use of online learning

technology and student learning outcomes using the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) online

learning survey. Results from this study with a sample size of 17,819 students provides evidence that the

use of technology in class increases student engagement, and improves student’s information literacy (Chen

et al. 2010).

b. Limitations

As the conflicting results on the benefit of technologically assisted learning over traditional face-to-face

learning indicates, there are several difficulties that affect the success of students enrolled in blended

learning courses. These difficulties include reduced class time, the difficulty of monitoring student

progress, technological literacy and lack of face-to-face interaction (Ravenscroft 1997). Aycock et al. (2002)

found that students were critical of blended learning if they felt that face-to-face and time-out-of-class

components of the course were not well integrated. Some studies report students resisting the use of

technology “if they believe it will reduce the amount of interpersonal contact with the academic staff”

13


(McElroy & Blount 2006, p.549). A major complaint from students in blended learning courses is the lack

of connection with their peers and poor integration of online learning with in-class work (Song et al. 2004).

Blended learning can also be problematic for traditional group projects (Campbell & Ellingson 2010).

Isolation is thought to contribute to higher student dropout rates in purely online courses (Bocchi et al.

2004), and to students feeling less motivated to learn in blended learning environments (Inoue 2007).

However, evidence in Rovai and Jordan’s (2004) study of 68 psychology students examining the

relationship between face-to-face learning, traditional learning and sense of community found that blended

learning, produced a stronger sense of community among students than either traditional or fully online

courses (p.1). In particular, wikis and other interactive tools may foster a sense of community among online

learning students (Campbell & Ellingson 2010). Kanuka and Jugdev (2006, p.155) note that further

research is needed to assess how instructors can reduce the isolation and anxiety caused by blended

learning environments.

Research on student satisfaction with support services report that technical support can effect satisfaction

with online courses (Cho & Berge 2002; Sands 2002), and note that the administrative structure can be a

major obstacle in providing quality blended learning environments. The provision of strong student

support services may reduce the level of stress and anxiety associated with blended learning (Moore &

Kearsley 2005). The few studies that specifically examine dissatisfaction with blended learning courses

note that unclear expectations from instructors, tight timelines, workload and poor software interface, slow

access and no synchronous communication lead to frustrations with the courses (So & Brush 2008, p.321).

Aspects of a blended learning environment may be difficult if the student has trouble understanding how to

use online resources and has limited computer access (Clark et al. 2007). Student feedback from courses

in South Africa highlight the need to establish a programme that allows students to discuss uncertainties

about the online courses (Breetzke 2007). Aycock et al. (2002) note that systems should be put in place to

monitor the student success as well as gauging their technical literacy before they enrol in a blended

learning course (Balram & Dragićević 2008). The importance of students’ self-regulated learning and

motivation is pivotal to their success in blended learning environments. Wang and Newlin (2002)

identified self-efficacy for course content as well as technology skills as strong predictors of learner

performance.

14


Specific tools also have specific limitations. For instance, Park and Bonk (2007) noted that while Adobe

Connect was a useful tool for group project collaboration, time-delayed interactions in asynchronous

discussion forums made students more cautious about what they say (Park & Bonk 2007, p.251). Results

from a blended learning graduate counselling course indicate that, “while students came to class better

prepared to discuss the material and enjoyed the podcasts, they preferred traditional teacher-led

discussions to the podcasting technology” (Long & Fabry 2011, p.13). Similarly, a study of 69

undergraduates found that although students enjoyed podcasts, they did not support replacing lectures with

podcasts (O’Bannon 2009, p.217). Other barriers to podcast use includes unfamiliarity with podcasts, time

consuming post-production and preparation (Long & Fabry 2011), technical problems in accessing and

downloading podcasts (Parson et al. 2009).

Increased faculty workload in online courses and administrative comprehension of online learning have

also been acknowledged as inhibiting the success of blended learning environments (Dibiase & Rademacher

2005). Although Bender and Vredevoogd (2006) did not find online education technologies increased

faculty workload in architecture and design studios.

Different disciplines and programmes may be more or less suited to blended learning environments (Ellis et

al. 2005). For example, programmes that facilitate ‘case-based learning’, requiring the learner to acquire

skills and knowledge within a specific context have been found difficult to manage in blended learning

environments. For example, veterinarian students reported being “unsure of how to approach the use of

online resources in ways likely to maximize benefits for learning in blended experiences” (Ellis et al. 2005,

p.239). Programmes oriented towards mature entrants, such as Masters of Business Administration

(MBA), may be more appropriate for online learning, providing education anytime and anywhere to those

who are unable to leave their jobs (Bocchi et al. 2004; Kanuka & Jugdev 2006), although higher withdrawal

rates have been found in MBA online courses (Bocchi et al. 2004).

4. Conclusion

Is blended learning or technologically-supported learning superior to traditional in-class approaches? The

evidence outlined in this paper shows that while some studies suggest blended learning is superior, other

studies have conflicting results. Despite these differing opinions, blended learning technologies are

increasingly applied. It is highly likely that flexible technical tools enhance the student learning experience

15


but the tools and their application must be considered. Deciding on the application of blended learning

tools will require staff to consider the needs and expectations of students as well as the restrictions or

opportunities offered by course content. Certain tools will be more or less effective in different disciplines

and will not be effective if applied universally.

Overall, the benefits of blended learning are mostly of convenience and control, emphasizing that learning

can be accomplished anytime and anywhere. Online learning technology (and mobile technology) is also

more effective when it enhances face-to-face learning and interaction, rather than as an alternative.

16


5. References

Allen, I., & Seaman J. (2004). Entering the mainstream: The quality and extent of online education in the

United States. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.

Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N. & Mabry, E. (2002). Comparing student satisfaction with distance

education to traditional classrooms in higher education: A meta-analysis. American Journal of

Distance Education, 16(2), 83-97.

ATutor (2011). ATutor learning management tools. Retrieved 9 February 2012 from

http://atutor.ca/index.php

Aycock, A., Garnham, M. & Kaleta, R. (2002). Lessons learned from the Hybrid Course Project. Teaching

with Technology Today, 8(6). Retrieved 8 February 2012 from

http://www.wisconsin.edu/ttt/articles/garnham2.htm

Balram, S. & Dragićević, S. (2008). Collaborative spaces for GIS-based multimedia cartography in blended

environments. Computers & Education, 50(1), 371-385.

Bekele, T. & Menchaca, M. (2008). Research on internet-supported learning: A review. The Quarterly

Review of Distance Education, 9(4), 373-405.

Belawait, T., Baggaley, J. & Dhanarajan, G. (2008). PAN: Pan Asian Networking Programme Initiative of

the International Development Research Centre, 2008. PANdora Distance Education Guidebook (1st

Edition), India: Santosh Panda, India Gandhi National Open University. Retrieved 8 February 2012

from http://www.pandora-asia.org/guidebook/PDEG-ed0.pdf

Beldarrian, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student

interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), 139-153.

Bender, D. & Vredevoogd, J. (2006). Using online education technologies to support studio instruction.

Educational Technology & Society, 9(4), 114-122.

Berlanger, Y. (2005). Duke university iPod first year experience final evaluation report. Retrieved 9

February 2012 from http://cit.duke.edu/pdf/ipod_initiative_04_05.pdf

Bernard, R., Abrami, P., Lou, Y., Brokohovski, E., Wade, A. Wozney, L., Wallet, P., Fiset, M. & Huang, B.

(2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the

empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379-439.

17


Bersin, J. (2005). The four stages of e-learning: An maturity model for online corporate training. Oakland,

CA: Bersin & Associates.

Bocchi, J., Eastman, J. & Swift, C.O. (2004). Retaining the online learner: Profile of students in an online

MBA program and implications for teaching them. Journal of Education for Business, 79(4), 245-253.

Boulos, M., Maramba, I. & Wheeler, S. (2006). Wikis, blogs and podcasts: A new generation of Web-based

tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and education. BMC Medical Education, 6(41). Retrieved

on 8 February 2012 from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/6/41

Breetzke, G. (2007). A critique of distance learning as an educational tool for GIS in South Africa. Journal

of Geography in Higher Education, 31(1), 197-209.

Brittain, S., Glowacki, P., Van Ittersum, J. & Johnson, L. (2006). Podcasting lectures. Educause Quarterly,

29(3), 24-31.

Campbell, K. & Ellingson, D. (2010). Cooperative learning at a distance: An experiment with Wikis.

American Journal of Business Education, 3(4), 83-89.

Cavanaugh, C. (2001). The effectiveness of interactive distance education technologies in K-12 learning: A

meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(1), 73-88.

Cebeci, Z. & Tekdal, M. (2006). Using podcasts as audio learning objects. Interdisciplinary Journal of

Knowledge and Learning Objects, 2, 7-57.

Chen, P., Lambert, A. & Guidry, K. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-based learning

technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54, 1222-1232.

Cho, K. & Berge, Z. (2002). Overcoming barriers to distance training and education. USDLA Journal,

16(1), 1-12.

Chuang, C. (2009). Mobile technologies enhance the e-learning opportunity. American Journal of

Business Education, 9(2), 49-54.

Clark, A., Janice, M. & Yool, S. (2007). GIS pedagogy, Web-based learning and student achievement.

Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 31(2), 225-239.

Claxton, L & Woo A. (2008). How to say it: Marketing with new media: A guide to promoting your small

business using websites, e-zines, blogs, and podcasts. New York: Penguin-Prentice Hall.

Copley, J. (2011). Audio and video podcasts of lectures for campus based students: production and

evaluation of student use. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(4), 387-399.

18


DeBourgh, F. (2008). Use of classroom "clickers" to promote acquisition of advanced reasoning skills.

Nurse Education in Practice, 8(2), 76-87.

desire2learn (2012). desire2learn. Retrieved 8 February 2012 from http://www.desire2learn.com

Dibiase, D. & Rademacher, H. (2005). Scaling up: Faculty workload, class size, and student satisfaction in a

distance learning course on geographic information science. Journal of Geography in Higher

Education, 29(1), 139-158.

Downes, S. (2004). Educational Blogging. Educause Review, 39(5), 14-26.

Edirishingha, P., Rizzi, C., Nie, M. & Rothwell, L. (2007). Podcasting to provide teaching and learning

support for an undergraduate module on English language and communication. Turkish Online

Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 87-107.

Ellis, R., Marcus, G. & Taylor, R. (2005). Learning through inquiry: Student difficulties with online course-

based material. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(4), 239-252.

Fong, J. & Wang, F. (Ed.s) (2007). Blended learning: Workshop on blended learning. In: The Workshop

on Blended Learning, 15-17 August 2007, Edinburgh: The Hong Kong Web Society.

Goldberg, H., Hasse, E., Shoukas, A. & Schramm, L. (2006). Redefining classroom instruction. Advanced

Physiological Education, 30, 124-127.

Goldberg, H. & McKhann, G. (2000). Student test scores are improved in a virtual learning environment.

Advances in Physiological Education, 23(1), 59-66.

Hazari, S., North, A. & Moreland, D. (2009). Investigating Pedagogical Value of Wiki Technology. Journal

of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 187-198.

Hew, K. (2009). Use of audio podcast in K-12 and higher education: A review of research topics and

methodologies. Education Technology Research and Development, 57(3), 333-357.

Hill, A. & Solent, M. (1999). Geography on the web: Changing the learning paradigm? Journal of

Geography, 98(3), 100-107.

Hurley, J., Proctor, J. & Ford, P. (1999). Collaborative inquiry at a distance: Using the internet in

geography education. Journal of Geography, 98(3), 128-140.

Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P. & Wells, J. (2007). Using asychronous audio feedback to enhance teaching

preence and students sense of community, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 3-25.

19


Inoue, Y. (2007). Online education for lifelong learning. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.

Jenkins, M. & Lynch, K. (2006). I want to tell you a story. In: 23rd Annual ASCILITE Conference, Who's

Learning? Whose Technology?, 3-6 December. Sydney: The University of Sydney.

JISC. (2012). HEFCE on behalf of JICS. Retrieved 8 February 2012 from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/

Kanuka, H. & Jugdev, K. (2006). Distance education MBA students: An investigation into the use of an

orientation course to address academic and social integration issues. Open Learning, 21(2), 153-166.

Lane, C. (2006). Podcasting at the UW: An evaluation of current use. Seattle, WA: The University of

Washington Office of Learning Technologies.

Leight, J. (2008). Lifting the fog on instructional blogs. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation &

Dance, 79, 52-55.

Long, R. & Fabry, D. (2011). Exploring podcasting of requried reading in a graduate counseling

course. Perspectives in Learning: A Journal of the College of Education and Health Professions, 12(1),

12-20.

Lum, L. (2006). The power of podcasting. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 23, 32-35.

Machtmes, K. & Asher, J. (2000). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of telecourses in distance education.

American Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 27-46.

Mason, R., Pegler, D. & Weller, M. (2004). E-portfolios: an assessment tool for online courses. British

Journal of Educational Technology, 35(6), 717-727.

McElroy, J. & Blount, Y. (2006). You, me, iLecture. In: 23rd annual ascilite conference: Who's learning?

Whose technology?, 3-6 December. Sydney: The University of Sydney.

McInnis, C., & Hartley, R. (2002). Managing study and work: The impact of full-time study and paid work

on the undergraduate experience in Australian universities. Retrieved 8 February 2012 from

http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/publications_resources/profiles/managing_study_

and_work.htm

Mindel, J. & Sameer, V. (2006). Wikis for teaching and learning. Communications of the Association for

Information Systems, 18, 265-289.

Minocha, S. (2009). A study on the effective use of social software by further and higher education in the

UK to support student learning and engagement. Bristol, UK: The Open University.

20


Moore, M. & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Thompson

Wadsworth.

Morphew, V. (2000). Web-based learning and instruction: A constructivist approach. In L. Lau, (Ed.)

Distance learning technologies: issues, trends, and opportunities (pp.1-15). Hershey, PA: Idea Group

Publishers.

Nardi, B., Schiano, D., Gumbrecht, M. & Swartz, L. (2004). Why we blog. Communications of the ACM,

47(12), 41-46.

O'Bannon, B., Lubke, J., Beard, J. & Britt, V. (2011). Using podcasts to replace lecture: Effects on student

achievement. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1885-1892.

olat (2011). olat. Retrieved 8 February 2012 from http://www.olat.org/website/en/html/index.html

Park, Y. & Bonk, C. (2007). Synchronous learning experiences: Distance and residential learners’

perspectives in a blended graduate course. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(3), 245-264.

Parson, V., Reddy, P., Wood, J. & Senior, C. (2009). Educating and iPod generation: an undergraduate

attitudes, experiences and understandings of vodcast and podcast use. Learning, Media and

Technology, 34(3), 215-228.

Phillips, R., McNeill, M. & Woo, K. (2007). ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. In:

ASCILITE (Australasian Society for Computers and Learning in Tertiary Education) Conference.

Singapore: ASCILITE.

Ravenscroft, S. (1997). In support of cooperative learning. Issues in Accounting Education, (Spring), 187-

198.

Reay, J. (2001). Blended learning - a fusion for the future. Knowledge Management Review, 4(3), 1-12.

Richardson, W. (2008). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Robles, G. & Gonzalez-Barahona, J. (2010). Influence of libre software in education: The blogs planet case.

Education Engineering (EDUCON), 14(16), 1127-1130.

Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. & Abrahamson, L. (2004). Classroom Response and communication systems:

Research and theory. American Educational Research Association Conference April 2004, San Diego,

CA.

21


Rooney, J. (2003). Blended learning opportunities to enhance eductional programming and meetings.

Association Management, 55(6), 26-32.

Rovai, A. & Jordan, H. (2004). Blended learning and sense of commuity: A comparative analysis with

traditional and fully online graduate courses. The International Review of Research in Open and

Distance Learning, 5(2), 1-10.

Sands, P. (2002). Inside out, upside down. Strategies for connecting online and face-to-face instruction in

hybrid courses. Teaching with Technoloy Today, 8(6), 1-8.

Schultze-Mosgau, S., Zielinski T. & Lochner, J. (2004). Web-based, virtual course units as a didactic

concept for medical teaching. Medical Teacher, 26(4), 336-342.

Shachar, M. & Neumann, Y. (2003). Differences between traditional and distance education academic

performances: A meta-analytic approach. International Journal of Research in Open and Distance

Education, 4(2), 1-14.

SiteGround (2012). Wiki Services. Retrieved 8 February 2012 from

http://www.siteground.com/compare_best_wiki.htm

So, H-J. & Brush, T. (2008). Student perceptions of collabortive learning, social presence and satisfaction

in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1),

318-336.

Soloman, G. & Schrum, L. (2007). Perceived value of podcasting: Student communication-medium

preferences. In: 12th Americas conference on information systems. Acapulco, Mexico.

Song, L., Singleton, E., Hill, J. & Koh, M. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful

and challenging characteristics. Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 59-70.

Soong, S., Chan, L., Cheers, C., & Hu, C. (2006). Impact of video recorded lectures among students. In L

Markauskaite, P. Goodyear, & P. Reinmann (Eds.) Who's Learning? Whose Technology? Proceedings

of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE) Conference

(pp. 789-793). Sydney, Australia.

Sui, D. & Bednarz, R. (1999). The message is the medium: Geographic education in the age of the internet:

Introduction. Journal of Geography, 98(3), 93-99.

22


Ungerleider, C. & Burns, T. (2003). A systematic review of the effectiveness and efficiency of networked

ICT in education: A state of the art report to the Council of Ministers Canada and Industry Canada.

Ottowa: Industry Canada.

Wagner, C. (2004). Wiki: A technology for conversational knowledge management and group

collaboration. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13, 265-289.

Wang, A. & Newlin, M. (2002). Predictors of web-student performance: The role of self-efficacy and

reasons for taking an online class. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(2), 151-163.

Ward, J. & LaBranche, G. (2003). Blended learning: The convergence of e-learning and meetings.

Franchising World, 35(4), 22-33.

Appendix 2: Evaluation of Open Source GIS Software

Public understanding and demand for digital geographic information has grown substantially over the last

five years. Increasing numbers of online mapping applications, crowd sourced geographic data capture (for

example, for disaster relief) and in car and phone based satellite navigation systems have all raised

geographic awareness. The demand for spatial professionals has also increased and a skills shortage has

been identified (e.g. Lester, 2010). This greater awareness and skill shortage opens up a key opportunity for

spatial education.

Geographic Information Systems and Science (GIS) revolve around the software or science behind the use

of information with spatial attributes. Most GIS teaching and practise uses proprietary software (PS), such

as ESRI’s ArcGIS or Pitney Bowes’ MapInfo. However, with the increasing geospatial awareness, the

demand for non-traditional GIS offerings is likely to increase. The proprietary software tend to have two

main drawbacks. First, they can be expensive to use and require (in many cases) annual license or

maintenance fees and second, the user has limited ability to ‘peer under the hood’ to get a more detailed

understanding of how the processes they are using actually work or limiting the flexibility the user has to

adapt these processes.

Alternatives to proprietary software come in two main forms, Open Source (OS) software and Free and

Open Source Software (FOSS). Open source software allow end users to make modifications to the program

source code and through this access, users can make improvements to the software or to modify existing

code to solve new problems. These modifications can also be included in new releases of that software. OS

software does not have to be free and in some cases there is a cost to the user of the initial purchase.

However, the users’ control over the use of that software is far greater than with proprietary software and

23


usually this cost is less than proprietary GIS options. FOSS is provided without cost to users (Feller et. al.

2005). Restrictions on use are detailed in the OS license for the software. A number of different OS

licenses exist (see http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php) but most of the better known FOSS GIS

programs use the GNU General Public License Version 2 (GPL v2) (Steiniger & Bocher 2009).

Within an educational environment, knowledge of OS GIS can be a valuable addition to a student’s skillset.

By having a knowledge of an OS GIS, students...

● are attractive to smaller organisations who are unable to afford the fees associated with someproprietary software,

● should also have a fuller understanding of what the tools actually do in comparison with the blackbox approach of proprietary software,

● have a greater familiarity with a rapidly changing development environment,● may be more willing to search for or develop alternative solutions as they can view the internal

workings of the software, and● may have greater engagement with GIS development by using a community developed software.

Despite these potential benefits to OS in general and for students in particular, OS GIS is not widely used in

industry. This fact may be attributable to a number of reasons;

● OS GIS is not commonly taught in universities due to preferential pricing structures and support byproprietary software companies.

● the GUI for OS GIS is usually not as intuitive as many PS.● software documentation is usually less developed than PS.● support is not readily available or may be limited. Usually support is provided with annual license

fees with PS.● most OS GIS assume that users have a greater familiarity with programming and are willing to use

command line interfaces to interact with the software.● in many cases, OS GIS was developed to overcome particular problems and as such is unlikely to

have as wide a range of tools available as ESRI’s ArcGIS, for example.● a lack of compatibility of different file types is also an issue. However GDAL and the open standards

movement (see Morris 2010) are overcoming this limitation. GDAL is a FOSS translation librarycapable for handling data formats across different operating systems and GIS programs.

This report has focused on FOSS desktop GIS options. A desktop GIS software was defined as ‘a mapping

software that is installed onto and runs on a personal computer and allows users to display, query, update,

and analyse data about geographic locations and the information linked to those locations’ (ESRI 2008).

This document aims to identify and evaluate common FOSS GIS desktop software for its suitability as a

teaching tool at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. In the first stage, 18 Open Source Geographic

Information Systems (OSGIS) software products were provisionally evaluated (Table 1). From this master

list, six of the most prominent OSGIS were evaluated in further detail under the assumption that students

will benefit most from a knowledge of a better known OS software rather than more niche based

programmes.

24


Table 1: List of Open Source Geographic Information Systems (OS GIS)

Software Source

1 AccuGlobe http://www.accuglobe.net/

2 DIVA http://www.diva-gis.org/

3 GRASS http://grass.fbk.eu/

4 gvSIG http://www.gvsig.org/web/

5 HidroSIG http://sourceforge.net/projects/hidrosig/

6 ILWIS http://www.ilwis.org/

7 JUMP (openjump, kosmo) http://www.openjump.org/

8 KIDS http://www.kidsgis.org/

9 LandSerf http://www.soi.city.ac.uk/~jwo/landserf/

10 MapMaker http://www.mapmaker.com/

11 MapWindow http://www.mapwindow.org/

12 Objectland http://www.gis-objectland.com/

13 OrbisGIS http://www.orbisgis.org/

14 QGIS or Quantum GIS http://www.qgis.org/

15 SAGA http://www.saga-gis.org/en/index.html

16 SavGIS http://www.savgis.org/en/

17 SpringGIS http://www.dpi.inpe.br/spring/english/

18 uDIG http://udig.refractions.net/

The 6 FOSS GIS options were evaluated each under a number of criteria (compatible for python and R

scripting, suitable for raster and vector data, intuitive GUI (Graphical User Interface), Programming

Language for the source code and the quality of the user documentation. The results of this evaluation are

presented in a series of tables (Tables 2 to 7). The in-house needs for the programme was that it would be

compatible with Python which potentially limited the selection of software from this list and that it would

be suitable for teaching at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. As less experienced users (those at

undergraduate) will be expected to use the software, user documentation and GUI are particularly

important.

QGIS was eventually chosen as the most user friendly and flexible option for both undergraduate and

postgraduate teaching bearing in mind the preference for a python compatible programme.

25


Table 2: Evaluation of ILWIS (http://www.ilwis.org/).

Criteria Presence Comments

Description Combination of command line and GUI. Has arobust set of features.Technical capabilities need to be verified throughusing an independent data set and task.

Raster Capabilities Yes R/W

Vector Capabilities Yes R/W

Graphical User Interface(GUI)

Yes easy to use, intuitive, has drag and drop

User Documentation Yes introductory tutorial was clear and informative,good educational exercise.To do: DEM tutorial to test more advancedcapabilitiesChapter 10 tutorial DEMCrashed twice on final command “open pixelinformation”Tutorial seems not to have been updated to 3.7,asks to push a button that no longer exists, mostof tutorial works though. Will try a different onenext?

Scripting Yes ILWIS script

R Statistics Compatible Yes see http://spatial-analyst.net/wiki/index.php?title=Software

Command Line Option Yes need to investigate further

Programming Language MS Visual C

Table 3: Evaluation of LANDSERF 2.3 (http://www.soi.city.ac.uk/~jwo/landserf/)


Description Stable,easy/simpleinterface

easy install

initial impression - good,not necessarily the most powerful GIS but hasstrong surface analysis capabilities.



Graphical User Interface Yes no command line encountered in tutorial

26


(GUI)

User Documentation Yes downloadable manual, online tutorials and addons

Scripting No

R Statistics Compatible No

Command Line Option Yes optional console (landscript)

Programming Language Java

Table 4: Evaluation of gvSIG1.10 - http://www.gvsig.org/web/


Description slow, need tofiddlearound tochangelanguage.

taking an hour to get started, support patchy inenglish, letting this one go for now




Yes last version 1.9

1.10 new functions in Spanish

User Documentation Yes

Scripting Yes Java

R Statistics Compatible No

Command Line Option Yes Optional console (jython)

Programming Language Java

Table 4: Evaluation of QGIS 1.5.0 - http://www.qgis.org/


Description Frontend for GRASS providing a more accessibleuser interface




Yes

27


User Documentation Yes manual and workshop (tutorial) in pdf formatx

Scripting Yes Python

R Statistics Compatible Yes http://spatial-analyst.net/wiki/index.php?title=Software

Command Line Option

Programming Language C++, Qt4,Python

Table 4: Evaluation of SAGA - http://www.saga-gis.org/en/index.html


Description Small footprint


Vector Capabilities Yes R/W GDAL


Yes rudimentary

User Documentation Yes Limited to community FAQs and limited tutorials

Scripting Yes SAGA Python Interface command line


Command Line Option Yes Console

Programming Language C++

Table 4: Evaluation of GRASS - http://grass.osgeo.org/


Description

Raster Capabilities Yes R/W GDAL

Vector Capabilities Yes R/W OGR


Yes

User Documentation Yes Difficult

Scripting Yes Python, Bash, Perl

28



Command Line Option Yes

Programming Language C, Shell,Tcl/Tk,Python

BibliographyESRI, 2008. GIS Dictionary [online]. Available from: http://support.esri.com/index.cfm?fa=

knowledgebase.gisDictionary.search&searchTerm=desktop%20GIS [Accessed 17

April 2008].

Feller, J., Fitgerald, B., Hissam S., and Lakhani, K., 2005. Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software.

MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

GDAL Development Team, 2011. GDAL/OGR FAQ

http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/FAQGeneral#WhatisGDAL

Hengl et al., 2009. SAGA vs GRASS: A Comparative Analysis of the Two Open Source Desktop GIS for the

Automated Analysis of Elevation Data. Proceedings of Geomorphometry 2009. Zurich, Switzerland, 31

August - 2 September, 2009.

http://www.igc.usp.br/pessoais/guano/downloads/Hengl_etal_2009_gmorph.pdf

Lester, M., 2010. Industry Snapshot, http://www.utas.edu.au/spatial/snapshots.html, accessed 31-1-2010.

Morris, P., 2010. Preservation of Geospatial Data: the Connection with Open Standards Development inPreservation in Digital Cartography. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography, 2, 129-146.

Pickles, J., 1995. Ground truth: the social implications of geographic information systems. Guildford

Press, New York.

Rey, S.J., 2009. Show me the code: spatial analysis and open source Journal of Geographical Systems,

2009, Volume 11, Number 2, Pages 191-207

Schweik, C., Fernandez, M., Hamel, M., Kashwan, L.Q., and Stepanov, A., 2009. Reflections of an Online

Geographic Information Systems Course Based on Open Source Software. Social Science Computer Review

27: 118 DOI: 10.1177/0894439308320793

29


Steiniger, S., and Bocher, E., 2009. An overview on current free and open source desktop GIS

developments, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 23: 10, 1345 — 1370

Wilson, J.P., and Fotheringham, A.S., 2007. The Handbook of Geographic Information Science. Malden,

MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Learning and Teaching Grant Report 2011 · 1 VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON Learning and Teaching Grant Report 2011 An exploration, evaluation and trial of a new blended learning

Documents