Presentation given for the 13th Conference on Social Science at University of Vienna, October 6th/7th. Paper published on the EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES EDUCATION AND RESEARCH September-December 2017, Volume 11, Nr. 2, pg 39-51 “Many Universities manage billions in research funding, but there is usually no R&D budget for their own product, namely delivering education to willing buyers” (Michael Stanton, 2014) Education are missing on an explosive growth sector: Their Own. (Harvard Business Review) Education has undoubtedly been commoditised and as a good. As suggested by American entrepreneur Peter Theil (Cited in Hellweg, 2013), it may function as both learning and insurance access platform. Another aspect of HE is that, in contrast to most other industries that have faced disruption, the top 10 providers are still the same for the last 40 decades or so. The question is how much longer will they be there? Not even Coursera’s founder Daphne Koller could anticipate the scale and impact of the MOOCs. Udacity, Coursera and edX, aka ‘The Big Three’ have crossed the barrier of 40 million active students. What does it mean for traditional universities? MIT’s president Raphael Reif struggles to see how his institution can carry on justifying charging $50,0000 for tuition much longer and that is a big problem not only for them for many other universities that are starting to see their numbers dwindling. This paper is the first in a series of five papers looking at the future of higher education and learning

1. “CHALLENGES OF ENGAGING STUDENTS THROUGH VIRTUAL
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS. A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR BLENDED LEARNING AT
UK UNIVERSITIES”
PRESENTATION FOR THE 13TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SOCIAL SCIENCE, VIENNA 6TH-7TH OCTOBER 2017
AFTAB DEAN, LEEDS BECKETT UNIVERSITY
ANDY LIMA, LEEDS BECKETT UNIVERSITY
e: a.dean@leedsbeckett.ac.uk
e: a.lima@leedsbeckett.ac.uk t: @andylimauk

2. PRESENTATION OUTLINE
 Key reasons for importance of using a VLE;
 Review of e-learning;
 Pedagogy and VLE (Blended Learning);
 Challenges and Criticisms;
 Primary Research (Methodology);
 Discussion of qualitative results;
 Factor Analysis of survey results;
 Proposed Integrated Learning Framework;
 Recommendations.

3. HOW STUDENTS ARE LEARNING TODAY AND HOW WILL THEY BE
LEARNING IN THE NEXT 5, 10 OR 20 YEARS?
TL;DR
The story of Anita*, Ben* plus
everyone else in between…
We’ve got to be able to address the gap between the utility of
the service offer.
*Names were changed to preserve their anonymity

4. (WHAT WE WANTED TO FIND OUT)
CATALYSTS FOR E-LEARNING:
 Increasing global competition for HE institutions;
 Rising cost of education in the western hemisphere (tuition fees has created
a customer value culture) thus students expect more (hefty fees);
 Student expectations high for instant gratification (accelerated through use
of Google, Wikipedia, YouTube, Online Forums, etc);
 Advances in technology and wireless connection is creating new
opportunities to engage with students; (flexible, easy access and convenient)
(Croxton, 2014)
 New online entrants to the market (Coursera, Futurelearn, edX and Udacity);
 Technology learning systems are proving to be major factor in influencing
student choice of study. (seeing now as competitive advantage) (Redecker et
al. 2011);

5. ADOPTION OF TECHNOLOGY FOR PEDAGOGY:
COST VS ENGAGEMENT?
 Increasingly online (VLE) systems are being
adopted to reduce the cost of engaging with
students (Schedjbal, 2012).
 Challenges of attracting and retaining
students – Struggle to move fast and choice
of TEL (Schedjbal, 2012) – missing seeing
students as ‘customers’ - Student Experience
Design (SXD)
 Traditional online resources are gradually
moving towards blended learning systems
such as Flipped Learning.

6. WHAT WE HAVE FOUND: LITERATURE REVIEW
EVOLUTION OF E-LEARNING
HPR One Year or Less Two to Three Years Four to Five Years
2008 - Grassroots Video
- Collaborations Webs
- Mobile Broadband
- Data Mashups
- Collective Intelligence
- Social OSs
2009 - Mobiles
- Cloud Computing
- Geo Everything
- The Personal Web
- Semantic Aware Apps
- Smart Objects
2010 - Mobile Computing
- Open Content
- Electronic Books
- Simple Augmented Reality
- Gesture-Based Computing
- Visual Data Analysis
2011 - Electronic Books
- Mobiles
- Augmented Reality
- Game-based Learning
- Game-Based Learning
- Learning Analytics
2012 - Mobile Applications
- Tablet computing
- Gesture-Based Computing
- Learning Analytics
- Gesture-Based Computing
- Internet of Things
2013 - MOOCs
- Tablet Computing
- Game & Gamification
- Learning Analytics
- 3D Printing
- Wearable Technology
2014 - Flipped Classroom
- Learning Analytics
- 3D printing
- Games and Gamification
- Quantified Self
- Virtual Assistants
2015 - Bring Your Own Device
(BYWD)
- Flipped Classroom
- (Learning Analytics)
- (Mobile Apps)
- Makerspaces
- Wearable Technology
- (Collaborative Environments)
- (Games & Gamification)
- Adaptive Learning
Technologies
- The Internet of Things
- (Wireless Power)
- (Flexible Displays)
(Source: Naaji et. al. 2015).
(BYOD)

7. PEDAGOGY AND VLE
 Technology is not only affecting what students will learn, but also how they will learn (where,
when, what). These changes in technology and pedagogy have resulted in transformed
habits of learning behaviour due to access to constant information and exposure to
distractions (Persico & Pozzi, 2015). Three elements – technology, learning content and
learning design (Fee, 2009).
 Educators must evaluate how students are using technology (Persico & Pozzi, 2015)
 Martinez-Caro and Campuzano-Bolarin (2011) revealed that satisfaction was significantly
greater in blended learning courses than the traditional face to face courses.
 Flipped Learning - a flipped classroom approach requires students to undertake significant
pre-class preparation that involves :
 watching pre-recorded lecture videos and
 reviewing academic and practitioner material
 Use traditional class time for discussion and problem solving of the subject topic.

8. ENGAGING STUDENTS IN A BLENDED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
 Ubiquitous learning must deliver not only highly dynamic, adaptable and
engaging virtual experiences but also to address individual needs of learners
offering personalised experiences. It must offer opportunities to integrate
into people’s lives and allow them to adapt their training objectives, schedule
and pace to individual needs and preferences (Redecker, 2011)
 Satisfaction was significantly greater in blended learning courses than in
tradition face-to-face only programs.
 Face-to-face time should not be replaced entirely by other forms of learning
but rather used in addition to (Lily et al., 2014) (Platt et al., 2014)
 Positive impact on students performance and more engagement in
classroom.

9. CHALLENGES AND CRITICISMS
 Some of the criticisms discovered by looking at current literature (Bergmann, 2011) - Video lectures
lead to less engaged students, classes will become too big to support engagement with students, it’s
just bad lecture on video, students with limited access to technology are disadvantaged.
 Key differences between tutors and students about information that should be made available to
students (Reed and Watmough, 2015).
 Main challenges related to lack or resources and time scarcity of tutors (resources and cultural inertia
challenges).
 Many times is hard to get the right balance between collaborators, contents and services as well as to
appreciate students’ physical context (where and when), where learners find themselves into (time and
space), which learning resources are available for them and who are going to support their needs
(Ogata &Yano, 2004; Zhang, Jin & Lin, 2005).
 Lack of consistency between modules (Ben, 2013) are driving universities to introduce ‘templates’ that
offer minimum standards (Reed, 2014).
 They fail to integrate with what is already on offer outside the academic world where students are
already well placed. (Crosslin, 2010; Kloos at al., 2011)

10. WHAT WE HAVE FOUND: PRIMARY RESEARCH
 Methodology – Mixed Methods: three stages
Stage 1: Focus Groups (5)
Stage 2: Open ended Questionnaire (sample size 200 [121 accepted])
Stage 3: Design and administration of survey instrument (sample size 300 [266
accepted])
Target Sample Group: Post 92 University based in a major city in the North of
England with one of the largest student populations in the country. Students all
UK based.

11. FOCUS GROUP: DISCUSSING OF FOUR KEY QUESTIONS (STAGE 1)
 Reasons why blackboard is used?
 Key benefits of VLE system?
 Improvements required from
system?
 What resources tutors need to
make available to students?

12. CONFIRMING FINDINGS FROM FOCUS GROUPS - KEY FINDINGS FROM OPEN-ENDED SURVEY
(STAGE 2): HOW COULD BLACKBOARD BE IMPROVED? IMPROVEMENTS THAT WOULD RESULT
IN GREATER USE OF BLACKBOARD:
Reduce number of times system is unavailable. 25
Information on lecture cancellations 16
More help and information on assignment 15
Better design and layout of uploaded information 13
Easier user interface 10
All module links available 8
Forums for students to engage in discussions 6
Lecture slides to be uploaded 4
Tutor details to be available 4

13. SUMMARY OF STAGE 2 RESULTS ON IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED FROM VLE: (8
THEMES IDENTIFIED THAT WERE TRANSLATED INTO 22 ORDINAL QUESTIONS
THE QUESTIONNAIRE)
1. More Discussion forums;
2. More help for assignment / revision
sessions;
3. Examples of previous work / worked
examples;
4. Weekly quizzes;
5. Multimedia upload: Podcasts / Videos;
6. Video conferencing / online discussions;
7. Improved navigation to location
information;
8. Notification of class cancellation;

14. QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY RESULTS (STAGE 3) ON IDENTIFYING GROUPING OF RESULTS
BASED ON 22 ITEMS THAT WOULD IMPROVE THE VLE SYSTEM. FACTOR ANALYSIS REVEALS
THREE GROUPS

15. WHAT THE RESEARCH HAS SUGGESTED:
THE THREE FACTORS SOLUTION
1) Supplementary and Integration in
the Course Material;
2) More Online Engagement
Activities (two-way);
3) Multimedia Resources
(entertaining).

16. RECOMMENDATIONS
 Development of a coherent vision and strategy for a VLE to enhance the student learning
experience;
 Agreement and articulation of the minimum expectations from any module that is offered
on the VLE system;
 Dedicated investment in training tutors to become familiar with the online learning systems
and their range of tools to engage students;
 Facilitating collaboration between tutors and media / multimedia designers to design visual
content that captures the attention of users;
 Utilising metric to capture the student engagement with the e-learning modules;
 Development of pedagogical activities that capitalises on the capabilities of technology to
engage and empower student learning independently.
 Investing in other physical resources to facilitate learning.

17. FUTURE RESEARCH:
PROPOSED THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

18. HOW STUDENTS ARE LEARNING TODAY AND HOW WILL THEY BE
LEARNING IN THE NEXT 5, 10 OR 20 YEARS?
How can we help Anita*, Ben*
plus everyone else in
between… to improve their
learning experiences?
*Names were changed to preserve their anonymity