FONDECYT 2008
INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITIONNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR:
carlos gonzÁlez ugaldeNATIONAL FUND FOR SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT (FONDECYT)
Bernarda Morín 551, Providencia - Casilla 297-V, Santiago 21
Telephone: (56-2) 365 4350 Fax (56-2) 372 0828
e-mail:
SANTIAGO – CHILE
FONDECYT 2008
INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION
CHECKLIST
CONTENTS / YES / NO / PAGEI.2. / Principal Investigator Signature / ü / 3
I.3. / Legal Representative Signature / ü / 4
II. / Proposal Abstract / ü / 5
III.1. / Proposal Description / ü / 6
III.2. / Hypotheses / ü / 12
III.3. / Goals / ü / 13
III.4. / Methodology / ü / 14
III.5. / Work Plan / ü / 17
III.6. / Researcher Activities / ü / 18
III.7. / Time Committment to the Proposal / ü / 20
IV. / Prior Work on the Proposal Topic / ü / 21
V. / Additional Information / ü / 22
VI. / Principal Investigator Curriculum Vitae / ü / 23
VII. / Available Resources / ü / 30
VIII. / Amounts and Justification of Funds requested from FONDECYT (Sections VIII.1. To VIII.6) / ü / 31
IX.1 / Ethical, Biosafety and other Requirements / ü / Annexes
IX.2 / Certified Copy of Doctoral Degree or Medical Speciality / ü / Annexes
IX.3 / Laboratory Director´S Support Letter / ü
FONDECYT 2008
INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
Proposal Type / 11 / FONDECYT Council / 1 / 1. Science2. Technology / Proposed length
(2-3 years) / 1
Proposal Title: / ‘Blended’ learning in undergraduate university education
Proposal keywords
‘Blended’ learning / University teaching / University learningPrimary Field / 176 / Secondary Field / Application Sector / Region of Impact / RM
I.1. FUNDING REQUEST SUMMARY (1000CLP $)
BUDGET ITEMS / Annual Amounts (1000 CLP$)Year 1 / Year 2 / Year 3 / Total
Staff / 2560
Travel / 600
Operational Expenses / 740
Equipment / 100
Annual Total / 4000
I.2. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
González / Ugalde / Carlos / 11.860.687-6FATHER'S SURNAME / MOTHER’S MAIDEN SURNAME / NAMES / TAXPAYER ID NUMBER
Av. Vicuña Mackenna 4860 – Macul
MAILING ADDRESS
Santiago / 6865365 / 5520092
CITY / P.O. BOX / TELEPHONE / FAX
E-mail Address
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
INSTITUTION / PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR SIGNATURE
I.3. SPONSORING INSTITUTION:
INSTITUTION NAME (University/Faculty/Department) / FONDECYT UseFaculty of Education. Curriculum, technology and evaluation department. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
Legal Representative Name / Legal Representative Signature
Juan Larraín Correa
The above named Legal Representative hereby certifies to know the terms and regulations of this FONDECYT competition and proposal selection procedures. He(She) also declares that the above named institution will sponsor the applicant for the entire duration of the proposal.
I.4. ADDITIONAL FUNDING COMMITTED FROM OTHER INSTITUTIONS/SOURCES. If applicable, indicate the amount contributed by other institutions/enterprises interested in the proposal results. Please attach certifying letters.
INSTITUTION(S) / AMOUNT (1000 CLP$) / FONDECYT USETOTAL
II. PROPOSAL ABSTRACT:
Must be clear and informative. Describe the main issues you plan to address, including goals, methodology and expected outcomes. A good summary facilitates an adequate description and understanding of what you intend to achieve. Use the available space. (Use Arial/Verdana font size 10).
The research proposed in this application is aimed at exploring university teachers and students’ experiences of ‘blended’ learning. It replicates my doctoral research on teachers’ experiences of this sort of environment (González, 2009b). It also extends it by 1) incorporating students’ perspectives, 2) investigating how teacher and students’ experiences are associated; and 3) employing previously developed theoretical and methodological frameworks in a novel context: one Chilean higher education institution.
‘Blended’ learning environments - those where face-to-face and online teaching and learning are combined (Bonk & Graham, 2006; Oliver & Trigwell, 2005)- have become increasingly common in recent years. Most universities have installed virtual learning environments (VLE), online learning resources, video-conferencing and other digital technologies to support and improve the quality of students’ learning experience. Congruently with these developments, an important line of investigation on university learning and teaching, relational research (see e.g., Hounsell, Marton, & Entwistle, 1997; Marton & Booth, 1997; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999), has extended its focus from face-to-face to ‘blended’ environments, thus creating an emerging body of knowledge in this area. Relational research has steadily developed over the last thirty years. On learning, this line of investigation has shown that approaches to studying are associated with conceptions of learning and perceptions of the learning situation. Those students who adopt deeper approaches, tend to hold cohesive conceptions and present positive perceptions. Moreover, these are the ones who tend to obtain better learning outcomes (see e.g., Biggs, 2003; Bowden & Marton, 2004; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Ramsden, 2003). Similar results have been found on teaching. Teachers adopting ‘learning focused’ approaches tend to present cohesive conceptions and mostly positive perceptions of their teaching situation. Importantly, those who adopt ‘learning focused’ approaches are more likely to have students adopting deeper approaches to studying (see e.g., Åkerlind, 2003; 2004, 2007; 2006; Entwistle & Walker, 2000; Parpala & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2007; Prosser, Trigwell & Taylor, 1994; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996; K. Trigwell, Prosser, & Waterhouse, 1999). Recent studies, from this perspective, focusing on settings where e-learning is involved have explored areas such as online and face-to-face discussions, inquiry and problem-based learning, learning through writing, online information searching and case-based learning (see e.g., Edwards, 2006; R. Ellis & Goodyear, 2010; R. A. Ellis, 2006; R. A. Ellis & Calvo, 2004; R. A. Ellis, Goodyear, Brillant, & Prosser, 2008; R. A. Ellis, Goodyear, Calvo, & Prosser, 2008; R. A. Ellis, Goodyear, O'Hara, & Prosser, 2007; R. A. Ellis, Goodyear, Prosser, & O'Hara, 2006; R. A. Ellis, Hughes, Weyers, & Riding, 2009; R. A. Ellis, Marcus, & Taylor, 2005; R. A. Ellis, Steed, & Applebee, 2006; González, 2009a, 2009b, 2010; P. Goodyear, Asensio, Jones, Hodson, & Steeples, 2003; 2005; Lameras, Paraskakis, & Levy, 2007; McConnell & Zhao, 2006; Roberts, 2003). This proposed research builds on, and extends, this line of investigation by studying university teachers and students’ experiences of ‘blended’ learning environments at undergraduate level. In doing so, it will use both qualitative and quantitative methods of research. It will employ phenomenography (Bowden & Green, 2005; Bowden & Walsh, 2000; Marton & Booth, 1997), the qualitative branch of relational research, to investigate teachers and students’ conceptions of teaching and learning (face to face and online), approaches to teaching and learning (face to face and online) and how they perceive their learning and teaching situation. Interviews and open-ended questionnaires will be used for qualitative data gathering. Around 15 to 20 teachers will be interviewed. Students from these teachers’ courses will be invited to participate as interviewees or as respondents of open-ended questionnaires. It is expected to reach between 200 to 400 students, with around a quarter of them interviewed. A phenomenographic analysis, aimed at developing ‘outcome spaces’ representing the qualitatively different ways in which ‘blended’ learning is experienced, will be conducted. The study will also consider the use of quantitative questionnaires to further explore teachers and students’ experiences. Questionnaires previously developed within the framework of relational research will be employed (Biggs, Kember & Leung, 2001; González, 2009b; Prosser & Trigwell, 1997, 2006; Webster, Chan, Prosser, & Watkins, 2009). It is expected to reach around 1500 students and 200 teachers. Descriptive statistics, correlation, principal components and cluster analyses will be carried out.
At the end of this study, a research-based understanding of experiences of teaching and learning in ‘blended’ environments will be gained. For researchers, this new research-based knowledge will extend, from a relational framework, what is known about this increasingly important phenomenon; particularly addressing an unexplored issue: associations between students and teachers´ experiences in ‘blended’ environments; and providing evidence from a context where no research using this theoretical and methodological framework has been previously used. For academic developers and university teachers, this is study is also important. Prior relational research has helped to understand how university students’ experience learning. This has provided an empirical base for designing quality learning experiences. It has also helped to understand university teachers’ conceptions of, and approaches to, teaching. In this way, academic developers have been able to help them to change and develop their practice (Ginns, Kitay & Prosser, 2008). Consequently, results from this proposed research will help teachers, instructional designers and academic developers to better design ‘blended’ learning environments. Besides, these practical implications are also important taking into account the recent OECD (2009) report on Chilean higher education. It strongly criticised the quality of learning and teaching at university level. Findings from this research can have an impact on improving the situation described in the mentioned report.
III. PROPOSED RESEARCH.
III.1 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION, THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW: This section must include a general presentation of the problem to investigate, including novel aspects that you intend to address, approaches currently being used to solve it, theoretical background and review of the current literature on the topic. The maximum length of this section is 8 pages. (Use Arial/Verdana font size 10). Use additional sheets to list your cited references.
Introduction
This proposed research is about university teachers and students’ experiences of ‘blended’ learning environments. It is concerned with investigating their conceptions of, and approaches to, teaching and learning, and their perceptions of the situation when face-to-face and online learning activities are combined. It employs the 3P model (presage, process, product) (Biggs, 2003) for analysing these phenomena. The model is presented in figure 1.
Figure 1: 3P model of teaching and students’ learning
Presage Process Product
------
From Prosser & Trigwell (2006), p. 406.
Research underpinning figure 1 has established that, on the side of learning, approaches to studying are associated with conceptions of learning and perceptions of students’ learning situation. Students who adopt deeper approaches, tend to hold cohesive conceptions and present positive perceptions of their learning situation. Besides, they tend to gain better learning outcomes. On the teaching side, similar results have been found. Conceptions of teaching, approaches to teaching and perceptions of the teaching situation are associated. Teachers adopting ‘student-focused’ approaches tend to present cohesive conceptions and mostly positive perceptions of their teaching situation. Importantly, teachers who adopt ‘learning focused’ approaches to teaching are more likely to have students adopting deeper approaches to studying. Most investigations employing the 3P model have been carried out within what is known as relational research into higher education. Relational research is an approach built around a theoretical perspective which claims a non-dualistic understanding of the relationship between the individual and the world. Learning is about experiencing an object of study in a different way, where the experience is the relationship between the person experiencing and the object experienced. This perspective is fundamentally different from cognitivist and individual and social constructivist perspectives (which would interpret the 3P model differently). Next I briefly explain these differences. In the first place relational research is different from a cognitive perspective. In this one, sensory data is thought to come from the outside, stored in short term memory, processed internally and then stored in long term memory for an output to be generated to the outside world (Gardner). In this case, the parts of the 3P model would be interpreted as independently constituted and describing a causal chain from presage to product. In the second place, relational research is different from the individual constructivist perspective. In this one, knowledge is built internally and tested through interaction with the outside world (von Glasersfeld). In this case, the 3P model, rather than a causal chain would be interpreted as a continuously interacting system. In the third place, relational research is different from a social constructivist perspective (Vigotsky). In this one, knowledge is developed internally but through social interaction with the outside world. In this case, the 3P model would also be interpreted as an interacting system but giving prime importance to the social context in which teaching and learning occurs. Trigwell and Prosser (1999) argue that for each of these perspectives there is a separation between the individual and the world. Knowledge is brought from outside or built inside. They are dualistic perspectives, for each there are two separate elements: the individual and the world. Differently, relational research is non-dualistic. The individual and the world are not independent but are internally related through the individual’s awareness. The world is an experienced world. This idea is based on the phenomenological principle of intentionality (Dall'Alba, 2000), which establishes that experiences can never be separated from what is experienced: the experience is always an experience of something. In adopting this approach, the 3P model is interpreted as follows: in any act of teaching and learning, prior experiences, approaches, perceptions and outcomes are simultaneously present, although in some contexts some of them may come to the foreground of awareness while others may be more to the background (Marton & Booth, 1997). Thus, the 3P model does not represent a chain of causal processes, but an analysis of individual´s awareness of the teaching and learning activities teachers or students are engaged. For research reasons we considered these elements as analytically separated, but are aware that they are simultaneously experienced (Marton & Tsui, 2004). In summary, the elements of the experience of teaching and learning are not seen, by relational research, as ‘psychological’ characteristics of those involved; they are constituted in the relationship between who is experiencing and what is being experienced. Teachers and students may have different experiences in different learning situations; hence the relational nature of the academic experience: what and how something is experienced may vary in relation to particular teaching and learning situations (Bowden & Marton, 2004).
The rest of this section is structured as follows: in the next subsections I present the prior relevant research for this proposal. This is structured around three themes: ‘students’ learning research’, ‘research on university teaching’; and ‘e-learning and b-learning in higher education’. Then, I focus on ‘methods employed in relational research’. Finally, one sub-section relating the main elements of the reviewed literature, stating the focus of the present research and its significance will close the ‘proposal description, theoretical background and literature review’ section.