Conference Proceedings ascilite2015 Australasian Society for Computers in Learning and Tertiary Education Curtin University, Perth, Australia 1 Full Papers Full Papers Page Number The Conceived, the Perceived and the Lived: Issues with 21st Century Learning and Teaching Barac, Karin 13 Learning design for science teacher training and educational development Bjælde, Ole E; Caspersen, Michael E; Godsk, Mikkel; Hougaard, Rikke F; Lindberg, Annika 21 Tensions and turning points: exploring teacher decision-making in a complex eLearning environment Bradey, Scott 31 Navigate Me: maximising student potential via online support Clark, Colin; Andreacchio, Jessica; Kusevskis-Hayes, Rita; Lui, Jessie; Perry, Shauna; Taylor, Ethan 43 Designing an authentic professional development cMOOC Cochrane, Thomas; Narayan, Vickel; Burcio-Martin, Victorio; Lees, Amanda; Diesfeld, Kate 53 Investigating the effectiveness of an ecological approach to learning design in a first year mathematics for engineering unit Czaplinski, Iwona 65 Community volunteers in collaborative OER development DeVries, Irwin J 77 A ‘participant first’ approach to designing for collaborative group work in MOOCs Dona, Kulari Lokuge; Gregory, Janet 89 Building graduate attributes using student-generated screencasts Frawley, Jessica Katherine; Dyson, Laurel Evelyn; Tyler, Jonathan; Wakefield, James 100 Self-organising maps and student retention: Understanding multi-faceted drivers Gibson, David Carroll; Ambrose, Matthew; Gardner, Matthew 112 New applications, new global audiences: Educators repurposing and reusing 3D virtual and immersive learning resources Gregory, Sue; Gregory, Brent; Wood, Denise; O’Connell, Judy; Grant, Scott; Hillier, Mathew; Butler, Des; Masters, Yvonne; Stokes-Thompson, Frederick; McDonald, Marcus; Nikolic, Sasha; Ellis, David; Kerr, Tom; de Freitas, Sarah; Farley, Helen; Schutt, Stefan; Sim, Jenny; Gaukrodger, Belma; Jacka, Lisa; Doyle, Jo; Blyth, Phil; Corder, Deborah; Reiners, Torsten; Linegar, Dale; Hearns, Merle; Cox, Robert; Jegathesan, Jay Jay; Sukunesan, Suku; Flintoff, Kim; Irving, Leah 121 Conditions for successful technology enabled learning Henderson, Michael; Finger, Glenn; Larkin, Kevin; Smart, Vicky; Aston, Rachel; Chao, Shu-Hua 134 2 Full Papers To type or handwrite: student's experience across six e-Exam trials Hillier, Mathew 143 Predictors of students’ perceived course outcomes in e-learning using a Learning Management System Kwok, David 155 Digital leap of teachers: two Finnish examples of rethinking teacher professional development for the digital age Leppisaari, Irja; Vainio, Leena 168 An enhanced learning analytics plugin for Moodle: student engagement and personalised intervention Liu, Danny Yen-Ting; Froissard, Jean-Christophe; Richards, Deborah; Atif, Amara 180 Prior knowledge, confidence and understanding in interactive tutorials and simulations Lodge, Jason M; Kennedy, Gregor 190 Higher education students' use of technologies for assessment within Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) Lounsbury, Lynnette; Mildenhall, Paula; Bolton, David; Northcote, Maria; Anderson, Alan 202 Strong and increasing student demand for lecture capture in the changing Australian university classroom: results of a national and institutional survey Miles, Carol A 216 Analysis of MOOC Forum Participation Poquet, Oleksandra; Dawson, Shane 224 Designing for relatedness: learning design at the virtual cultural interface Reedy, Alison; Sankey, Michael 235 Open and Interactive Publishing as a Catalyst for Educational Innovations Ren, Xiang 248 Learning Design for digital environments: agile, team based and student driven Soulis, Spiros; Nicolettou, Angela 258 Interdisciplinary opportunities and challenges in creating m-learning apps: two case studies Southgate, Erica; Smith, Shamus P; Stephens, Liz; Hickmott, Dan; Billie, Ross 265 Paving the way for institution wide integration of Tablet PC Technologies: supporting early adopters in Science and Engineering Taylor, Diana; Kelly, Jacqui; Schrape, Judy 275 MyCourseMap: an interactive visual map to increase curriculum transparency for university students and staff Tee, Lisa B G; Hattingh, Laetitia; Rodgers, Kate; Ferns, Sonia; Chang, Vanessa; Fyfe, Sue 285 Standing on the shoulders of others: creating sharable learning designs Weaver, Debbi; Duque, Samantha 297 3 Full Papers Higher Education Teachers’ Experiences with Learning Analytics in Relation to Student Retention West, Deborah; Huijser, Henk; Heath, David; Lizzio, Alf; Toohey, Danny; Miles, Carol 308 Exploratory and Collaborative Learning Scenarios in Virtual World using Unity- based Technology Wilding, Karin; Chang, Vanessa; Gütl, Christian 320 Remote Access Laboratories for Preparing STEM Teachers: A Mixed Methods Study Wu, Ting; Albion, Peter R; Orwin, Lindy; Kist, Alexander; Maxwell, Andrew; Maiti, Ananda 331 A Mobile App in the 1st Year Uni-Life: A Pilot Study Zhao, Yu; Pardo, Abelardo 342 4 Concise Papers Concise papers Page Number Learning maps: A design-based approach for capacity building in tertiary online learning and teaching Adachi, Chie; O'Rourke, Mark 353 Using Learning Design to Unleash the Power of Learning Analytics Atkinson, Simon Paul 358 The future of practice-based research in educational technology: Small steps to improve generalisability of research Alhadad, Sakinah S. J. 363 Features of an online English language testing interface Al Nadabi, Zakiya 369 Fostering deep understanding in geography by inducing and managing confusion: an online learning approach Arguel, Amaël; Lane, Rod 374 Using expectation confirmation theory to understand the learning outcomes of online business simulations Benckendorff, Pierre; Gibbons, Belina; Pratt, Marlene 379 Towards a Pedagogy of Comparative Visualization in 3D Design Disciplines Birt, James R; Nelson, Jonathan; Hovorka, Dirk 384 Implementing blended learning at faculty level: Supporting staff, and the ‘ripple effect’ Borland, Rosy; Loch, Birgit; McManus, Liam 389 The ethical considerations of using social media in educational environments Cameron, Leanne; Tanti, Miriam; Mahoney, Kim 394 Teachers Cloud-based Content Creation in light of the TPACK Framework: Implications for Teacher Education Campbell, Chris; Al Harthi, Aisha; Karimi, Arafeh 399 The Next Wave of Learning with Humanoid Robot: Learning Innovation Design starts with “Hello NAO” Chua, Xin Ni; Chew, Esyin 404 Loop: A learning analytics tool to provide teachers with useful data visualisations Corrin, Linda; Kennedy, Gregor; de Barba, Paula; Bakharia, Aneesha; Lockyer, Lori; Gasevic, Dragan; Williams, David; Dawson, Shane; Copeland, Scott 409 Teaching Complex Theoretical Multi-Step Problems in ICT Networking through 3D Printing and Augmented Reality Cowling, Michael; Birt, James 414 An investigation of blended learning experiences of first-year Chinese transnational program students at an Australian university Dai, Kun 419 5 Concise Papers A comparison of undergraduate student experiences of assessed versus non- assessed participation in online asynchronous discussion groups: Lessons from a cross disciplinary study in health and sociology Douglas, Tracy; Mather, Carey; Murray, Sandra; Earwaker, Louise; James, Allison; Pittaway, Jane; Robards, Brady; Salter, Susan 424 Digital Futures research and society: action, awareness and accountability Doyle, Joanne; McDonald, Lisa; Cuthill, Michael; Keppell, Mike 429 Making the Connection: Allowing access to digital higher education in a correctional environment Farley, Helen; Dove, Sharron; Seymour, Stephen; Macdonald, John; Abraham, Catherine; Lee, Chris; Hopkins, Susan; Cox, Jacinta; Patching, Louise 434 Badging digital pathways of learning Gibson, David; Coleman, Kathryn; Irving, Leah 440 The Agile Learning Model: Using big data to personalise the acquisition of accounting skills Gregory, Brent; Wysel, Matthew; Gregory, Sue 445 PST Online: Preparing pre-service teachers for teaching in virtual schools Grono, Steve; Masters, Yvonne; Gregory, Sue 450 Occupational Medicine Simulation Project Griffiths, Aaron 455 Can learning analytics provide useful insights? An exploration on course level Heinrich, Eva 460 A pedagogical end game for exams: a look 10 years into the future of high stakes assessment Hillier, Mathew; Gibbons, Belina 465 Are Higher Education Institutions Prepared for Learning Analytics? Ifenthaler, Dirk 471 A blended learning ecosystem: What are the motivational issues for students? Hartnett, Maggie; Kearney, Alison; Mentis, Mandia 476 Measuring creativity in collaborative design projects in pre-service teacher education Kennedy-Clark, Shannon; Kearney, Sean; Eddles-Hirsch, Katrina; De La Hoz, Rod; Galstaun, Vilma; Wheeler, Penny 481 How to develop an online community for pre-service and early career teachers? Kelly, Nick; Clarà, Marc; Pratt, Marlene 486 Collaboration between Primary Students and the Use of an Online Learning Environment: The Previous Collaborative Work Experiences Factor Kokkinaki, Aikaterini 491 A digital what? Creating a playspace to increase the quality of technology-enhanced teaching and learning Lamond, Heather; Rowatt, Andrew John 497 6 Concise Papers The three pillars to building staff capability to create digital learning experiences Manning, Catherine; Macdonald, Hero 502 Developing Self-Regulated Learning through Reflection on Learning Analytics in Online Learning Environments Mikroyannidis, Alexander; Farrell Frey, Tracie Marie 507 Personalising professional learning mobility in Higher Education Mitchell, Maxine; Cottman, Caroline 512 Connecting fun and learning - an activity-theoretical approach to competency based game development O'Rourke, Mark 517 Learners’ confusion: faulty prior knowledge or a metacognitive monitoring error? Pachman, Mariya; Arguel, Amael; Lockyer, Lori 522 Exploring my university students’ online learning activities in Wikis Quek Choon Lang, Gwendoline; Liu, Cong 527 Learning to swim in an ocean of student data Russel, Carol 532 Benchmarking for technology enhanced learning: Longer term benefits Sankey, Michael 537 Building a framework for improved workplace assessment practice and better outcomes through online platforms Schier, Mark A; Dunn, Louise 542 Promoting Critical Thinking in a Large Class through Outcomes-Based Approach by Means of an Audience Response System Keong Seow, Teck; Swee Kit Soong, Alan 545 Digital andragogy: A 21st century approach to tertiary education Sheffield, Rachel; Blackley, Susan Ellen 552 Blended Learning Adoption Monitoring Smith, Simon Douglas 557 The value of digital critical reflection to global citizenship and global health Stoner, Lee 562 Authentic context as a foundation for gamification and game-based learning Teräs, Hanna; Teräs, Marko; Viteli, Jarmo 566 A gamified eLearning approach to teaching food regulation Teychenne, Danielle 571 Pre-service teachers’ reflections on their participation in 1:1 laptop programs Walker, Rebecca Maria; Blackley, Susan Ellen 577 7 Concise Papers Mind the Gap: Exploring knowledge decay in online sequential mathematics courses Webby, Brian; Quinn, Diana; Albrecht, Amie; White, Kevin 582 Clearing the Fog: A Learning Analytics Code of Practice Welsh, Simon; McKinney, Stewart 588 Dreaming of Electric Sheep: CSU’s Vision for Analytics-Driven Adaptive Learning and Teaching Welsh, Simon; Uys, Philip 593 SkillBox: a pilot study Whitsed, Rachel Anne; Parker, Joanne 599 Digital equity: A social justice issue for staff, not just students Willems, Julie 604 8 Posters Posters Page Number Metacognitive Development in Professional Educators: NZ teacher experiences using mobile technologies in a tertiary education environment Abu Askar, Reem 608 Digitise Your Dreams the Indigenous Way Matthews, Aaron; Aggarwal, Rachna; Lim, Siew Leng 612 Introducing StatHand: A Mobile Application Supporting Students’ Statistical Decision Making Allan, Peter; Roberts, Lynne; Baughman, Frank 614 E-learning, resilience and change in higher education: A case study of a College of Business Ayebi-Arthur, Kofi; Davis, Niki; Cunningham, Una 616 Enhancing Student Learning Outcomes with Simulation-based Pedagogies Benckendorff, Pierre; Lohmann, Gui; Pratt, Marlene; Reynolds, Paul; Strickland, Paul; Whitelaw, Paul 618 Creating concept vignettes as a module supplement for active and authentic learning Chatterjee, Chandrima 621 Preparing Students for Future Learning Cheng, Jasmine; Payne, Sally; Banks, Jennifer 623 The use of rubrics for the assessment of digital products in language learning Cowie, Neil 626 Developing an online challenge-based learning platform Gibson, David; Scott, Katy; Irving, Leah 629 Let’s Talk Learning Analytics and Student Retention Heath, David; West, Deborah; Huijser, Henk 631 Experiential Learning in Accounting: Engaging a diverse student cohort through the use of role-plays Kerr, Rosemary; Taplin, Ross; Lee, Alina; Singh, Abhi 633 The CSU Online Learning model Klapdor, Tim 635 MOOCs as spaces to innovate Lockley, Alison 637 Mobile devices in an Interprofessional Community of Practice #NPF14LMD Mentis, Mandia; Holley-Boen, Wendy 638 9 Posters Technology for Learning: How Do Medical Students Use Technology for Education? Moscova, Michelle; Porter, David Bruce; Schreiber, Kate 640 The Flipped Teacher and the Flipped Learner Framework Reyna Zeballos, Jorge Luis 642 Enhancing Workplace Learning through Mobile Technology: Designing the GPS for WPL Trede, Franziska; Markauskaite, Lina; Goodyear, Peter; Macfarlane, Susie; Tayebjee, Freny; McEwen, Celina 645 Refocussing support on locally connected, digitally enabled communities of practice Tull, Susan 648 Enhancing Queensland Pre-service Teachers’ Self-efficacy to Teach STEM By the Use of Remote Access Laboratories: A Mixed Methods Study Wu, Ting 650 10 Discussion Papers Discussion Papers Page Number Decisions and designs for building enterprise learning systems within an enabled learning paradigm: The case of third party technologies Allan, Garry; Pawlaczek, Zosh 652 Designing for “Flexibility”: Exploring the Complexities of Dual-Mode Teaching Barac, Karin; Davies, Lynda; Boorer, Lenka 656 Connecting or constructing academic literacies on Facebook Bassett, M 659 Technology issues in blended synchronous learning Dalgarno, Barney; Bower, Matt; Lee, Mark J W; Kennedy, Gregor 664 On the Evaluation of OLEs Using the HEART Framework Flaounas, Ilias; Kokkinaki, Aikaterini 668 A practitioner’s guide to learning analytics Gunn, Cathy; McDonald, Jenny; Donald, Claire; Milne, John; Nichols, Mark; Heinrich, Eva 672 STEMming the flow: content delivery through digital media for enhancing students’ construction of knowledge Huber, Elaine 676 The “I”s have it: Development of a framework for implementing Learning Analytics Jones, Hazel 680 Learning analytics - are we at risk of missing the point? Liu, Danny Yen-Ting; Rogers, Tim; Pardo, Abelardo 684 The impact of digital technology on postgraduate supervision Maor, Dorit 688 Is Student Transition to Blended Learning as easy as we think (and what do they think)? Miles, Carol A 692 Learning through doing: Creating a makerspace in the academic library Miller, Karen 696 Engaged and connected: embedding, modelling and practising what works Woodley, Carolyn J; Kehrwald, Benjamin A 700 11 Sharing Practice Sharing Practice Papers Page Number Developing the Scholarship of Technology Enhanced Learning (SOTEL) Cochrane, Thomas; Narayan, Vickel 710 #NPF14LMD Learners and Mobile Devices: Sharing Practice Cochrane, Thomas; Frielick, Stanley; Narayan, Vickel; Dee Sciascia, Acushla 713 Learning Analytics Special Interest Group: Recognising Outstanding Practice in Learning Analytics Lynch, Grace; Pardo, Abelardo; Welsh, Simon 716 Easing into mobile learning Murphy, Angela; Farley, Helen 717 Sharing Practice Abstracts Clinical Logs: Best Practices in the Design and Implementation Porter, David Bruce; Moscova, Michelle 719 Institution wide information privacy frameworks to support academics in the use of learning analytics Dobozy, Eva; Heath, Jennifer; Reynolds, Pat; Leinonen, Eeva 720 Digitally enabled learning through Bb+ Greenaway, Ruth; Mitchell, Maxine 721 Using interactive multimedia for “flipped lecture” preparation: does it make a difference to student learning? Moscova, Michelle; Kuit, Tracey; Fildes, Karen; Schreiber, Kate; Treweek, Teresa 723 Attention as skill: Contemplation in online learning environments Selvaratnam, Ratna Malar 724 Applying Adaptive Comparative Judgement to videos as an indicator of ‘At Risk’ teaching performance Geer, Ruth Elizabeth 726 Vertical learning in Agricultural Science: It’s all fun and games until… Yench, Emma; Grommen, Sylvia 728 ascilite 2015 Reviewers 729 12 FP:1 The Conceived, the Perceived and the Lived: Issues with 21st Century Learning and Teaching Karin Barac Griffith University, Australia A bespoke course design framework was implemented in an Australian university to help academics convert face-to-face courses to blended or online offerings in response to increasing demand for universities to offer 21st century learning environments. While the design framework was grounded in evidence-based approaches that exemplify quality delivery, these course designs have had variable reactions from students in their implementation. As such, a student dimension to the evaluation of the framework was added and the findings from the initial pilot are reported here. It has been found that students may not be as ready for 21st century learning and teaching practices as current rhetoric implies. This paper begins to formulate a theory to help resolve this through an exploration of ideas through the lens of Lefebvre’s production of space (1991). Keywords: Course Design, Student Expectations, Blended Learning, Higher Education Introduction Nationally and internationally universities are striving to attract and retain students through offering flexibility in study options as a response to the ever-increasing competitive environment. This idea of flexibility centres on the idea of study occurring at “any time, any place” allowing students to “balance” study with work and other life commitments. The increasing demand for flexibility in study options has seen a growth in online and blended learning offerings of courses (or units) within university programs. In the 21st century, one defined by rapidly advancing and ubiquitous digital technologies, it is now assumed that academics should be able to naturally incorporate these technologies into their teaching and learning practices (Koehler & Mishra, 2005). However, it has been found that the development of quality blended and online courses represents for many academics the need to not only acquire technical expertise but new pedagogical expertise (Caplan & Graham, 2004) as these learning models and frameworks have yet to be widely adopted by the academic community (Roby, Ashe, Singh, & Clark, 2012). Therefore the challenge facing many universities now, and in the future, is how to provide academics with the professional learning necessary to acquire these new skills so that the quality of course design is not adversely affected and rapid development can be achieved with little specialist support. As blended and online learning designs proliferate the success of these learning environments rely more and more on students accepting responsibility for their role in the learning environment. Research has shown, unfortunately, that as course designs move towards a blended approach students equate less time on campus with less time on task (Vaughan, 2007). We have found a dissonance between student expectations of their learning experience and their demand for flexibility. These divergent student perceptions are problematic given that, in design terms, flexibility relies on a move to student-centred approaches that use technologies to facilitate successful learning. “Designing Online Courses” Framework In 2012-13, the professional learning module “Designing Online Courses” was developed to provide a just-in-time support resource that encompasses both the pedagogical and technological perspectives of the course design process as it is argued that the process of design is the best environment for academics to learn new pedagogies because it allows them to adapt ideas to their own contexts (Bennett, Thomas, Agostinho, Lockyer, Jones, & Harper, 2011). This module serves to support academics in the process of converting a face-to-face delivery mode to an online one by giving them a strong pedagogical perspective on the curriculum design process thereby enabling them to make appropriate technological decisions when implementing the design. While this was originally conceived to apply to online courses we have found that the design framework is equally useful to 13 FP:2 those employing blended designs. The first step in developing the module was to ground it in the theoretical frameworks that encompass quality online course design. The two frameworks selected were Community of Inquiry (COI) (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000), and Technological, Pedagogical, Content Knowledge (TPACK) (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) as they are well documented in educational research on quality online course design (Anderson, 2008; Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Koehler & Mishra, 2005; Rubin, Fernandes, & Avgerinou, 2012; Wiesenmayer, Kupczynski, & Ice, 2008). It was also important that the content of the module was consumable for academics by providing practical examples that illustrate the theory in practice. This was a deliberate design choice as it has been acknowledged that academics generally do not have the time to take advantage of educational research (Price & Kirkwood, 2013) instead they rely on personal experiences or their conversations with colleagues (Dondi, Mancinelli, & Moretti, 2006; Macdonald & Poniatowska, 2011; Price & Kirkwood, 2013; Spratt, Weaver, Maskill, & Kish, 2003) to improve their practices. The primary objective in the module development was to break down the design process that is required to build courses into achievable steps. As such we defined five distinct, but ultimately interlinked, areas to stage the framework: Getting Started, Curriculum Design, Interaction Design, Assessment Design and Site Design (Barac, Davies, Duffy, Aitkin, & Lodge, 2013). These stages are designed and articulated purposefully to help academics see how content, interactions, activities, sense of community, assessments and teacher presence work together to ensure quality and effectiveness in online courses (Finch & Jacobs, 2012; Roby et al., 2012). The framework would therefore produce courses that would provide students “the time to think deeply and not speed over enormous amounts of content” (Vaughan, Cleveland-Innes, & Garrison, 2014, p. 20). Figure 1: Design Framework Once the module was designed and the content developed it was initially tested and piloted with a number of small groups of academics and it has now been deployed within the large faculty group at an Australian university. In 2014 the first courses designed under this framework were released to students with varying results particularly in those courses employing a fully blended approach. One academic reported to the project team that even though during the semester students were responding favorably to the teaching directions (that the staff had been encouraged to employ to make the environment successful) they nevertheless exhibited very strong negative reactions in the University’s end-of-course evaluation. It is for this reason that a student dimension was added to the evaluation plan for the module and framework that would evaluate the extent students were responding to the quality design factors employed in these courses in addition to the University’s process. Methodology Amundsen and Wilson (2012) found in their meta-analysis that the evaluation of academic development activities in higher education is still a developing field. Perhaps, because it is still a developing field there appears to be some gaps in the current literature: firstly, there seems to be a 14 FP:3 concentration of evaluations being centred on participant satisfaction with the activities (Pierson & Borthwick, 2010) rather than investigating the content or application of the activities on their academic practice after completion (Desimone, 2009) and secondly, many of the studies lack rigor of research design (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). Consequently, the module evaluation uses a design-based research methodology to address these concerns as this paradigm is increasingly gaining acceptance in evaluating “learning in context” (The Design-Based Research Collective, 2003, p. 5). As a methodology Design-Based Research aims to refine educational theory and practice (Collins, Joseph, & Bielaczyc, 2004) by studying learning designs in action to connect “intended and unintended outcomes” (The Design-Based Research Collective, 2003, p. 7). As such the evaluation is multi-faceted and is being conducted as an iterative cycle of design, evaluation and re-design to align with this paradigm (Wang & Hannafin, 2005). It employs mixed- method approaches that involve both the academics participating in the professional learning module and the students that are enrolled in the courses that have been designed and delivered under the framework. The academic phase of the evaluation involves an online survey, an interview and an analysis of the comprehensive course plan that they complete as part of moving through the framework and module contents. The student phase involves a pre-course and mid-course online survey that largely consists of close-ended questions. The pre-course poll consists of four questions intended to gather students’ study goals for the course. (This poll also serves as a teaching activity that helps orientate the students to their role in the learning environment and gives the teaching team information they can feed into learning activities.) The mid-course poll has seven questions that deal directly with the online and blended components of the course design. This paper describes the student phase of the evaluation. Pilot Study A pilot study was conducted with a large first year undergraduate Law course in semester one of 2015 to test the mid-course survey instrument that will be used to gather data on student expectations and experiences within all courses designed under this framework. The pilot course was designed as a blended learning offering that had significant online content (videos, readings and quizzes) to be completed before the weekly workshop while some on-campus lectures were retained at key points in the semester to check-in with students. An online survey was deployed within the Blackboard course site in the last four weeks of semester. The total number of respondents was 123 students, which represented a 24% response rate from that cohort. Simple descriptive analysis was used on the quantitative questions while the qualitative comments where coded and analysed for themes and frequency using NVIVO. Findings The quantitative questions resulted in 123 responses while the open-ended comments question yielded 63 comments for analysis. In Table 1, the quantitative questions range of scores is reported. The majority of student responses show that students seemed to be largely satisfied with most components of the course. But there was also an alarming level of neutrality when answering the questions related to the blended and online components of the course. The use of the weekly formative quizzes that allowed students to test their knowledge of the content received 76% in the agree and strongly agree range. This is in line with the literature on online course design, which encourages the use of formative checkpoints with instant feedback loops to keep students on track. In an attempt to explore current students study goals in their courses the survey included a question on the number of hours a week they studied in the course. It was found that only 9% of respondents were studying 8-10 hours a week on this course. In fact, 68% of the students sat in the 3-8 hour range per week range, which is well below the university standard of 10 hours per week for a 10-credit point course (Griffith University, 2015). This is interesting, in light of the first result in Table 1 where the students reported high agreement on the guidance on their role in the course. A key component of this guidance was to embed messages on the study-time requirements of this course. This suggests that students may have a fundamental misunderstanding of the time commitment a university degree requires even when direct reference is made to the fact. 15 FP:4 Table 1: Quantitative Results Question Agree – Strongly Agree Neutra l Disagree – Strongly Disagree Unanswere d There was clear guidance about my role as the learner, in the learning process in this course. 74% 16% 8% 2% The blend of face-to-face and online learning and teaching is effective for my learning in this course. 50% 31% 18% 1% The use of online technologies helps me learn in this course. 53% 28% 18% 1% This course effectively uses online assessment (e.g. quizzes) to help me learn. 72% 16% 10% 2% This course engages me in learning. 62% 25% 13% - There was clear guidance about the role of the L@G site for learning in this course. 74% 16% 8% 2% The teaching team members effectively communicate and connect with students. 76% 16% 8% - Analysis of the quantitative questions in comparison to the short answer comments reveals that students may hold conflicting ideas about the nature of learning and teaching in higher education. It was found that while 62% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the blend of face-to-face and online learning is effective for learning in this course, the qualitative comments contained more references to traditional forms of learning than those about flexibility or the blend of the learning environment. In fact, of the 63 comments supplied by the respondents there were 35 mentions of lectures, with nearly all centered on their reinstatement: - “I think I would have preferred to have a lecture every week, because I like the traditional mode of learning – i.e. face-to-face.” “I really enjoyed the workshops each week, but would have preferred a weekly lecture too!” “I believe that more lectures would have assisted my learning Maybe have lectures once a fortnight” In fact one student even went as far to request the reintroduction of “weekly lectures & do away with the online video [even if it was to] show the videos during weekly lectures so students can gain a grip on the material”. While the students were largely calling for the return of the traditional model there were some positive comments around the nature of blended learning and in particular where they felt it was better suited in the program structure. It was felt that the “independent learning structure … would be better suited for integration in second or third years.” This is something for universities and program design teams to take note of, as it suggests that blended learning can be well received if the students are properly scaffolded through the experience by gradually implementing these strategies. Following with the theme of lectures it was also extremely interesting to find that the mention of lectures was rarely connected to the online videos or vice versa. Comments such as the following show a disconnect between the ideas of “lecture”, “content” and “teaching” in today’s students: - "As a foundational subject, I think it is a wrong decision to only have sporadic lectures when this subject should be laying a solid, in depth foundation of law" 16 FP:5 “I just felt like we skimmed over topics because of the lack of lectures.” “I would like to see more lectures as i [sic] feel the workshops were not enough. I didn't like the workshops or the online videos. I often thought the workshops were ineffective. I would prefer a lecture every week where the content and information taught was clear.” This failure to connect the online videos and activities with “lecture” material, (or even teacher presence), is particularly concerning and could severely limit the successful implementation of blended learning with today’s students. Discussion In an effort to explain this dissonance between the academic-driven ideas of “quality” 21st century learning and the reality of current student expectations let us explore Lefebvre ideas of space – space as a construct of the conceived, perceived and lived (Lefebvre, 1991). These ideas were first posed in terms of urban design but have been appropriated by educational researchers as conceptual tools (Middleton, 2014) it appears that this paper is one of the first to apply Lefebvre’s model as a concept to help explain the issues surrounding the application of technology-enabled pedagogies in higher education. Lefebvre expanded the idea of space from its geometric definition as an ‘empty area” to that of a mental construct linked to the physical. This model of space is one into which we bring our own ideas; or others define the meaning for us; or is a reality that we construct by participating together as members of a society. In particular he sought to code and explain the “interaction between ‘subjects’ and their space and surroundings” (Lefebvre, 1991, pp. 17-18). He saw this as being an interaction of the conceived space, perceived space and the lived space or the theoretical, the mental and the social. Specifically, the conceived space is the mental and abstract enclosures constructed by “professionals and technocrats” (Middleton, 2014, p. 11). In our context of learning and teaching space, our subjects are the academics and students, where academics operate and control the conceived realm through their course designs and delivery. The perceived realm incorporates the pre-conceptions and expectations the different subjects have within the environment and the lived is the reality of the subjects operating within that space. Ideally, the three are interconnected states that allow subjects to move from one to the other without confusion. The three domains are seen to constitute a whole “when a common language, a consensus and a code can be established” (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 40). Figure 2 attempts to conceptualise the different pathways (positive and negative) that subjects can take through these realms and where breakdowns might happen. 17 FP:6 Figure 2: Conceptualising Academic and Student Paths through Lefebvre’s Realms Optimally both academic and student pathways will be positive if there is a shared understanding between the conceived and the perceived. However, from our current exploration of the data we can see that academics and students are not in this state of the interconnected whole within the learning and teaching environment. It would seem a schism could occur when the pathways cross the conceived into the perceived that can result in a negative experience for the students where academics believe positive outcomes should be occurring. In particular, at this point in time it does not seem that academics and students share a common language or consensus in what the optimum learning environment should be. Future Directions Based on this analysis and exploration through Lefebvre’s lens it would seem more work is needed to close the gap between the conceived and the perceived for academics and students in 21st century learning and teaching spaces. We need to foster a common understanding through language, symbols and signs. One such way we believe we can help foster this is through the incorporation of infographics into our course designs that help to break down student (and academic) preconceptions of the higher education learning environment and orientate them to the new design frameworks. These infographics will serve to highlight student and staff responsibilities in the learning and teaching space and to raise the awareness of how contact and independent study has been transformed from the traditional lecture/tutorial model. The following image is a prototype we are developing to help orientate students to the nature of teacher-student contact in a blended learning space and that the online content (i.e. videos) is in fact a form of teacher presence. 18 FP:7 Figure 3: Student Infographic Prototype (Student-Teacher Contact in a Blended Learning Course) There are currently 89 academics actively using the “Designing Online Courses” framework as a professional development activity. There are currently 19 courses that are specifically being designed under this framework with our specific guidance (and evaluation procedures) that will be implementing these infographics for 2016. Data collection will continue within these courses to provide more data to validate these ideas. Excitingly, the university will be implementing a learning analytics system in 2016 that we have identified as an opportunity to explore the lived experience of the course sites that may provide additional context to university student experience surveys. References Amundsen, C., & Wilson, M. (2012). Are we asking the right questions? A conceptual review of the educational development literature in higher education. Review of educational research, 82(1), 90- 126. Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. Theory and practice of online learning, 45- 74. Barac, K., Davies, L., Duffy, S., Aitkin, N., & Lodge, J. (2013). Five stages of online course design: Taking the grief out of converting courses for online delivery. Paper presented at the Ascilite, Sydney. Bennett, S., Thomas, L., Agostinho, S., Lockyer, L., Jones, J., & Harper, B. (2011). Understanding the design context for Australian university teachers: Implications for the future of learning design. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(2), 151-167. Caplan, D., & Graham, R. (2004). The development of online courses. Theory and practice of online learning, 175. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the learning sciences, 13(1), 15-42. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199. Dondi, C., Mancinelli, E., & Moretti, M. (2006). Adapting existing competence frameworks to higher education environments. In I. Mac Labhrainn, C. McDonald Legg, D. Schneckenberg, J. Wildt (Eds.), The Challenge of eCompetence in Academic Staff Development, 19-28. 19 FP:8 Finch, D., & Jacobs, K. (2012). Online Education: Best Practices to Promote Learning. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87-105. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended Learning : Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95-105. Griffith University. (2015). Student Administration Policy. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers Learning Technology by Design. Journal of computing in teacher education, 21(3), 94-102. Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of educational research, 77(4), 575-614. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.): Oxford: Blackwell. Macdonald, J., & Poniatowska, B. (2011). Designing the professional development of staff for teaching online: an OU (UK) case study. Distance Education, 32(1), 119-134. Middleton, S. (2014). Henri Lefebvre and Education. Oxford: Routledge. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017 - 1054. Pierson, M., & Borthwick, A. (2010). Framing the Assessment of Educational Technology Professional Development in a Culture of Learning. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 26(4). Price, L., & Kirkwood, A. (2013). Using technology for teaching and learning in higher education: a critical review of the role of evidence in informing practice. Higher Education Research and Development, (in press). Roby, T., Ashe, S., Singh, N., & Clark, C. (2012). Shaping the online experience: How administrators can influence student and instructor perceptions through policy and practice. The Internet and Higher Education. Rubin, B., Fernandes, R., & Avgerinou, M. D. (2012). The effects of technology on the Community of Inquiry and satisfaction with online courses. The Internet and Higher Education. Spratt, C., Weaver, D., Maskill, L., & Kish, K. (2003). Online pedagogy and the challenges for academic staff development. Paper presented at the Exploring Educational Technologies Conference - From Strategy to Implementation, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, July 16- 17, 2003. The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 5-8. Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal on E- Learning, 6(1), 81-94. Vaughan, N., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2014). Teaching in Blended Learning Environments. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational technology research and development, 53(4), 5-23. Wiesenmayer, R., Kupczynski, L., & Ice, P. (2008). The Role of Technical Support and Pedagogical Guidance provided to Faculty in Online Programs: Considerations for Higher Education Administrators. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 11(4). Barac, K. (2015). The Conceived, the Perceived and the Lived: Issues with 21st Century Learning and Teaching. In T. Reiners, B.R. von Konsky, D. Gibson, V. Chang, L. Irving, & K. Clarke (Eds.), Globally connected, digitally enabled. Proceedings ascilite 2015 in Perth (pp. FP:1-FP:8). Note: All published papers are refereed, having undergone a double-blind peer-review process. The author(s) assign a Creative Commons by attribution licence enabling others to distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon their work, even commercially, as long as credit is given to the author(s) for the original creation. 20 FP:9 Learning design for science teacher training and educational development Ole E. Bjælde Centre for Science Education Aarhus University, Denmark Michael E. Caspersen Centre for Science Education Aarhus University, Denmark Mikkel Godsk Centre for Science Education Aarhus University, Denmark Rikke F. Hougaard Centre for Science Education Aarhus University, Denmark Annika B. Lindberg Centre for Science Education Aarhus University, Denmark This paper presents the impact and perception of two initiatives at the Faculty of Science and Technology, Aarhus University: the teacher training module ‘Digital Learning Design’ (DiLD) for assistant professors and postdocs, and the STREAM learning design model and toolkit for enhancing and transforming modules. Both DiLD and the STREAM model have proven to be effective and scalable approaches to encourage educators across all career steps to embrace the potentials of educational technology in science higher education. Moreover, the transformed modules have resulted in higher student satisfaction, increased flexibility in time, pace, and place, and in some cases also improved grades, pass rates and/or feedback. Keywords: learning design, science education, teacher training, educational development Introduction Since the early 00s learning design has gained momentum as an approach to educational development in higher education. The learning design approach provides tools and models that can help educators pedagogically inform and share teaching practices and, when used for educational technology, help qualify the transformation of traditional teaching into blended and online learning. In addition, learning design also helps defeating well-known barriers in more conventional ad hoc approaches to educational development such as missing sustainability of initiatives and the missing link between educational research and practice (Conole, 2013; Cross et al., 2008; Godsk, 2015; Koper & Tattersall, 2010; Laurillard, 2012; Nicol & Draper, 2009). Centre for Science Education (CSE), the pedagogical development unit at Faculty of Science and Technology (ST), Aarhus University, has adopted a strategic approach with a focus on (1) development issues that resonate with educators and (2) solutions that are effective, efficient, and supported by solid research (Vicens & Caspersen, 2014). In order to facilitate this approach and optimise its impact and scalability, a framework-based learning design approach has been adopted. With this approach the educators are active developers of their own practice, and potentially producing reusable and sharable materials and practices (Conole, 2013; Cross et al., 2008; Godsk, 2015; Koper & Tattersall, 2010; Laurillard, 2012). The STREAM model as learning design Faculty of Science and Technology (ST) is one of the four faculties as Aarhus University and has approx. 7,000 students and 1,650 full time academic staff (full-time equivalent) (Aarhus University, 2015). At CSE the aim for educational development is to provide educators with an open-ended learning design, where essential pedagogy-informed aspects of the learning designs are fixed while other aspects are open for variability. The open-ended learning design approach is carefully developed and conveyed particularly regarding efforts in technology-based educational development. In practice this is actualised by means of a learning design framework designed for this and similar settings: ‘the STREAM model’ (Godsk, 2013; Figure 1). ‘STREAM’ is an acronym for ‘Science and Technology Rethinking education through Educational IT towards Augmentation and Modification’, where the terms ‘augmentation’ and ‘modification’ refer to two different levels of blended learning (Godsk, 2014a; Puentedura, 2010). The STREAM model is based on well-tested and acknowledged 21 FP:10 teaching strategies for science higher education such as just-in-time teaching (Novak et al., 1999), active learning (Bonwell & Eison, 1991), flipped classroom, peer instruction (Mazur & Hilborn, 1997), and socio-cultural theories used particularly to inform and qualify the apprenticeship between learners (apprentice) and more experienced peers (co-learners and educators) (Fjuk et al., 2004). The model provides an outline of how a module may be transformed into blended and online learning using feedback loops, online out-of-class activities, in-class and online follow-up, and suggests tools and technologies that support the design. In addition to the STREAM model, a toolkit is provided for the educators consisting of a webcast recording facility and a media lab providing easy production of the materials needed for the transformation of modules and technical support, respectively. Figure 1: The STREAM model The STREAM model is currently being used for the transformation of modules, and it is being disseminated through individual meetings with educators, workshops, websites, the teacher training programme, and department meetings. Thus, the STREAM model functions as both a pedagogical framework and an organisational change agent. This is reflected in two major initiatives targeting two different groups of educators: • The teacher training programme, ‘Digital Learning Design’, for assistant professors and postdocs. The programme introduces educational technology and learning design including the STREAM model. • STREAM as a stand-alone learning design model and toolkit for ad hoc assistance to professors and associate professors and their transformation of modules with educational technology. Learning Design in Teacher Training Teaching at Aarhus University is predominated by face-to-face activities including lectures, small class teaching, laboratory teaching, etc. However, it is a specific aim in the university policy to rethink 22 FP:11 existing teaching practice with technology (Aarhus University, 2011). To pursue this aim a module on educational technology was included in the mandatory teacher training programme in 2012. The Teacher Training programme is offered primarily to assistant professors and postdocs and counts for 5 ECTS (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System, 1 ECTS credit corresponds to 25-30 hours of work) (European Union, 2015). The programme includes four mandatory modules of which three are common to participants throughout the university, while the module on educational technology is organised differently for each individual faculty. At ST this module is DiLD and has a workload of 30 hours (1 ECTS credit equivalent to approximately 1.5 hours of participation per weekday during the module). The objective is outlined in the overall module description: The objective of the [DiLD module] is to give an introduction to Educational IT and Educational Technology at Faculty of Science and Technology (ST), Aarhus University. During the module participants will be introduced to the potentials of using different technologies in teaching and it will be demonstrated how technology supported teaching can be designed. The participants will be introduced to the services provided within educational IT at ST and they will develop a digital learning design to be used in their own teaching. (Godsk et al., 2014; p. 1) The DiLD module is designed according to the STREAM model and implemented in the institutional learning management system (LMS), Blackboard Learn (Figure 2). The module consists of four weeks of flexible, entirely online learning (except for a concluding session) and introduces a range of educational technologies and learning design models. By demonstrating how educational technology has a potential to increase the learner flexibility, the module gives the participants a first-hand experience with online learning and serves as inspiration for the participants’ own teaching (Godsk et al., 2013). Each week consists of a learning path of 6-12 steps with 4-6 activities. The activities aim to build upon participants’ existing teaching experience and support the development of their own teaching practice and materials in order to make the module directly applicable (Godsk et al., 2013). Though most participants are not currently teaching online modules; both the institutional strategy for technology in education (Aarhus University, 2011) and the fact that educators are including an increasing number of online elements such as video, online discussion forums, and online assignments in their teaching practice highlight the importance of being proactive by also pedagogically informing their future uptake of technology. As such the DiLD module format serves two purposes: to give as much flexibility as possible to the participants and to illustrate the design of an online module. As prescribed by the STREAM model, DiLD is designed with a continuous interplay between readings, articles, videos, etc. and active learning through participation in moderated discussions and wikis. By mixing individual exploration of online materials and participatory learning, such as asynchronous discussions and peer-feedback, the module design ensures a balance between acquisition of new knowledge, and collaboration and participation (Brown et al., 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Sfard, 1998). The readings and activities are interlinked with a narrative about the topic of the relevant week to bring the reading and activities into a cohesive whole (Weller, 2002) and at the end of each week the activities and readings are wrapped up by the e-moderators through an e-mail send to the participants via the LMS. The subsequent week is then adjusted according to the needs and interests of the participants. The basic idea is to support a progressive learner role where participants progress from being a learner to a designer of digital learning activities through active participation during the module (Lave & Wenger, 2003; Salmon, 2011). 23 FP:12 Figure 2: Week 1’s learning path of ‘Digital Learning Design’ as implemented in Blackboard Learn. The module culminates with each participant developing an individual learning design for their own teaching practice describing both concept and materials. The design is then presented at a concluding poster session where peer-feedback is received. In developing the learning designs, the participants are encouraged to adopt an existing learning design approach, such as the STREAM model, the Five-stage Model (Salmon, 2011), or a model for structured discussions for their own teaching development (Sorensen, 2005), or develop their own according to the presented theory. In the individual learning design, module participants identify components of their current teaching practice that need to be transformed or enhanced with educational technology, a suitable learning design model, and relevant technology such as webcasts, lecture captures, learning paths, online discussions, and online exercises. In addition, the participants set the level of the transformation in terms of the revised SAMR model which operates with four levels of transformation of traditional teaching ranging from ‘substitution’, where the technology merely substitutes existing teaching practices, to ‘augmentation’ referring to settings where ‘educational technology is used for enhancing activities or transforming components’ (Godsk, 2014a; p. 184), ‘modification’ referring to where the technology is ‘used for transforming entire activities’ (Godsk, 2014a; p. 184), to ‘redefinition’ where technology is used to completely transform or reinvent the teaching practice (Godsk, 2014a). The efforts associated with running the module, consist of on-going update of the content, moderation and summing up of online discussions, communication with the participants, individual supervision and feedback, organising the poster-presentation, and various administrative tasks and evaluation. This workload is shared between a handful of e-moderators and the module chair and estimated to 504 hours annually (two DiLD modules per year). In addition, the media lab assists the facilitation by organising an online workshop in video conferencing and supporting the participants with technical issues. This assistance is estimated to 75 hours annually. The costs for handling the enrolment, providing a LMS, and providing basic IT support are defrayed by the Educational Development Network and the IT department. The Participants’ Perception of Learning Design The participants were primarily employed as postdocs (40%) or assistant professors (30%) and their teaching experience ranged from experienced lecturers responsible for modules with more than 100 students to postdocs or researchers giving occasional lectures and being involved in project supervision of students. According to a pre-survey carried out in connection with the last two runs of 24 FP:13 the module, 7% said they had heard, read about or had first-hand experience with learning design, 5% had used educational technology to transform parts of their teaching to online teaching and 0% had used educational technology to teach entire modules online. At this point it is still not possible to measure the impact of the DiLD module on teaching and learning or the success of using learning design for teacher training. However, indications on how the participants perceived the module is provided by evaluation data collected after the last four repetitions of the module (Autumn 2013, Spring 2014, Autumn 2014, and Spring 2015). The collected data represents 20, 16, 31, and 9 module participants, respectively. In total the data basis is 76 module participants. The module evaluation addresses the participants’ prior experiences with educational technology and learning design, the evaluation of the module, the participants’ perceived learning outcomes, their perception of educational technology and learning design, and a survey of their future plans for adoption. When asked about perceived skills acquisition during the module a majority of participants expressed that the module had enabled them to design and develop blended learning (83%) and transform traditional teaching into blended or online teaching (73%). Most participants agreed or strongly agreed that they gained insight into relevant educational technologies and pedagogical methods and theories (80%) and were able to evaluate the potential of using educational technology in their own teaching (88%). 82% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: ‘the content of this module is relevant for my own teaching’ and 70% of the participants expressed that their perceived learning outcome during the module was high. In addition, the intended transformational level according to the revised SAMR model provided an indication of an ambitious use of technology. Scrutinising the individual learning designs revealed that 84% aimed at augmenting, 7% modifying, 7% redefining, and 2% substituting their teaching practice with technology. Bearing in mind that Aarhus University is a traditional, campus-based university with an insignificant amount of distance learning, the transformational levels witness a general high level of ambition for educational technology. The individual learning designs also revealed a highly diverse but generally very ambitious and intense use of educational technologies such as videos, discussion forums, learning paths, and peer instruction tools. Various kinds of video formats (30% of individual learning designs) such as webcasts, lecture captures, screencasts, and pencasts, peer instruction tools (15%) such as PeerWise (Denny et al., 2008) and curriculearn (Brodersen, 2014), and the use of learning pathways (14%) were particularly prevailing. The individual learning designs indicated a pronounced uptake of the presented learning design models and in particular the STREAM model. In practice, this meant that more than 80% adopted the STREAM model for their learning design with the remaining 20% split evenly between a completely new learning design model and other existing learning design models such as the Five-stage Model (Salmon, 2011) or a model for structured discussions (Sorensen, 2005) which they found relevant to their own teaching practice (Figure 3). Prospectively, 80% of the participants in the last two runs of the module (i.e. Autumn 2014 and Spring 2015) expressed in the evaluation that they had plans to adopt learning design in their teaching practice within the next year or more, and 45% within the next 6 months. Figure 3: Perceived relevance of the three presented learning design models. Figure 4: Potential of educational technology and learning design in science education. 25 FP:14 In spite of the participants’ limited prior experiences with educational technology and learning design, the module led to a highly positive attitude. According to the module evaluations, the participants spent an average of 34 hours on the module (median 35 hours) ranging from 10-87 hours, a bit more than the estimated 30 hours (~1 ECTS) and what was required. Furthermore, most module participants saw a potential for both educational technology (93%) and learning design (88%) in science education (Figure 4). Transforming Modules with Learning Design Besides the DiLD module for assistant professors, the STREAM model and its toolkit are used, presented, and referred to through various channels aiming at all educators. It serves as a reference at meetings with educators, the locally held Frontiers in Science Education 2014 conference, invited talks and workshops on educational technology, development meetings with the educational committees at the faculty, freely available online resources on STREAM (e.g. Godsk, 2015b), and published papers on the topic (cf. Godsk, 2013; 2014a). Furthermore, STREAM has also been a prominent part of educational development meetings with all twelve educational committees at ST in the spring of 2015. Most associate professors and professors are highly self-governed with regards to their teaching practice and uptake of technology and STREAM may be used without CSE’s knowledge inspired by a conference, a workshop, the website, etc. Hence, the full extent of the impact of the STREAM model and toolkit is unknown. For transformations where the educator has been in direct dialogue with CSE, however, the impact on teaching and learning has been assessed. An overview of the completed transformations and their institutional impact in ECTS credits and full-time equivalents (FTEs) as well as impact on students’ learning is provided in Table 1. Institutional impact is expressed in ECTS credits and calculated as (the number of students) x (the number of ECTS credits associated with the module). One FTE corresponds to 60 ECTS. Table 1: The STREAM transformations’ institutional impact and impact on learning. Module Learning Design Institutional impact Impact on students’ learning Calculus 2, 2013 (undergraduat e, 5 ECTS) The module was modified by replacing all lectures with learning paths containing webcasts, MCQs, reflection exercises, and online follow-up in Dokeos LMS. Approx. 60% of the 1,184 students followed the transformed module. I.e. approx. 710 students, 3,550 ECTS/59.2 FTEs The evaluation of the module and examination results showed that the online students obtained significantly better examination results, better pass rates, and were significantly more satisfied with the learning compared to the face-to-face students (cf. Godsk, 2014b). Astrophysics, 2013 (undergraduat e, 5 ECTS) The module was augmented by supplementing lectures with webcasts, learning paths, online activities, and online feedback in Blackboard Learn. 123 students, 615 ECTS/10.3 FTEs The module evaluation indicated a high satisfaction with the format (70 % of the students responded that they referred the transformed format to traditional lectures) and provided evidence of an increased degree of flexibility in time and place, support for repetition and examination preparation, and more time for discussion during lectures (Godsk, 2014a). Microbial Physiology and Identification, 2014 (undergraduat e, 10 ECTS) The module was modified by replacing all lectures with webcasts structured in learning paths in Dokeos. 25 students, 250 ECTS/4.2 FTEs The end-of-module evaluation indicated a high student satisfaction (76% preferred the transformed format to traditional lectures) and a higher degree of flexibility in time, place, and pace. 87% most frequently watched the webcasts outside regular teaching hours. Evolution and Diversity, 2014 (undergraduat e, 5 ECTS) The module was augmented by transforming parts of the lectures into webcasts. 123 students, 615 ECTS/10.3 FTEs N/a. 26 FP:15 Calculus 1, 2014 (undergraduat e, 5 ECTS) The module was modified by replacing all lectures with learning paths containing webcasts, MCQs, reflection exercises, and online follow-up in Blackboard Learn. 1,048 students, 5,240 ECTS/87.3 FTEs The end-of-module evaluation indicated a high student satisfaction (51% preferred the transformed format to traditional lectures), a higher degree of flexibility in time, place, and pace, and a wide utility of the learning paths. 81% found that the online activities supported their understanding. Calculus 2, 2014 (undergraduat e, 5 ECTS) Modified as described for Calculus 2, 2013. 821 students, 4,105 ECTS/68.4 FTEs The end-of-module evaluation indicated high student satisfaction (50% preferred the transformed format to 31% preferring traditional lectures), a higher degree of flexibility in time, place, and pace, and a wide utility of the learning paths. Astrophysics, 2014 (undergraduat e, 5 ECTS) The module was augmented by replacing lectures and 25% of the final assessment with webcasts, learning paths, assessed online activities, and online feedback in Blackboard Learn. 125 students, 625 ECTS/10.4 FTEs The examination results and the module evaluation provided evidence of a high student work rate and satisfaction (85% very satisfied or satisfied with learning outcome, 76% preferred the new assessment format), lower fail rates (50% lower than the previous year) and a wide use of the flexibility offered. Microbial Physiology and Identification, 2015 (undergraduat e, 10 ECTS) The module was modified by replacing all lectures with webcasts in Blackboard Learn. 12 students, 120 ECTS/2 FTEs The end-of-module evaluation indicated high degree of flexibility in time, place, and pace. 50% used the webcasts for assignment work and examination preparation. However, only 25% preferred the transformed format to traditional lectures. Evolution and Diversity, 2015 (undergraduat e, 5 ECTS) The module was augmented by transforming parts of the lectures into webcasts. 117 students, 585 ECTS/9.8 FTEs N/a. In total 9 modules were delivered augmented or modified using STREAM. Approx. 15,705 ECTS (261.75 FTEs) were impacted by learning design. An overall positive impact on students’ learning, including an increased student satisfaction, a higher degree of flexibility in time, place, and pace, and in some cases also improved grades and/or pass rates. To promote the STREAM model and toolkit and help the educators with the adoption, a number of resources have been developed. This includes a website (Godsk, 2015b) with a short introduction to the model, its potential for improving teaching and learning, its practical benefits, a list of already transformed modules and their incentives, and a 6 minutes long video introducing the model and how it is applied. The website and video were launched 6 January 2014 and until now (25 June 2015), the website has been accessed 659 times and the video played 110 times, which is equivalent to an average of 37 views of the website and 6-7 plays of the video per month. In addition, a short learning path has been developed and provided to the 46 educators signed up to the resource page in the LMS. Finally, the educational results and information about the STREAM model and transformations were disseminated to the 213 subscribers of quarterly newsletters of which approximately 30 were educators at the faculty. A press release was issued on the transformation of Calculus, which resulted in news coverage in two media (Loiborg, 2014; Stiften, 2014) and publication of three academic papers, two conference papers (Godsk, 2013; 2014a) and one journal paper (Godsk, 2014b). In total, the initiatives have reached a large portion of the educators at ST through one channel or another and the vast majority of all undergraduate students. Using Learning Design for Educational Development with Technology Using a framework-based learning design approach, exemplified by the STREAM model and toolkit, has demonstrated a number of advantages: 27 FP:16 1. STREAM provides a uniform and common language to articulate educational development in the initial phase of implementation as well as later phases of refinements and exchange of experience; 2. STREAM provides the opportunity to more uniformly facilitate technology-based educational development through standard templates and guidelines; 3. the overall learning design (the fixed/invariant parts) is developed by educational experts who can prioritise, integrate and balance the various aspects in an optimal overall design; 4. the specific learning design (refinement of the variant parts) is left to the educators to accommodate specific needs. These can be subject-specific needs or individual preferences or beliefs (still maintaining a common denominator among the learning designs). In addition, the STREAM model has at least two build-in potential advantages: 5. STREAM provides a common structure that addresses analytical and management issues (quality assurance, accreditation, etc.); 6. STREAM ensures a common and recognisable overall LMS structure for students while still providing opportunities for detailed variation to accommodate individual needs and preferences. Some of these advantages are common to many learning design practices in general. This includes the potential to provide a common language for sharing teaching and learning practices, the ability to operationalise the pedagogical knowhow of the educational experts and accommodation of the development of individual learning design according to and by the educators themselves (Agostinho, 2006; Cross & Conole, 2009; Godsk, 2015a; Koper & Tattersall, 2010; Laurillard, 2012; Mor & Winters, 2007). Though the STREAM model is designed with a specific context in mind, the fact that the model is build on well-tested approaches to educational development and a strong research base within the area of learning design, the experiences and findings should apply in other teaching contexts as well. Hence, the authors strongly recommend a learning design approach to educational development with technology, including the STREAM model as the concrete learning design model. Conclusions The educational development effort at Faculty of Science and Technology, Aarhus University, revolves around a learning design approach and in particular the STREAM learning design model. This has proven an effective way of getting educators at the faculty to embrace the potentials of educational efforts, as, for instance, reflected in the fact that 93% of assistant professors and postdocs participating in the Digital Learning Design module see a potential for educational technology in science education, 88% see a potential for learning design, and that 80% expect to adopt learning design within the next year or more. 68% find STREAM relevant to their own teaching practice and the majority feel that the Digital Learning Design module has enabled them to transform, design, and teach with educational technology. The associate professors and professors are exposed to the topic of educational technology and learning design through a string of activities ranging from small meetings to conferences. The process of sharing practices and ideas, including the STREAM learning design model, through many different initiatives has made it possible to reach a large portion of the educators. Furthermore, the process has resulted in a series of transformations, which, judging from the institutional impact and impact on students’ learning, have been highly successful resulting in increased student satisfaction, a higher degree of flexibility in time, place, and pace, and in some cases also improved grades and/or pass rates for a large number of students/FTEs. As an added bonus, the results have led to a persistent inflow of new educators interested in transforming their teaching practice with educational technology and the STREAM model. At this point, the experiences with learning design in terms of the DiLD module and the STREAM model are positive and suggest that learning design is a suitable, scalable, sustainable, and effective approach to educational development for implementing educational technology in science higher education. The approach has demonstrated its practicality and effectiveness for engaging educators in the transformation of traditional teaching practice into blended and online learning, and that a relatively limited institutional effort has the potential to stimulate a highly positive attitude and high 28 FP:17 ambitions towards educational technology among science educators. Now, the mission is to measure the actual uptake of learning design among the assistant professors and ensure the continued inflow of professors interested in transforming their teaching practice with technology. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Klaus Thomsen (Department of Mathematics), Kai Finster (Department of Bioscience), Tove Hedegaard Jørgensen (Department of Bioscience), and Science Media Lab at Faculty of Science and Technology, Aarhus University. References Agostinho, S. (2006). The use of a visual learning design representation to document and communicate teaching ideas. Proceedings of the 23rd annual ascilite conference: Who’s learning? Whose technology? Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney06/proceeding/pdf_papers/p173.pdf. Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, 4th edition. Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. Washington, DC: School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University. Brodersen, D.E. (2014). curriculearn.dk. Retrieved from http://curriculearn.dk/src/index.php. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32–42. Denny, P., Luxton-Reilly, A., Hamer, J. (2008). The PeerWise System of Student Contributed Assessment Questions. Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Australasian Computing Education (ACE 2008), 78, 69-74, (Wollongong, NSW, Australia). Conole, G. (2013). Designing for learning in an open world. New York: Springer. Cross, S., & Conole, G. (2009). Learn about learning design. Part of the OU Learn about series of guides, The Open University: Milton Keynes. Retrieved November 21, 2013, from http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/OULDI/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Learn-about-learning- design_v7.doc. Cross, S., Conole, G., Clark, P., Brasher, A., & Weller, M. (2008). Mapping a landscape of Learning Design: identifying key trends in current practice at the Open University. In: 2008 European LAMS Conference, 25-27 June 2008, Cadiz, Spain. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/18640/5/CAD08_022_Final.pdf. European Union (2015). ECTS Users’ Guide. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. ISBN 978-92-79-43559-1 doi:10.2766/87192 Fjuk, A., Berge, O., Bennedsen, J. B., & Caspersen, M.E. (2004). Learning Object-Orientation through ICT-mediated Apprenticeship, Proceedings of the fourth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT 2004, Joensuu, Finland, pp. 380-384. Godsk, M. (2013). STREAM: a Flexible Model for Transforming Higher Science Education into Blended and Online Learning. In T. Bastiaens & G. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2013 (pp. 722-728). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Godsk, M., Hougaard, R. F., & Lindberg, A. B. (2013). Teaching Online Teaching Online: Seven Pedagogical Principles for Teacher Training. In World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, 2013, (1), 95-104 Godsk, M. (2014a). Efficient learning design - concept, catalyst, and cases. In B. Hegarty, J. McDonald, & S.-K. Loke (Eds.), Rhetoric and Reality: Critical perspectives on educational technology. Proceedings ascilite Dunedin 2014 (pp. 182-189). Godsk, M. (2014b). Improving Learning in a Traditional, Large-Scale Science Module with a Simple and Efficient Learning Design. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 17 (2), 143- 159. Godsk, M., Bjælde, O. E., Hougaard, R. F., Lindberg, A. B., & Vicens, Q. (2014). Digital Learning Design 2014, Retrieved from https://aarhus.blackboard.com/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_29594_1& content_id=_178473_1 29 http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney06/proceeding/pdf_papers/p173.pdf http://curriculearn.dk/src/index.php http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/OULDI/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Learn-about-learning-design_v7.doc http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/OULDI/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Learn-about-learning-design_v7.doc http://oro.open.ac.uk/18640/5/CAD08_022_Final.pdf FP:18 Godsk, M. (2015a). Understanding and Defining ‘Learning Design’: Seven Common Characteristics and Two Continua. Manuscript submitted for publication. Godsk, M. (2015b, September 09). Undervisningsudvikling vha. Educational IT (STREAM). Retrieved from http://cse.au.dk/forskning/projekter/stream/. Koper, R., & Tattersall, C. (Eds.) (2010). Learning Design. A Handbook on Modelling and Delivering Networked Education and Training. Berlin: Springer. Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. New York and London: Routledge. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Loiborg, C. (2014). Aarhus Universitet klar til videoundervisning i differentialligninger. Ingeniøren. Retrieved from http://ing.dk/artikel/aarhus-universitet-klar-til-videoundervisning-i- differentialligninger-169643 Mazur, E., & Hilborn, R. C. (1997). Peer instruction: A user's manual. Physics Today. 50 (4), 68-69. Mor, Y., & Winters, N. (2007). Design approaches in technology-enhanced learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 15 (1), 61-75. Nicol, D., & Draper, S. (2009). A blueprint for transformational organisational change in higher education: REAP as case study. Transforming higher education through technology-enhanced learning. Heslington: Higher Education Academy. Novak, G. M., Patterson, E. T., Gavrin, A. D., & Christian, W. (1999). Just-in-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning with Web Technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Price, L. & Kirkwood, A. (2011). Enhancing professional learning and teaching through technology: a synthesis of evidence-based practice among teachers in higher education. York, UK: Higher Education Academy. Puentedura, R. (2010). SAMR and TPCK: Intro to Advanced Practice. http://hippasus.com/resources/sweden2010/SAMR_TPCK_IntroToAdvancedPractice.pdf (last accessed 22 September 2015). Salmon, G. (2011). E-moderating. The Key to Teaching and Learning Online. 3rd Edition. New York and London: Routledge. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27 (2), 4–13. Sorensen, E. K. (2005). Networked eLearning and collaborative knowledge building: Design and facilitation. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4(4), 446-455. http://www.citejournal.org/vol4/iss4/general/article3.cfm Stiften (2014, July 14). Video afløser forelæsninger. Århus Stiftstidende. Retrieved from http://stiften.dk/aarhus/video-afloeser-forelaesninger Vicens, Q. & Caspersen, M.E. (2014). Getting more scientists to revamp teaching. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43 (5), 22-27. Weller, M. (2002). Delivering learning on the Net: The why, what & how of online education. London: Psychology Press. Aarhus University (2011). Den faglige udviklingsprocess. Retrieved from http://www.au.dk/fileadmin/res/fau/dok/fau_rapport_090311.pdf. Aarhus University (2015). Key figures and ranking. Retrieved from http://scitech.au.dk/en/about- science-and-technology/key-figures/. Bjælde, O.E., Caspersen, M.E., Godsk, M., Hougaard, R.F., & Lindberg, A.B. (2015). Learning design for science teacher training and educational development. In T. Reiners, B.R. von Konsky, D. Gibson, V. Chang, L. Irving, & K. Clarke (Eds.), Globally connected, digitally enabled. Proceedings ascilite 2015 in Perth (pp.FP: 9-FP:18). Note: All published papers are refereed, having undergone a double-blind peer-review process. The author(s) assign a Creative Commons by attribution licence enabling others to distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon their work, even commercially, as long as credit is given to the author(s) for the original creation. 30 http://cse.au.dk/forskning/projekter/stream/ http://ing.dk/artikel/aarhus-universitet-klar-til-videoundervisning-i-differentialligninger-169643 http://ing.dk/artikel/aarhus-universitet-klar-til-videoundervisning-i-differentialligninger-169643 http://stiften.dk/aarhus/video-afloeser-forelaesninger http://stiften.dk/aarhus/video-afloeser-forelaesninger http://www.au.dk/fileadmin/res/fau/dok/fau_rapport_090311.pdf http://scitech.au.dk/en/about-science-and-technology/key-figures/ http://scitech.au.dk/en/about-science-and-technology/key-figures/ FP:19 Tensions and turning points: exploring teacher decision-making in a complex eLearning environment Scott Bradey James Cook University Understanding how university teachers experience and respond to imperatives to integrate digital technologies into their curricula and teaching practice is essential for addressing the gap between the potential of such technologies to articulate with institutional objectives and their uptake by university teachers. This article reports on a study in a regional Australian university focused on capturing the complex ways that individual and contextual factors can interact to support or impede the integration of technology into teaching practice. The lens of cultural-historical activity theory is used to describe and interpret the complex activity of designing and teaching a blended-mode course from the perspective of an experienced lecturer. An analytical focus on emergent tensions and the identification of turning points as markers of critical encounters requiring the lecturer to make decisions and take action provides an insight into potential transformations in their thinking and practice. Keywords: activity theory, university teaching, blended learning, technology integration Introduction The integration of digital technologies into university curricula is a multi-faceted phenomenon shaped by a complex array of political, cultural, technical and pedagogical factors (Selander, 2008). From the lecturer’s perspective, the task of designing and teaching a blended-mode course is active, intentional, value-laden work with many matters often vying simultaneously for their attention, decision-making and action-taking (Sanders & McCutcheon, 1986). The work of university teachers is far from simple, however a recent literature review of the ways in in which teacher participation has been conceptualised in eLearning research reveals a relatively dispersed and under-theorised account of the relationship between technology, context, human cognition, and action (Bradey, 2015). Some of these interrelationships have been considered from the systems design perspective in the field of human-computer interaction (HCI) (e.g., Kaptelinin, 1996; Nardi, 1996); however, few of these are well represented within educational technology or eLearning. Oliver (2012) argues that the paucity of theorisation has resulted in the prevalence of simplistic accounts of the role of technology in various kinds of teaching and learning, usually involving some kind of causal or determining mechanism. The experience of universities internationally showing that digital technologies have often failed to meet expectations for transforming teaching and learning (Kirkwood & Price, 2011) would seem to suggest a much more complex interplay of factors may be at work, and that more critical and rigorous research is required. As noted by Sam (2012, p. 84) “part of the challenge of conducting research in digital realms is determining how to understand online life holistically and within context”. Finding a research framework that incorporates these various elements is a challenge, as most conceptual frameworks usually separate individuals, contexts, technology, and such, or only combine a few (Kuutti, 1996; Nardi, 1996; Roth & Lee, 2007). This paper demonstrates how the theoretical and interpretive framework of cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) (Engeström, 1987, 2001) can be used to describe the highly mediated yet dynamic nature of lecturers’ participation in planning and teaching a blended-mode course, and capture the social, cultural and historical factors influencing their decision-making in their local context. In particular the paper shows how the CHAT principle of contradictions can be used to indentify interactions and tensions within and between components of lecturers’ activity systems as potential sources of development and innovation. Kärkkäinen's (1999) concept of ‘turning points’ is employed as an integral component of the interpretive framework to explain how lecturers’ responses to systemic tensions can influence the transformation of established practices. 31 FP:20 Research context This paper is based on one of the four case studies within a doctoral research project conducted at a regional Australian university. The research sought to better understand how lecturers, who are experienced university teachers and disciplinary professionals, make decisions about teaching with digital technology in a contemporary blended learning environment. This qualitative study focused on capturing the complex ways that individual and contextual factors can interact to support or impede the integration of technology into teaching practice. The subject of the case study interpreted in this paper is Lisa, an experienced professional journalist who had been teaching in Higher Education for eight years and had been using digital technologies to supplement her courses for the previous two years. However, Lisa had no formal training in teaching or technology. The course in this case study was a second year unit of study in the professional discipline of journalism and was initially structured in a format comprising 13 hours of lectures and 20 hours of tutorials. Tutorial readings were prescribed in the form of textbook chapters. Lisa frequently used stories of real-world experiences as a bridge between the theory found in the course textbook, and the vocational skills students would be expected to demonstrate. Methodology To allow the nature of lecturers’ participation in a complex activity to emerge over time, this exploratory research adopted a qualitative design and a multiple case study approach. Data were gathered over the course of a study period by way of individual and group semi-structured interviews, stimulated recall interviews, online observations and digital artifacts. Data interpretation was undertaken in two phases and employed Rogoff’s (1995) notion of the three planes of sociocultural analysis to focus on the activity taking place on the personal, interpersonal and institutional-community levels. Locating the study within the theoretical and interpretive framework of cultural-historical activity theory provided a means to to study the actions of people on both an individual and societal level simultaneously. A distinctive feature of CHAT is that its unit of analysis is an activity, that is, a conscious action directed at a goal in a particular context over time. Activities in this sense are not one-time brief actions, described by Roth and Lee (2007, p. 98) as “evolving complex structure[s] of mediated and collective human agency.” Each activity consists of interacting components and their relationships to one another: subject, object (motive), community, tools, rules, division of labour, and outcomes. The relationship is often visualised as an activity triangle, with connecting lines indicating a possible interaction between and among all the components. Engeström referred to this as an activity system. In this study, the basic elements common to all participants in the activity are represented in Figure 1. 32 FP:21 Figure 1: A generic activity system in the current study adapted from Engeström (1987) If tensions arise within or between the elements of an activity system then the flow of interactions can become disrupted or discoordinated. These tensions, referred to as contradictions in activity theory are the underlying causes of visible problems and conflicts. While contradictions generate disturbances in an activity system, they are also seen as important drivers for innovation and change. The current analysis drew on Kärkkäinen’s (1999) notion of ‘turning points’ as a way of identifying possible contradictions within participants’ activity systems. Turning points have been used extensively by Russell and Schneiderheinze (Russell, 2004; Russell & Schneiderheinze, 2005; Schneiderheinze, 2003) as indicators of object transformation, that is, ways in which the lecturer delineated the activity of teaching in a new way. Kärkkäinen (1999) defines three indicators of turning points: disturbance clusters (including dilemmas, disturbances and innovation attempts), questions, and interaction of voices. In the current analysis, turning points were operationalised through the interpretation of reflective dialogue with the researcher (Individual interview; Stimulated recall interview) and with other participants (Group interview), guided by the decision indicators illustrated in Table 1. Table 1: Kärkkäinen’s (1999) indicators of turning point events Turning point indicator Decision indicator Disturbance clusters • The participant expresses hesitations, reservations, being "in two minds" things, inconsistent opinions, characterised by clusters of “buts” and negatives (Dilemmas) • The participant expresses difficulty in understanding, disagreement with, or rejection of a situation (Disturbances) • The participant consciously seeks to introduce a new idea or solution (Innovation attempts) Questioning • The participant questions accepted practices, such as ideas presented, present pedagogy and work practices • The participant expresses doubt about whether former ideas and ideologies are worthwhile or workable in practice Student learning Planning and teaching a blended-mode course Lecturer roles Students Support staff Lecturers/Colleagues Learners The profession/Practitioners Curriculum requirements, Discipline and institutional policies/expectations, Technical standards/conventions Virtual Learning Environment Teaching strategies Lecturer 33 FP:22 Interaction of different voices • The participants in a collaborative setting present different viewpoints on an issue According to Kärkkäinen (1999), transformation can occur in four ways: widening, narrowing, switching and disintegrating. When a disturbance manifesting an underlying contradiction is acknowledged and successfully resolved, a widened or expanded way of thinking and practising becomes possible. However, if the disturbance manifesting an underlying contradiction is not acknowledged and resolved the object may be narrowed. A narrowing of the object could mean that the teacher's concept of the object becomes less broad, for example, more traditionally focused. A switching of the object means that tensions inherent in the implementation of the object caused the lecturer to change her response to the object. The disintegration of the object means that the lecturer’s response in relation to the object will be fragmented. The following section presents an interpretive commentary of Lisa’s case study for the purposes of situating the data within a CHAT framework; describing the trajectory of this participant’s activity as it changed over time; providing additional information to help contextualise the data; identifying systemic tensions underlying the conflicts experienced by the participant; serving as a device for zooming between the personal, interpersonal and institutional-community plane of analysis, and focusing attention on the meaning interpretations of the researcher. Findings and discussion A summary representation of Lisa’s activity system is illustrated in Figure 2. The Subject node of Lisa’s activity system, encapsulates her individual attributes such as beliefs about teaching, learning and technology; personal qualities, attitudes and past experiences. The Mediating tools node represents the cognitive, virtual and physical tools employed in the activity of teaching a blended-mode course. The Object node establishes the purpose of the activity, and the Outcomes node indicates the intended outcomes of the activity. Contextual elements influencing the activity are informed by elements contained in the Division of Labour, Community and Rules nodes. 34 FP:23 Figure 2: CHAT model of Lisa’s work activity system Lisa experienced tensions in her work activity system in both the planning and teaching phases of her blended-mode course. She experienced these tensions as disturbances, dilemmas, questioning and innovation attempts which were clustered into one turning point event in the planning phase and three turning point events in the teaching phase. Lisa acknowledged and responded to the tensions in her activity system through expanding the scope of her thinking and practice (widening) or by adjusting her expectations and the implementation of the intended task (switching) in order to achieve her intended outcomes. Lisa’s experience of the tensions in her activity system, her responses, and transformations of practice are summarised in Table 2 and interpreted in detail below. In the planning phase of her course, Lisa experienced a turning point event that impacted on her intent to improve both the flexibility and authenticity of her second-year journalism course. Lisa was enthusiastic about experimenting with new technologies in her teaching. Although she lacked experience with both the functional aspects of digital technologies and the process of integrating them into her curriculum she did not perceive this as a problem, preferring instead to take a trial and error approach and let the design emerge. Lisa’s seemingly laissez-faire attitude and her desire to innovate were at odds with the existing school culture that discouraged change and attempts at innovation. The hegemony in Lisa’s school was manifested as non- participation in institutional initiatives such as the development of blended-mode courses and effectively impeded Lisa’s attempts to seek in-house advice and assistance with improving her course design. This socio-cultural barrier represented a significant turning point for Lisa by compelling her to look beyond her own School for support (Table 2, turning point 1). Through initiating a dialogue with a more experienced academic mentor from another discipline, Lisa was able to transcend the barrier imposed by her own School culture, engage in self- directed professional development, and apply her new understandings to the design of the course. Lisa’s planned integration of Blog and Discussion Board tools to articulate with her desired pedagogical objectives represents a significant widening of the object in comparison • Stated course outcomes • Students able apply theory to practice • Students able to demonstrate professional skills • Sense of responsibility and privilege of the profession Planning and teaching a blended-mode course • Lecturer roles: Technologist, Designer, Facilitator, Administrator, Evaluator • Student roles • Academic colleagues • VLE Support staff • Students • Institutional culture and policies • Professional ethical standards • Lecturer’s rules and expectations for students • Virtual Learning Environment • Blog • Reflective journal • Textbook • Daily newspapers • Teaching strategies: pedagogical, organisational, learning support, assessment Lecturer • Beliefs (teaching, learning, technology) • Personal qualities • Attitudes • Past experiences 35 FP:24 with her initial ‘trial and error’ approach.. Although Lisa’s efforts were not well supported in her own School, she was able to sufficiently reduce the tension between the existing culture in the School (Rules) and her own expectations and beliefs (Subject) to allow her intended innovations to proceed. This is represented as a dashed arrow between the Rules and Subject nodes of Lisa’s work activity system (Figure 3) Table 2: Systemic tensions and turning point events influencing Lisa’s object transformation Turning point event Indicators o