Blending Academic and Professional Learning in a University Course for Future E-learning Specialists: The Perspective of Company Tutors
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework
- a combination of online and physical presence. This is the most popular conception of BL [12];
- a combination of delivery tools or media used to provide information and to support interaction. Based on the increasing number of platforms, software and media available, this element is currently gaining great attention. Importantly, combining digital tools also require teachers and learners to accept various technologies [13];
- a combination of different methods of instruction and teaching/learning. This is the most difficult aspect to realize because it implies that teachers and course designers should have a robust knowledge of the various educational strategies and that they understand which one is the best according to the affordance of the situation and to the specific learning goals [14]. Pedagogical knowledge is necessary to satisfy this requirement, and instructors do not always have it.
3. The Research
3.1. The Context of the Research
3.2. Research Questions
- (1)
- What differences are evident in the collaboration process when comparing WhatsApp logs with and without company tutor participation?
- (2)
- How do company tutors describe their contribution to the process of blending academic and professional contexts?
3.3. Corpus of Data and Participants
- Four WhatsApp chats logs produced during M2: two chats with the academic tutor and two where the company tutor was also present;
- Six interviews with company tutors, used to support the interpretation of the group chat dynamics.
3.4. Data Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Using Instant Messaging Communication
4.2. The Company Tutors’ Specificity
- Company tutor:
- Please let me know how the presentation is going!
- Student 1:
- Of course! Tomorrow we will have to start preparing ourselves. It’s the 29th. Thanks again.
- Company tutor:
- If you share with me a video recording of the presentation on the 29th, I’m even happier☺ so I can see you at work!
- Student 1:
- We’ll do it.
4.3. Companies Tutor Perspective: The Interviews
- Company tutor 1:
- Involving students in the business process enriches us because, of course, they are aware of all the theoretical and academic innovations and, at the same time, we bring our business experience.
- Company tutor 2:
- Let’s say working remotely is more ... more complicated than face-to-face. So in the future I would structure the contents of online meetings in a different way from a face-to-face mode of lesson ... in any case it was a challenge different from the usual ones and then ... and there is always room for improvements... I would create perhaps a little more interactive contents which allow students to exchange their ideas in the groups.
5. Conclusions
6. Practical Implications and limitations
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Singh, H. Building effective blended learning programs. In Challenges and Opportunities for the Global Implementation of E-Learning Frameworks; Badrul, H.K., Saida, A., Soheil Hussein, S., Zuheir Najee, K., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2021; pp. 15–23. [Google Scholar]
- Ramakrisnan, P.; Yahya, Y.B.; Hasrol, M.N.H.; Aziz, A.A. Blended learning: A suitable framework for e-learning in higher education. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 67, 513–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rasmitadila, R.; Widyasari, W.; Humaira, M.; Tambunan, A.; Rachmadtullah, R.; Samsudin, A. Using Blended Learning Approach (BLA) in inclusive education course: A study investigating teacher students’ perception. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2020, 15, 72–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dima Ali, H.; Amal Shehadeh, A. The effect of using blended learning method on students’ achievement in English and their motivation towards learning it: Blended learning, achievement, and motivation. Int. J. Virtual Pers. Learn. Environ. 2020, 10, 83–96. [Google Scholar]
- Rafiola, R.; Setyosari, P.; Radjah, C.; Ramli, M. The effect of learning motivation, self-efficacy, and blended learning on students’ achievement in the Industrial Revolution 4.0. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2020, 15, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kiviniemi, M.T. Effects of a blended learning approach on student outcomes in a graduate-level public health course. BMC Med Educ. 2014, 14, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Page, T.; Thorsteinsson, G.; Niculescu, A. A blended learning approach to enhancing innovation. Stud. Inform. Control. 2008, 17, 297–304. [Google Scholar]
- Graham, C. Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs; Bonk, C.J., Graham, C.R., Eds.; Pfeiffer & Co.: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2006; pp. 3–21. [Google Scholar]
- Osguthorpe, R.T.; Graham, C.R. Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. Q. Rev. Distance Educ. 2003, 4, 227. [Google Scholar]
- Hamilton, E.R.; Rosenberg, J.M.; Akcaoglu, M. The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends 2016, 60, 433–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graham, C.; Allen, S.; Ure, D. Benefits and challenges of blended learning environments. In Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, 1st ed.; Mehdi Khosrow-Pour, D.B.A., Ed.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2005; pp. 253–259. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, H. Building effective blended learning programs. Educ. Technol. 2003, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lazar, I.M.; Panisoara, G.; Panisoara, I.O. Digital technology adoption scale in the blended learning context in higher education: Development, validation and testing of a specific tool. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0235957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cronje, J. Towards a new definition of blended learning. Electron. J. e-Learn. 2020, 18, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Galvis, Á.H. Supporting decision-making processes on blended learning in higher education: Literature and good practices review. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2018, 15, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garrison, D.R.; Kanuka, H. Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet High. Educ. 2004, 7, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castro, R. Blended learning in higher education: Trends and capabilities. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2019, 24, 2523–2546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Selwyn, N.; Facer, K. The sociology of education and digital technology: Past, present and future. Oxf. Rev. Educ. 2014, 40, 482–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Anthony, B.; Kamaludin, A.; Romli, A.; Raffei, A.F.M.; Phon, D.N.A.L.E.; Abdullah, A.; Ming, G.L. Blended learning adoption and implementation in higher education: A theoretical and systematic review. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 2020, 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rossett, A.; Frazee, R. Blended Learning Opportunities; American Management Association: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Ritella, G.; Ligorio, M.; Hakkarainen, K. Theorizing space-time relations in education: The concept of chronotope. Front. Learn. Res. 2017, 4, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Amenduni, F.; Ligorio, M.B. Becoming at the borders: The Role of positioning in boundary-crossing between university and workplaces. Cult. Hist. Psychol. 2017, 13, 89–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Konkola, R.; Tuomi-Gröhn, T.; Lambert, P.; Ludvigsen, S. Promoting learning and transfer between school and workplace. J. Educ. Work. 2007, 20, 211–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erstad, O.; Sefton-Green, J. Identity, Community, and Learning Lives in the Digital Age; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Horváth, P.G. A survey of the use and characteristics of extra-school learning environment. J. Appl. Tech. Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 3–17. [Google Scholar]
- Ritella, G.; Di Maso, R.; McLay, K.; Annese, S.; Ligorio, M.B. Remembering, reflecting, reframing: Examining students’ long-term perceptions of an innovative model for university teaching. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ligorio, M.B.; Amenduni, F.; Sansone, N.; McLay, K. Designing blended university courses for transaction from academic learning to professional competences. In Cultural Views on Online Learning in Higher Education: A Seemingly Borderless Class; Di Gesú, M.G., González, M.F., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 67–86. [Google Scholar]
- Hakkarainen, K.P.J. Epistemology of Scientific Inquiry and Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning; University of Toronto: Toronto, ON, Canada, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Scardamalia, M.; Bereiter, C. Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences; Keith, S.R., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2006; pp. 97–115. [Google Scholar]
- Aronson, E.; Bridgeman, D. Jigsaw groups and the desegregated classroom: In pursuit of common goals. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1979, 5, 438–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cetinkaya, L. The impact of Whatsapp use on success in education process. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 2017, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Klein, A.Z.; da Silva Freitas, J.J.C.; da Silva, J.V.V.M.M.; Barbosa, J.L.V.; Baldasso, L. The educational affordances of Mobile Instant Messaging (MIM): Results of Whatsapp® used in higher education. Int. J. Distance Educ. Technol. 2018, 16, 51–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hytönen, K.; Palonen, T.; Lehtinen, E.; Hakkarainen, K. Between two advisors: Interconnecting academic and workplace settings in an emerging field. Vocat. Learn. 2016, 9, 333–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dikko, M. Establishing construct validity and reliability: Pilot testing of a qualitative interview for research in Takaful (Islamic insurance). Qual. Rep. 2016, 21, 521–528. [Google Scholar]
- Strijbos, J.-W.; Martens, R.L.; Prins, F.J.; Jochems, W.M.G. Content analysis: What are they talking about? Comput. Educ. 2006, 46, 29–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Armborst, A. Thematic proximity in content analysis. SAGE Open 2017, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Goold, A.; Coldwell, J.; Craig, A. An examination of the role of the e-tutor. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2010, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Spadaro, P.; Sansone, N.; Ligorio, M. Role-taking for knowledge building in a blended learning course. J. e-Learn. Knowl. Soc. 2009, 5, 11–21. [Google Scholar]
- Strijbos, J.-W.; Martens, R.L.; Jochems, W.M.G.; Broers, N.J. The effect of functional roles on group efficiency: Using multilevel modeling and content analysis to investigate computer-supported collaboration in small groups. Small Group Res. 2004, 35, 195–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Muukkonen, H.; Lakkala, M.; Hakkarainen, K. Technology-mediation and tutoring: How do they shape progressive inquiry discourse? J. Learn. Sci. 2005, 14, 527–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levine, J.M.; Moreland, R.L. Collaboration: The social context of theory development. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2004, 8, 164–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alberto, A.P.C.; Elisa, M.; Jean-Luc, G. Evaluating a mobile and online system for apprentices’ learning documentation in vocational education: Usability, effectiveness and satisfaction. Int. J. Mob. Blended Learn. 2015, 7, 40–58. [Google Scholar]
- Akkerman, S.F.; Bakker, A. Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Rev. Educ. Res. 2011, 81, 132–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tortoriello, M.; Krackhardt, D. Activating cross-boundary knowledge: The role of simmelian ties in the generation of innovations. Acad. Manag. J. 2010, 53, 167–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Adam, S.; Nel, D. Blended and online learning: Student perceptions and performance. Interact. Technol. Smart Educ. 2009, 6, 140–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schwendimann, B.A.; Cattaneo, A.A.P.; Dehler Zufferey, J.; Gurtner, J.-L.; Bétrancourt, M.; Dillenbourg, P. The ‘Erfahrraum’: A pedagogical model for designing educational technologies in dual vocational systems. J. Vocat. Educ. Train. 2015, 67, 367–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Dimensions of the Blend, Singh, 2003 [12] | Dimensions of the Blend, Galvis, 2018 [15] |
---|---|
Offline (face-to-face) and online (virtual) learning environments | Spaces (face-to-face, online, autonomous) and time (synchronous, asynchronous) for student-teacher-content interaction |
Self-paced (learned controlled) and live, collaborative learning (among many learners) | Pedagogy (conventional, inverted) and locus of control (teacher, students, group) |
Structured (formal) and unstructured (informal) learning | Media to attain knowledge (expository, active, interactive media) |
Custom content (adaptive, flexible) and off-the-shelf content (generic) | Learning experiences (formal, non-formal, informal) |
Learning (before a new job-task), practice (using job-tasks or simulation models), and performance support (Just-in-time coaching) | Learning environments (personal/networked, at work/at home, virtual classroom/physical classroom) |
E-Learning Company | Objects to Build |
---|---|
Nuvolar | Quick reference guide for the Nuvolar application |
Osel | An online course on emotional intelligence |
Grifo Multimedia | A Serious Game design |
Gruppo Pragma | A course concerning antitrust law |
Lattanzio Learning | A MOOC based on existing OERs |
Mosaico Learning | A learning object with Articulate |
Number of Characters | Number of Posts | Number of Posts by Tutors | Unit of Analysis | |
---|---|---|---|---|
G1—only academic tutor | 50,606 | 617 | Academic: 257 | 40 |
G2—academic tutor + company tutor | 32,600 | 346 | Academic: 47 Company: 70 | 47 |
L1—only academic tutor | 10,073 | 123 | Academic: 35 | 15 |
L2—academic tutor + company tutor | 82,684 | 640 | Academic: 88 Company: 283 | 73 |
Unit of Analysis | Duration | |
---|---|---|
Interview 1—Gr | 29 | 9′25″ |
Interview 2—L | 33 | 20′26″ |
Interview 3—G | 26 | 21′07″ |
Interview 4—M | 28 | 22′29″ |
Interview 5—O | 31 | 57′07″ |
Interview 6—N | 33 | 21′34″ |
Macro-Categories | Categories and Description |
---|---|
Decision making | Goal influence: References to the goals when a decision has to be made |
Task-structure influence: Reference to task structure when a decision has to be made | |
Role organization | Students role: Reference to students’ roles taken as group organization; for instance students may be in charge to find more information or to synthesize the work done |
Relation with academic tutor: Reference to the relation with academic tutor | |
Relation with company tutor: Reference to the relation with company tutor | |
Interdependence | Conflict: Conflicts within a group or across groups |
Collaboration: Supportive and collaborative interventions towards other students, might they belong to the same group or not | |
Organization: Intervention aims at defining how to organize the work; for instance establishing deadlines | |
Strengths/opportunities: Comments about strengths and opportunities of the learning context | |
Challenges/weaknesses: Comments about strengths and opportunities of the learning context in general | |
Blended | Traditional Blended: Reference to the relation between online and F2F dimensions |
Blending contexts*: Someone refers to the cross-fertilisation between academic and professional knowledge, competences and practices | |
Psychosocial dynamics | Any other individual or collective process not included into the previous categories |
BC | COLL | TASK | GOAL | TB | OPP | STUD | COMP_TU | CHAL | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BC | 0.00 | ||||||||
COLL | 0.21 | 0.00 | |||||||
TASK | 0.07 | 0.18 | 0.00 | ||||||
GOAL | 0.06 | 0.16 | 0.20 | 0.00 | |||||
TB | 0.05 | 0.11 | 0.25 | 0.06 | 0.00 | ||||
OPP | 0.36 | 0.26 | 0.22 | 0.10 | 0.26 | 0.00 | |||
STUD | 0.20 | 0.19 | 0.54 | 0.16 | 0.37 | 0.46 | 0.00 | ||
COMP_TU | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.34 | 0.12 | 0.29 | 0.37 | 0.57 | 0.00 | |
CHAL | 0.14 | 0.18 | 0.27 | 0.20 | 0.32 | 0.20 | 0.26 | 0.22 | 0.00 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Amenduni, F.; Annese, S.; Candido, V.; McLay, K.; Ligorio, M.B. Blending Academic and Professional Learning in a University Course for Future E-learning Specialists: The Perspective of Company Tutors. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 415. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080415
Amenduni F, Annese S, Candido V, McLay K, Ligorio MB. Blending Academic and Professional Learning in a University Course for Future E-learning Specialists: The Perspective of Company Tutors. Education Sciences. 2021; 11(8):415. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080415
Chicago/Turabian StyleAmenduni, Francesca, Susanna Annese, Vito Candido, Katherine McLay, and Maria Beatrice Ligorio. 2021. "Blending Academic and Professional Learning in a University Course for Future E-learning Specialists: The Perspective of Company Tutors" Education Sciences 11, no. 8: 415. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080415