• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

FF O O N N D D E E C C Y Y T T 2 2 0 0 0 0 8 8

INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION

NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR:

CARLOS GONZÁLEZ UGALDE

1 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION NATIONAL FUND FOR SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT (FONDECYT)

Bernarda Morín 551, Providencia - Casilla 297-V, Santiago 21

Telephone: (56-2) 365 4350 Fax (56-2) 372 0828

e-mail: [email protected]

SANTIAGO – CHILE

2 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION FONDECYT 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION

CHECKLIST

CONTENTS YES NO PAGE  I.2. Principal Investigator Signature 3  I.3. Legal Representative Signature 4  II. Proposal Abstract 5  III.1. Proposal Description 6  III.2. Hypotheses 12  III.3. Goals 13  III.4. Methodology 14  III.5. Work Plan 17  III.6. Researcher Activities 18  III.7. Time Committment to the Proposal 20  IV. Prior Work on the Proposal Topic 21  V. Additional Information 22  VI. Principal Investigator Curriculum Vitae 23  VII. Available Resources 30 Amounts and Justification of Funds requested from FONDECYT (Sections VIII.1.  VIII. 31 To VIII.6)  Ethical, Biosafety and other Requirements Annexes  Certified Copy of Doctoral Degree or Medical Speciality Annexes  Laboratory Director´S Support Letter

3 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION

FONDECYT 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Science Proposed length Proposal Type 11 FONDECYT Council 1 1 2. Technology (2-3 years)

Proposal Title: ‘Blended’ learning in undergraduate university education

Proposal keywords ‘Blended’ learning University teaching University learning

Primary Field 176 Secondary Field Application Sector Region of Impact RM

I.1. FUNDING REQUEST SUMMARY (1000CLP $)

Annual Amounts (1000 CLP$) BUDGET ITEMS Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total Staff 2560 Travel 600 Operational Expenses 740 Equipment 100 Annual Total 4000

I.2. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

González Ugalde Carlos 11.860.687-6 FATHER'S SURNAME MOTHER’S MAIDEN SURNAME NAMES TAXPAYER ID NUMBER

Av. Vicuña Mackenna 4860 – Macul MAILING ADDRESS

Santiago 6865365 5520092 CITY P.O. BOX TELEPHONE FAX

[email protected] E-mail Address

Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile

INSTITUTION PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR SIGNATURE

4 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION I.3. SPONSORING INSTITUTION:

FONDECYT INSTITUTION NAME (University/Faculty/Department) Use

Faculty of Education. Curriculum, technology and evaluation department. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile

Legal Representative Name Legal Representative Signature

Juan Larraín Correa

The above named Legal Representative hereby certifies to know the terms and regulations of this FONDECYT competition and proposal selection procedures. He(She) also declares that the above named institution will sponsor the applicant for the entire duration of the proposal.

I.4. ADDITIONAL FUNDING COMMITTED FROM OTHER INSTITUTIONS/SOURCES. If applicable, indicate the amount contributed by other institutions/enterprises interested in the proposal results. Please attach certifying letters.

INSTITUTION(S) AMOUNT (1000 CLP$) FONDECYT USE

TOTAL

5 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION II. PROPOSAL ABSTRACT: Must be clear and informative. Describe the main issues you plan to address, including goals, methodology and expected out- comes. A good summary facilitates an adequate description and understanding of what you intend to achieve. Use the available space. (Use Arial/Verdana font size 10).

The research proposed in this application is aimed at exploring university teachers and students’ experiences of ‘blended’ learning. It replicates my doctoral research on teachers’ experiences of this sort of environment (González, 2009b). It also extends it by 1) incorporating students’ perspectives, 2) investigating how teacher and students’ experiences are associated; and 3) employing previously developed theoretical and methodological frameworks in a novel context: one Chilean higher education institution.

‘Blended’ learning environments - those where face-to-face and online teaching and learning are combined (Bonk & Graham, 2006; Oliver & Trigwell, 2005)- have become increasingly common in recent years. Most universities have installed virtual learning environments (VLE), online learning resources, video-conferencing and other digital technologies to support and improve the quality of students’ learning experience. Congruently with these developments, an important line of investigation on university learning and teaching, relational research (see e.g., Hounsell, Marton, & Entwistle, 1997; Marton & Booth, 1997; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999), has extended its focus from face-to-face to ‘blended’ environments, thus creating an emerging body of knowledge in this area. Relational research has steadily developed over the last thirty years. On learning, this line of investigation has shown that approaches to studying are associated with conceptions of learning and perceptions of the learning situation. Those students who adopt deeper approaches, tend to hold cohesive conceptions and present positive perceptions. Moreover, these are the ones who tend to obtain better learning outcomes (see e.g., Biggs, 2003; Bowden & Marton, 2004; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Ramsden, 2003). Similar results have been found on teaching. Teachers adopting ‘learning focused’ approaches tend to present cohesive conceptions and mostly positive perceptions of their teaching situation. Importantly, those who adopt ‘learning focused’ approaches are more likely to have students adopting deeper approaches to studying (see e.g., Åkerlind, 2003; 2004, 2007; 2006; Entwistle & Walker, 2000; Parpala & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2007; Prosser, Trigwell & Taylor, 1994; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996; K. Trigwell, Prosser, & Waterhouse, 1999). Recent studies, from this perspective, focusing on settings where e-learning is involved have explored areas such as online and face-to-face discussions, inquiry and problem-based learning, learning through writing, online information searching and case-based learning (see e.g., Edwards, 2006; R. Ellis & Goodyear, 2010; R. A. Ellis, 2006; R. A. Ellis & Calvo, 2004; R. A. Ellis, Goodyear, Brillant, & Prosser, 2008; R. A. Ellis, Goodyear, Calvo, & Prosser, 2008; R. A. Ellis, Goodyear, O'Hara, & Prosser, 2007; R. A. Ellis, Goodyear, Prosser, & O'Hara, 2006; R. A. Ellis, Hughes, Weyers, & Riding, 2009; R. A. Ellis, Marcus, & Taylor, 2005; R. A. Ellis, Steed, & Applebee, 2006; González, 2009a, 2009b, 2010; P. Goodyear, Asensio, Jones, Hodson, & Steeples, 2003; 2005; Lameras, Paraskakis, & Levy, 2007; McConnell & Zhao, 2006; Roberts, 2003). This proposed research builds on, and extends, this line of investigation by studying university teachers and students’ experiences of ‘blended’ learning environments at undergraduate level. In doing so, it will use both qualitative and quantitative methods of research. It will employ phenomenography (Bowden & Green, 2005; Bowden & Walsh, 2000; Marton & Booth, 1997), the qualitative branch of relational research, to investigate teachers and students’ conceptions of teaching and learning (face to face and online), approaches to teaching and learning (face to face and online) and how they perceive their learning and teaching situation. Interviews and open-ended questionnaires will be used for qualitative data gathering. Around 15 to 20 teachers will be interviewed. Students from these teachers’ courses will be invited to participate as interviewees or as respondents of open-ended questionnaires. It is expected to reach between 200 to 400 students, with around a quarter of them interviewed. A phenomenographic analysis, aimed at developing ‘outcome spaces’ representing the qualitatively different ways in which ‘blended’ learning is experienced, will be conducted. The study will also consider the use of quantitative questionnaires to further explore teachers and students’ experiences. Questionnaires previously developed within the framework of relational research will be employed (Biggs, Kember & Leung, 2001; González, 2009b; Prosser & Trigwell, 1997, 2006; Webster, Chan, Prosser, & Watkins, 2009). It is expected to reach around 1500 students and 200 teachers. Descriptive statistics, correlation, principal components and cluster analyses will be carried out.

At the end of this study, a research-based understanding of experiences of teaching and learning in ‘blended’ environments will be gained. For researchers, this new research-based knowledge will extend, from a relational framework, what is known about this increasingly important phenomenon; particularly addressing an unexplored issue: associations between students and teachers´ experiences in ‘blended’ environments; and providing evidence from a context where no research using this theoretical and methodological framework has been previously used. For academic developers and university teachers, this is study is also important. Prior relational research has helped to understand how university students’ experience learning. This has provided an empirical base for designing quality learning experiences. It has also helped to understand university teachers’ conceptions of, and approaches to, teaching. In this way, academic developers have been able to help them to change and develop their practice (Ginns, Kitay & Prosser, 2008). Consequently, results from this proposed research will help teachers, instructional designers and academic developers to better design ‘blended’ learning environments. Besides, these practical implications are also important taking into account the recent OECD (2009) report on Chilean higher education. It strongly criticised the quality of learning and teaching at university level. Findings from this research can have an impact on improving the situation described in the mentioned report.

6 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION III. PROPOSED RESEARCH.

III.1 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION, THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW: This section must include a general presentation of the problem to investigate, including novel aspects that you intend to address, approaches currently being used to solve it, theoretical background and review of the current literature on the topic. The maximum length of this section is 8 pages. (Use Arial/Verdana font size 10). Use additional sheets to list your cited references.

Introduction

This proposed research is about university teachers and students’ experiences of ‘blended’ learning environments. It is concerned with investigating their conceptions of, and approaches to, teaching and learning, and their perceptions of the situation when face-to-face and online learning activities are combined. It employs the 3P model (presage, process, product) (Biggs, 2003) for analysing these phenomena. The model is presented in figure 1.

Figure 1: 3P model of teaching and students’ learning

Presage Process Product ------

Characteristics of the student (e.g. previous experiences, current conceptions) 1 Students’ perceptions Students’ approaches Students’ outcomes of of the context (e.g. to studying (e.g. deep learning (e.g. what they teaching, clear goals, and surface) learn) workload) 4 6 8 Course and department learning context (e.g. course design, assessment) 2 Teachers’ perceptions Teachers’ approaches Teachers’ outcomes of of the context (e.g. to teaching (e.g. teaching (e.g. Characteristics of the class size, teacher teacher-focused, satisfaction, what they teacher (e.g. previous control, teacher student-focused) 7 learn) 9 experiences, current workload) 5 conceptions) 3

From Prosser & Trigwell (2006), p. 406.

Research underpinning figure 1 has established that, on the side of learning, approaches to studying are associated with conceptions of learning and perceptions of students’ learning situation. Students who adopt deeper approaches, tend to hold cohesive conceptions and present positive perceptions of their learning situation. Besides, they tend to gain better learning outcomes. On the teaching side, similar results have been found. Conceptions of teaching, approaches to teaching and perceptions of the teaching situation are associated. Teachers adopting ‘student-focused’ approaches tend to present cohesive conceptions and mostly positive perceptions of their teaching situation. Importantly, teachers who adopt ‘learning focused’ approaches to teaching are more likely to have students adopting deeper approaches to studying. Most investigations employing the 3P model have been carried out within what is known as relational research into higher education. Relational research is an approach built around a theoretical perspective which claims a non-dualistic understanding of the relationship between the individual and the world. Learning is about experiencing an object of study in a different way, where the experience is the relationship between the person experiencing and the object experienced. This perspective is fundamentally different from cognitivist and individual and social constructivist perspectives (which would interpret the 3P model differently). Next I briefly explain these differences. In the first place relational research is different from a cognitive perspective. In this one, sensory data is thought to come from the outside, stored in short term memory, processed internally and then stored in long term memory for an output to be generated to the outside world (Gardner). In this case, the parts of the 3P model would be interpreted as independently constituted and describing a causal chain from presage to product. In the second place, relational research is different from the individual constructivist perspective. In this one, knowledge is built internally and tested through interaction with the outside world (von Glasersfeld). In this case, the 3P model, rather than a causal chain would be interpreted as a continuously interacting system. In the third place, relational research is different from a social constructivist perspective (Vigotsky). In this one, knowledge is developed internally but through social interaction with the outside world. In this case, the 3P model would also be interpreted as an interacting system but giving prime importance to the social context in which teaching and learning occurs. Trigwell and Prosser (1999) argue that for each of these perspectives there is a separation between the individual and the world. Knowledge is brought from outside or built inside. They are dualistic perspectives, for each there are two separate elements: the individual and the world. Differently, relational research is non-dualistic. The individual and

7 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION the world are not independent but are internally related through the individual’s awareness. The world is an experienced world. This idea is based on the phenomenological principle of intentionality (Dall'Alba, 2000), which establishes that experiences can never be separated from what is experienced: the experience is always an experience of something. In adopting this approach, the 3P model is interpreted as follows: in any act of teaching and learning, prior experiences, approaches, perceptions and outcomes are simultaneously present, although in some contexts some of them may come to the foreground of awareness while others may be more to the background (Marton & Booth, 1997). Thus, the 3P model does not represent a chain of causal processes, but an analysis of individual´s awareness of the teaching and learning activities teachers or students are engaged. For research reasons we considered these elements as analytically separated, but are aware that they are simultaneously experienced (Marton & Tsui, 2004). In summary, the elements of the experience of teaching and learning are not seen, by relational research, as ‘psychological’ characteristics of those involved; they are constituted in the relationship between who is experiencing and what is being experienced. Teachers and students may have different experiences in different learning situations; hence the relational nature of the academic experience: what and how something is experienced may vary in relation to particular teaching and learning situations (Bowden & Marton, 2004).

The rest of this section is structured as follows: in the next subsections I present the prior relevant research for this proposal. This is structured around three themes: ‘students’ learning research’, ‘research on university teaching’; and ‘e- learning and b-learning in higher education’. Then, I focus on ‘methods employed in relational research’. Finally, one sub- section relating the main elements of the reviewed literature, stating the focus of the present research and its significance will close the ‘proposal description, theoretical background and literature review’ section.

Students’ learning research

A series of seminal studies carried out by researchers in Sweden, the United Kingdom and Australia originated ‘student learning research’ in the mid/late-seventies. These researchers discovered three approaches to studying: deep, surface and strategic. Deep approaches are those in which the students focus on the meaning of the learning task, relate previous knowledge to new knowledge, relate content from different courses, relate theoretical experiences to everyday practice, organise subject content into a coherent whole and treat the task as a personal activity for improving learning. On the contrary, surface approaches are those in which students focus on the ‘signs’ of the learning task (for example, the words and sentences of text or the formulae needed for solving mathematical problems), memorise information for assignments, associate concepts and facts unreflectively and treat the task as an external imposition (Marton & Saljo, 2005; Morgan & Beaty, 2005; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999). The third approach, strategic, is associated with the intention of achieving the best possible marks through efficient management of time, organised study methods and alertness to assessment procedures (Ramsden, 2003). Since the original studies, there have been many identifying these approaches in different disciplines (such as engineering, geography or biochemistry), particular learning tasks (such as academic writing or problem based learning) or special settings (such as distance education) (see e.g., Case & Marshall, 2004; R. A. Ellis, Taylor, & Drury, 2007; Maguire, Evans, & Dyas, 2001; Minasian-Batmanian, Lingard, & Prosser, 2006; Minbashian, Huon, & Bird, 2004; Richardson, 2005; Richardson, Morgan & Woodley, 1999). Further research has established a relationship between approaches to studying and learning outcomes. Studies have systematically found that deep approaches to learning are associated to higher level learning outcomes, based on the ‘structure of the observed learning outcome’ (SOLO) taxonomy –i.e. multistructural, relational or extended abstract – (Biggs, 2003; R. A. Ellis, Goodyear, Brillant, et al., 2008; R. A. Ellis, Goodyear, Calvo, et al., 2008; R. A. Ellis, Goodyear, et al., 2007; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991b). However, it has been less straightforward establishing an association between approaches to studying and marks obtained by students. Positive relations have been found, but non significant or significant but weak. This has been attributed to the fact that, unfortunately, assessment in higher education tends to be focused on reproduction rather than understanding (Ramsden, 2003).

Literature on students’ learning has shown that approaches to studying may be related to conceptions of learning and perceptions of the learning situation. Conceptions of learning were originally investigated by Saljo (1979). He discovered that conceptions of learning ranged from being focused on a quantitative increase of knowledge towards a qualitative understanding of different aspects of reality. These findings have been replicated by different researchers who obtained similar results (e.g., Marton, Dall'alba & Beaty, 1993; Trigwell & Ashwin, 2006; Wood, 2006). More advanced conceptions have been found to be associated with deep approaches to learning. It implies that students who held conceptions of learning aimed at developing a qualitative understanding of different aspects of reality tend to approach studying in a deeper manner. This finding reminds consistent despite studies have been carried out in different disciplines and considering different learning tasks (e.g., Crawford, Gordon, Nicholas & Prosser, 1994; 1998; R. A. Ellis, Taylor, & Drury, 2005; 2007; Minasian-Batmanian, et al., 2006). The other element influencing approaches to studying is students’ perception of their learning situation. Research has found that if students perceive clear goals, good teaching, appropriate workload, appropriate assessment and freedom for learning, they are more likely of adopting deep approaches to studying. As in the case of conceptions of learning, these results have been consistent in a range of subjects and settings (e.g., Kreber, 2003; Ramsden, Prosser, Trigwell, & Martin, 1997; Richardson, 2005; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991a).

8 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION Research presented thus far has established clear associations between the elements composing the learning experience. However, the picture of ‘students’ learning research’ gets more complicated with the phenomenon of dissonance. This phenomenon is associated with the concept of orchestration, elaborated by Meyer (1991). Orchestration is defined as the contextualised study approach adopted by students. It recognises three elements in the experience of learning: the approach, the influence of the context and conceptions of learning. Students’ study orchestration is expected to have some level of conceptual consonance in their learning experience. However, some of them may present some degree of conceptual dissonance in how they orchestrate their learning. Dissonance is the phenomenon in which combinations of aspects of the learning experience do not fit with what would be expected considering the theory (Lindblom-Ylänne, 2003). For example, qualitative conceptions of learning associated with surface approaches to studying. Some research has demonstrated that dissonant students’ orchestrations are related to problems in adapting to their learning environments (Vermunt & Verloop, 1999). Lindlom-Ylänne (1999) and Lindlom-Ylänne and Lonka (1999, 2000) added to this idea stating that dissonance can emerge due to students’ attempts to adapt to the perceived requirements of their learning environments. Importantly, Prosser et al (2000) demonstrated that students presenting dissonant associations between approaches to learning and perceptions of their learning situation tend to be lower academic achievers. Therefore, dissonant orchestrations seem to be related to poor academic outcomes.

In summary, this area of research has shown associations between conceptions of learning, approaches to studying and perceptions of the learning situation: qualitative conceptions tend to be associated with deep approaches and positive perceptions. However, the phenomenon of dissonance needs also to be considered as, when emerges, students are likely to presented difficulties in studying. In the next sub-section, I turn to research on university teaching.

Research on university teaching

Research on university teaching started to systematically emerge by the early nineties mirroring ‘student learning research’. A significant body of investigations have been conducted on conceptions of teaching (see e.g., Åkerlind, 2004; Ashwin, 2006; Dall'alba, 1991; Dunkin, 1990, 1991; Dunkin & Precians, 1992; Gow & Kember, 1993; Kember, 1997; Kember, Kwan & Ledesma, 2001; Law, Joughin, Kennedy, Tse, & Yu, 2007; Martin & Balla, 1991; Martin & Ramsden, 1992; Parpala & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2007; Pratt, 1992; Pratt, Arseneau, & Collins, 2001; Prosser, et al., 1994; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992; 2001; van Driel, Verloop, van Werven & Dekkers, 1997). These studies have presented a high level of consensus: findings range consistently from ‘teacher-focused’ to ‘student-focused’ conceptions of teaching. This finding remains consistent even thought studies have been carried out in different contexts and used different methodological approaches (Åkerlind, 2003). ‘Teacher-focused’ conceptions are those where teachers emphasise what they do and the content they need to deliver to students; who, in turn, are conceived of as passive recipients of the knowledge of the discipline being taught. In contrast, ‘student-focused’ conceptions are those where teachers focus on students’ learning and facilitation of their conceptual development. In this case, students are considered active in building their understanding. Approaches to teaching have been studied in parallel to conceptions of teaching. Two broad approaches have been reported: ‘teacher/content-centred’ and ‘student/learning-centred’ (Kember & Kwan, 2000; Postareff & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2008; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996; Trigwell et al, 1994). ‘Teacher/content-centred’ approaches to teaching are those where teachers tend to transmit information to students by means of lectures and text-books; evaluation methods are focused on recall of information and little interaction is sought among teachers and students. On the contrary, ‘student/learning-centred’ approaches are those in which teachers tend to facilitate learning by means of active student engagement with course content; evaluation methods are focused on students’ understanding and interaction through students and teachers is sought through discussions, seminar activities, feedback on projects, etc. It is important to mention that this does not mean that teachers adopting ‘student/learning-centred’ approaches do not conduct lectures or provide a bibliography; however, their focus is on advancing beyond students’ reproduction of contents towards their personal understanding and sense making. Further research has found associations between conceptions of, and approaches to, teaching: when teachers hold more sophisticated conceptions of teaching, they tend to adopt ‘student/learning-centred’ approaches (Kember & Kwan, 2000; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996). Importantly, it has been established that when ‘student/ learning centred’ approaches to teaching are adopted, students tend to present deeper approaches to learning and better quality learning outcomes (Martin & Ramsden, 1998; K. Trigwell, et al., 1999). As in the case of research on students learning, it has been found that the perception of the teaching situation influences approaches to teaching. When teachers perceive appropriate class size, control over their teaching, enabling students’ characteristics, departmental support for teaching and appropriated teaching workload they tend to adopt ‘student/learning- centred’ approaches to teaching (Prosser & Trigwell, 1997).

The phenomenon of ‘dissonance’, originally found on students’ experiences of learning, has also been found on teaching. Prosser et al (2003) demonstrated that there was variation in the structural relationships between university teachers’ approaches to teaching, their perceptions of the teaching situation and students’ reports of higher or lower quality learning experiences. For courses where lower quality learning experiences were reported (poor teaching, high workloads, less clear goals), teachers reported dissonant approaches to teaching and perceptions of the teaching environment which were unrelated or incoherent. For units were higher quality learning experiences were reported, teachers did not reported dissonant approaches to teaching and, their perceptions of the teaching environment were coherent. The first situation was

9 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION dominant in less experienced teachers; while the second one tended to be present in experienced teachers. The authors suggested that better teaching outcomes, meaning higher quality students’ learning outcomes, were likely to be found in courses where teachers approached teaching consonantly. Postareff et al (2008) added that among possible causes of dissonance would be the inability of teachers to reflect upon their own teaching, and in this way challenging teaching approaches in use in their departments. Besides, there would be some disciplinary variation: teachers from ‘hard’ sciences tended to present more dissonant profiles than those from ‘soft’ sciences.

In summary, teachers who conceive of teaching in a ‘student-focused’ manner are more likely to present ‘student/learning- centred’ approaches and positive perceptions of their teaching situation. The phenomenon of dissonance has also been reported for the case of teachers, being one that needs to be considered carefully as it would lead to lower quality learning experiences. Next, I discuss literature on e-learning and b-learning. e-learning and b-learning in Higher Education

For some time, traditional campus-based universities perceived little advantage in embracing e-learning for their on- campus learning and teaching activities. E-learning was perceived as of little use, as students were seen as being enrolled in a fully face-to-face on campus educational experience (R. A. Ellis, Steed, et al., 2006, pp. 312-313). However, this has started to change in the last few years. Expectations from students, who wanted to use online resources for learning, as they did for their other everyday activities, and employers, who wanted future professionals to be skilled information technology users, started to pressure universities towards incorporating e-learning (Selwyn, 2007). Moreover, trends such as the increasing volume of online learning resources and capabilities afforded by online environments, which allow interactions among peers, discussions, etc., have promoted the up-take of e-learning. Finally, the desire to make teaching more professional and offer higher quality learning experiences to students, have encouraged a significant number of traditional campus-based universities to embrace e-learning seriously (R. A. Ellis, Goodyear, et al., 2006). This phenomenon, in which face-to-face learning and teaching experiences are combined with online tasks and activities, has been named ‘blended’ learning (b-learning). B-learning has been a contested concept. Different authors have recognised its lack of clarity. For example, Graham (2006) stated that there are at least three uses of the concept in the literature: combining instructional modalities (or delivery media), combining instructional methods and combining online and face-to- face instruction. This author acknowledges the third definition as the most accurate in relation to the historical development of the b-learning concept. Oliver and Trigwell (2005) have pointed out the difficulty of finding a good definition for b- learning. They presented three possible definitions: integrated combination of traditional learning with web-based online approaches, the combination of media and tools employed in an e-learning environment, and the combination of multiple pedagogic approaches irrespective of learning technology use. The authors agree that the first of these definitions is the most commonly used. The definition of b-learning as the combination of face-to-face and online learning experiences can be found underlying research in this area, and is the one adopted in this proposal.

It is important to notice that some authors have pointed out that e-learning’s potential for providing quality learning experiences, when combined with face-to-face teaching in ‘blended’ learning environments, is yet to be realised. Salmon (2005) stated that most universities have adopted or are planning to adopt a VLE; but she sees the early use of VLE as a kind of ‘flapped’ learning which attempts to transfer existing pedagogy to an online medium, adopting a ‘substitutional’ approach. (Her ‘flapping’ image is meant to evoke early attempts at human flight). Salmon stressed that uploading PowerPoint slides into the VLE, or some loose participation in online discussions, is not enough to create good quality e- learning. Moreover, the work of small groups of innovators, who are using e-learning in an advanced manner, has not yet reached the larger teaching community at universities. For Salmon, these individuals were an exception at the time (For example, work on learning-centred VLEs (e.g., Huang & Chuang, 2008; Jameson, Ferrell, Kelly, Walker, & Ryan, 2006; Sparacia et al., 2007), synchronous virtual classrooms (e.g., Monahan, McArdle, & Bertolotto, 2008; Schullo, Hibelink, Venable, & Barron, 2007), mobile learning technologies (e.g., Cortez, Nussbaum, Woywood, & Aravena, 2009; Roschelle, 2003; Stead, Sharpe, Anderson, Cych, & Philpott, 2006), and Web 2.0 tools (e.g., Barnes & Tynan, 2007; Choy & Ng, 2007; Elgort, 2007; Samarawickrema, 2007)). Similarly, Laurillard (2006) stated that e-learning tools have effectively found ways to reach students in most universities, mainly in the form of online lecture notes, books and papers, digital materials and discussion boards. But, she highlighted that more could be explored and done with these new technologies, giving students the opportunity of engaging in exploring, manipulating and experimenting. In addition, Laurillard (2008) stated that the possibilities of e-learning extend beyond what can currently be imagined, as new applications are continually being developed, thus extending the frontiers of what is educationally feasible. Therefore, the work of these authors suggests that e-learning has not yet reached a widespread advanced implementation. Although universities have became aware of e-learning as a medium for enhancing students’ learning experiences, more needs to be done to realise what can be expected from learning technologies. This is important to acknowledge as emerging learning technologies would have the potential to realise the shift of paradigm that educational theorists have been promoting: towards a more active, learning- centred experience (Laurillard, 2002; McConnell, 2006). In this line, researchers using the relational approach have been providing timely and valuable insights on the incorporation of e-learning into on-campus university education. Regarding learning, studies have been conducted on conceptions of learning, approaches to study and expectations of networked learning experiences (P. Goodyear, et al., 2003; 2005), learning through online and face-to-face discussions (R. A. Ellis &

10 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION Calvo, 2004; 2006; R. A. Ellis, Goodyear, Calvo, et al., 2008; R. A. Ellis, Goodyear, et al., 2007; R. A. Ellis, Goodyear, et al., 2006), ‘blended’ problem based learning (R. A. Ellis, Goodyear, Brillant, et al., 2008), inquiry-based ‘blended’ learning (R. A. Ellis, Marcus, et al., 2005), learning through writing (R. A. Ellis, 2006) and experiences of web-based information searching (Edwards, 2006). This research on experiences of learning in face-to-face and online settings - using a variety of educational approaches (discussions, PBL, inquiry-based learning, scientific writing, online information searching) and in different academic disciplines (social sciences, engineering, pharmacy, vet sciences, science) - has suggested, in coherence with prior relational research on ‘conventional’ settings, that cohesive conceptions and deep approaches (both face-to-face and online) are associated, and lead to, a higher level of academic achievement. On the other hand, fragmented conceptions and surface approaches (both face-to-face and online) are associated to, and lead to, lower levels of academic achievement. Also, perceptions of the learning situation would have an impact on how students approach learning. Positive perceptions would promote deep approaches; while negative perceptions would promote surface approaches. Regarding relational studies focusing on teaching using e-learning, there have been some exploring teachers experiences of e-learning both when incorporated into face-to-face settings (González, 2010; Lameras, et al., 2007; McConnell & Zhao, 2006; Roberts, 2003) and in fully online distance education (González, 2009a); as well as studies exploring associations between conceptions of, and approaches to, blended teaching and approaches to design (Robert A. Ellis, et al., 2009; R. A. Ellis, Steed, et al., 2006), and teachers’ conceptions, approaches and perceptions when combining face-to-face and online teaching (González, 2009b). Interestingly, Gonzalez (2010) has found an emerging consensus of findings on experiences of teaching using e-learning, ranging from a focus on provision of information towards a focus on knowledge building. Moreover, the same author stated that those teachers who experience teaching as a process of transmission of information are more likely to use e-learning in a transmissive manner, and those who experience teaching as a process of learning facilitation tend to use e-learning as a medium for engage students in knowledge building tasks (González, 2009b). This line of research is meaningful and worthwhile. It has extended previous work on relational research to ‘blended’ learning environments generating useful knowledge. It has increased the amount of research in this area and has the potential to provide guidelines for successfully implementing ‘blended’ learning experiences (an excellent example of this is the work by R. Ellis & Goodyear, 2010). Additionally, it has gone further than traditional research which has compared face-to-face and online activities finding no significant differences (Clark, 1994). Rather than evaluating if a learning task yields better outcomes when conducted face-to-case or online, relational research has provided insights into how both face-to-face and online tasks and activities can together promote high quality learning experiences (Goodyear & Ellis, 2008). Finally, although sample sizes are relatively small and contexts are quite specific, it is possible to say that the stability of findings attests to the robustness of the evidence provided by these studies.

In summary, research shows that, although many universities have made considerable efforts for implementing learning technology in ‘on-campus’ education, potential of e-learning and widespread ‘advanced’ use is yet to be realised. In this context, relational research emerges as an alternative that, taking into consideration the experiences of teachers and students as its primary focus, may help to better design ‘blended’ environments which are able to create quality learning experiences. In the next sub-section, I introduce methods employed by relational research .

Methods employed in relational research

Relational research into learning and teaching in higher education has used a mix of qualitative and quantitative approaches. Programs of research in this area usually start with interview-based studies. Some of these use their outcomes for creating closed-ended questionnaires reflecting key elements of variation found in the qualitative analysis of the interview-based studies. In turn, these questionnaires are used to explore the phenomenon in larger samples or to explore associations between phenomena. In relation to research into teaching, an example of this approach is the work of Trigwell and Prosser (1994a; 1994b), who started with a qualitative study of conceptions of, and approaches to, teaching held by university science teachers. From the outcomes of the qualitative phase of their research they developed the ‘approaches to teaching’ questionnaire (Prosser & Trigwell, 2006; 1996; 2004; Trigwell et al., 2005) and the ‘perception of the teaching situation’ questionnaire (Prosser & Trigwell, 1997) which have since been applied in larger samples and in different contexts. Another example of research combining qualitative and quantitative approaches, this time focussing on learning, is the work of Ellis et al (2008). These researchers investigated engineering students’ conceptions of, and approaches to, learning through discussions in face-to-face and online contexts. In the qualitative aspects of their research, they used interviews and open-ended questionnaires which were analysed phenomenographically. The quantitative data came from three closed-answer questionnaires: ‘conceptions of learning through discussions’; ‘approaches to learning through face-to-face discussions’ and ‘approaches to learning through online discussions’. The quantitative data collected were analysed through correlational and cluster analysis. Similar methods will be used in this study. In the next paragraphs, I will describe them further.

Phenomengraphy, the qualitative branch of relational research, is an approach which promotes an understanding of the relationships that people create with the world around them and the phenomena which constitute it: facilitating research on people’s qualitatively different experiences; and how they conceive of, approach and perceive phenomena in their world (Marton & Pong, 2005). It offers a recursive structural/referential model of teaching and learning. It means that phenomena can be analytically divided into referential and structural aspects. The referential aspect, the conception, has been defined

11 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION as the meaning assigned to a particular phenomenon; which makes us aware we are experiencing something as such. The structural aspect, the approach, refers to how people go about something: how something is carried out and what they want to achieve in going about something in the way they do (Marton & Tsui, 2004). In phenomenography, different ways of experiencing form categories of description. These categories are hierarchically organised, creating an ‘outcome space’. The ‘outcome space’ is presented as a structured set of categories of description, constituted by the researcher, to represent different ways of experiencing a particular phenomenon (Marton & Booth, 1997). Regarding sampling, some guidelines have been developed on how to select participants and how many of them to include. In relation to selection, Marton and Booth (1997, p. 129) claim that, as we are dealing with experiences of phenomena, people included in the sample need to have had the experiences the researcher is interested in. Bowden (2000) adds that we are aiming for variation in experiences, so we should take measures to ensure variation. Therefore, at the same time as we include people who have the experience we want to investigate; we should ensure that participants represent a variety of experiences. Regarding the number of participants, Trigwell (2000) recommends samples between fifteen and twenty, for two reasons. Firstly, at the lower end, fifteen is considered the minimum number for ensuring the chance of uncovering variation. Secondly, at the upper end, the limiting factor is the volume of data produced and its manageability. For this author, conducting between fifteen and twenty interviews would allow reasonable data management; while at the same time providing the chance of obtaining variation in experiences. It is important to mention that, recently, some researchers have incorporated bigger numbers of participants through the use of open-ended questionnaires to complement and extend data gathered through interviews (for example, R. A. Ellis, Goodyear, Brillant, et al., 2008; R. A. Ellis, Goodyear, Calvo, et al., 2008; R. A. Ellis, Goodyear, et al., 2007). Although this method has been incorporated in phenomenographic research, interviews continue being the main method for data gathering and open-ended questionnaires provide a limited but useful method to complement interviewing. Coherently with the relational research approach taken in this study, the aim of conducting phenomenographic interviews is to uncover people’s ways of experiencing the particular phenomenon under investigation. The interviewer seeks to encourage the participants to reflect on their experiences leading them to a state of meta-awareness. The aim is to make the interviewees aware of their own awareness. In phenomenographic interviews, the role of the interviewer is to make the interviewee bring forth her/his awareness through reflection on her/his experience (Marton & Booth, 1997; Prosser, 2000). In practical terms, guidelines have been developed for the researcher to bring the interviewee to the level of meta-awareness needed to uncover her/his experiences. The first guideline is to be flexible and open with questions (Marton, 1986). Accordingly, the recommendation is to have a set of questions but to be open to following the course different interviews may take. Allowing flexibility, interviewees may be encouraged to show their understanding of particular phenomenon. Interviewees should be left to choose the dimensions of the question they want to answer. These dimensions are a key aspect for understanding their individual relevance structure. What interviewees choose reflects the elements they are focally aware of in relation to the phenomenon under investigation. The second recommendation is to use questions that are directly related to the phenomenon of interest (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 131). For example, what is meant by X? How did you go about X? After data gathering, interviews and open-ended questionnaires are transcribed verbatim and left ready for analysis. Typical phenomenographic analysis starts by reading the transcripts to get a first grasp of the responses. In a second stage, a more focused reading is conducted: searching for similarities and differences; and annotating and summarising illustrative paragraphs (Bowden & Green, 2005; Bowden & Walsh, 2000). In this way, an initial set of categories of description emerge. Then, transcripts are read again against the initial set of categories of description. An iterative process is then conducted. The initial set is tested and retested against the transcripts until the system of meaning stabilised and the ‘outcome space’ emerge (Marton, 1986). In these steps, usually two or more researchers work together for dialogic reliability tests (Kvale, 1995, 1996). In developing the ‘outcome space’, Marton & Booth’s (1997) suggestion need to be followed: that each category reflects something distinctive about the phenomenon (distinctiveness); that they are hierarchically related (structurally inclusive relations); and that variation in experiences is represented by as few categories as possible (parsimony). Researchers have further develop this method for establishing associations between phenomena. After developing the ‘outcome spaces’, they read transcripts again to allocate teachers and/or students to the highest category of description they present. This procedure has became usual for phenomenographic researchers (e.g., Ellis et al, 2009; Ellis et al, 2006; Prosser, Martin, Trigwell, Ramsden, & Middleton, 2008) to generate data to explore associations between phenomena. Allocation data is then input in matrices to test the significance of associations between pairs of phenomena (e.g., conceptions of teaching and conceptions of e-learning; or conceptions of learning and approaches to studying using e-learning). Suitable statistical tests are employed (For example, chi square or Fisher exact).

As mentioned in the first paragraph of this sub-section, outcomes of qualitative relational studies have been used to develop questionnaires to explore a phenomenon in larger samples or to explore associations between phenomena. It is important to mention that outcomes from quantitative relational studies need to be interpreted differently than those obtained within the framework of traditional psychological measurement. Results of questionnaire based studies in relational research are not indicators of stable constructs within the cognitive structure of teachers and students, but indicators of their experiences in specific situations. As stated before, for relational research the experience is constituted in the relation between the subject and the object; and this is what it is intended to be captured through using questionnaires (Prosser & Trigwell, 1999, p. 172). This has the implication that teachers and students need to be told to answer the questionnaires based on one specific teaching or learning experience, current or past. In this way their awareness is focussed on one very particular situation. Following this guideline, it would be possible to capture the

12 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION relational nature of teaching and learning experiences. Next, I focus on describing questionnaires that will be used in this research. For the case of teachers, the following questionnaires will be employed:

1. The ‘approaches to teaching’ inventory, developed by Trigwell & Prosser (2006; 1996; 2004). This inventory originated with the work on university science teachers that these authors conducted in the early nineties (Trigwell et al., 1994). Its current version is composed of two scales: ‘conceptual change/student-focused’ and ‘information transmission/teacher-focused’. This scale structure has been supported by recent confirmatory factor analysis conducted on a cumulative sample of over 1000 teachers from different countries and a wide range of disciplines, experience and teaching level (Prosser & Trigwell, 2006). 2. The ‘approaches to teaching using e-learning’ inventory, developed by Gonzalez (2009b). This is a recent questionnaire developed based on a qualitative study of teachers’ experiences of e-learning. Experts and the original interviewees were asked to provide feedback on the initial pool of items and the hypothesised structure. Then 86 Australian university teachers answered the resulting questionnaire. Unidimensionality and reliability analyses were conducted with this data. Its current version is composed by six scales representing information, communication and knowledge building focused intentions and strategies. 3. The ‘perception of the teaching situation’ inventory, developed by Prosser & Trigwell (1997). This inventory was built to test how the perception of the situation and approaches to teaching were associated. In its current version it is composed of five scales: control of teaching, appropriate class size, students’ characteristics, departmental support for teaching and appropriate academic workload.

Questionnaires described in 1 and 3 have been translated into Spanish and initially validated with a multidisciplinary sample of Chilean university teachers coming from one ‘traditional’ regional university. This work was conducted by a PhD student from the UC education doctoral program. Scales were tested for unidimensionality and reliability yielding the same scale structure than the ones reported in relevant studies and appropriate reliability levels. Questionnaire described in 2 has not been validated for Chilean university teachers. This will be part of the present research.

For the case of students two previously developed questionnaires will be employed. They are:

1. The ‘approaches to studying’ questionnaire, developed by Biggs (1987) and further developed by Biggs, Kember, & Leung (2001). Originally Biggs developed a ten scales Study Behaviour questionnaire based on information processing theory (Biggs, 1976). However, its structure was better interpreted using the relational students’ approaches to studying framework as items grouped into three intentions and associated strategies for studying. Further development has lead to a simpler two scales questionnaire. In its current version it is composed of two scales: ‘deep’ and ‘surface’ approach. Each is composed of sub-scales for intention and strategy (Biggs et al., 2001). 2. The ‘course experience questionnaire’ (Ramsden, 1991). This was originally called ‘perceptions of the learning situation’ inventory. It was devised to explore how elements perceived by students were associated with their approaches to studying (Ramsden, 1979). Nowadays is widely employed for course evaluation in Australia, United Kingdom and Hong Kong; as well as for research purposes. Originally, this questionnaire had six scales: good teaching, clear goals, workload, assessment, independence and generic skills (Wilson, Lizzio, & Ramsden, 1997). Further research leaded to stop using the independence scale (P. Ginns & Barrie, 2004). The current version includes the following scales: good teaching, clear goals and standards, appropriate assessment and appropriate workload (Webster, et al., 2009). Besides, recently a scale on e-learning was developed (R. A. Ellis, Ginns, & Piggott, 2009; P. Ginns & Ellis, 2009), which is key for the purpose of the present study.

There is a validated Spanish version for the ‘approaches to studying’ questionnaire, which will be employed in this investigation (Recio Saucedo & Cabrero Almenara, 2005). For questionnaire in 2, there is a validated Spanish version by a second PhD student form the UC education doctoral program. The work of this PhD candidate initially validated the course experience questionnaire by Webster, et al. (2009) plus the new scale on e-learning developed by Ginns and Ellis (2009). These scales were translated into Spanish and answered by a sample of around 300 first year engineering students from one ‘traditional’ metropolitan university. The structure of scales and reliability tests were appropriate. This version of the course experience questionnaire will be employed in this study.

Usually, quantitative studies within the framework of relational employ reliability tests by means of Cronbach’s alpha. Besides correlation, principal components and cluster analysis are employed for analysing questionnaires’ scales. Regarding correlation, Pearson’s measures are commonly used. It tests the degree of linear relationship between two variables. Its value ranges from 1 to -1, where the closer the coefficient is to these numbers the greater the correlation. Moreover, a value of zero indicates no linear relationship between two variables (Howell, 2008). Following Cohen’s (1977) criteria for effect size, a value of .1 can be interpreted as low, a value of .3 as moderate; and a value of .5 as large. In relational research, Pearson’s correlation is used to look at the strength of the associations between the summated scales that provide scores for university students and teachers’ approaches to learning and teaching, and their perceptions of their learning and teaching situation. Regarding factor analysis, its aim is to discover the underlying set of dimensions in a data

13 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION matrix (Hair, 1998). In the case of relational research, principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation is used to look at structural relationships amongst groups of variables. Variables include the summated scales from the questionnaires being used in each particular study. KMO is first calculated to check whether it is appropriate to submit the correlation matrix to principal components analysis. The rule of thumb concerning eigenvalues over 1 is usually used to extract the factors (Thompson, 2004, p. 32). Varimax rotation is employed and loadings over .3 to .5 (depending on the study) are kept. In relation to cluster analysis, this is the name of a group of multivariate techniques which are primarily used to group cases based on the characteristics they have. These techniques classify respondents in such a way that each one is very similar to the others in the cluster in relation to predetermined variables. Thus, resulting clusters should be very homogeneous internally (within-cluster) and highly heterogeneous externally (between-cluster) (Hair, 1998, p. 473). In relational research, hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward’s technique, which is based in the increasing value of the squared Euclidean distance between clusters, has been widely employed (e.g., R. A. Ellis, Taylor, et al., 2007; Prosser, et al., 2003). Finally in this point, it is important to highlight that the sort of statistical analyses discussed (correlation, principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation and hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward’s technique) are commonly used in relational research (e.g., R. A. Ellis, Goodyear, Brillant, et al., 2008; Prosser, et al., 2003; Prosser & Trigwell, 1997; K. Trigwell, et al., 1999). These statistical techniques are considered suitable for research which is descriptive and analytic, as is the case with relational research, rather than causal and explanatory (Prosser & Trigwell, 1999, p. 172).

The present study

Review of relevant literature, presented above, has shown that:

1. Relational research has developed an extensive and well established body of knowledge on learning and teaching in higher education. This research has investigated conceptions, approaches and perceptions about learning and teaching, providing clear descriptions on how these elements are associated. Importantly, it has established that learning and teaching are related, with important implications for learning design and academic development. 2. In the last years, e-learning has progressively started to be incorporated into ‘conventional’ face-to-face learning and teaching experiences. Congruently, relational research has extended its focus to ´blended´ settings. These investigations have shown findings similar to those emerged from relational research conducted in ‘conventional’ settings. It has also provided valuable insights on how to better design ‘blended’ environments. 3. The mentioned literature has been almost exclusively been conducted in cultural contexts other than Latin America (principally Scandinavia, Australasia and The United Kingdom). It implies that research results presented may or may not apply in a different cultural context, such as Chilean higher education system.

This allows stating that research inquiring into how university teachers are incorporating e-learning in their ‘conventional’ face-to-face teaching and how students are taking advantage of such developments is worth conducting in a setting where no previous relational research has been carried out. This is coherent with authors who have claimed the need of further research in order to explore whether current findings may be applied to different contexts (e.g., R. A. Ellis, Goodyear, et al., 2006; R. A. Ellis, Steed, et al., 2006; González, 2009b). Besides, the relational approach has not been employed to investigate these issues in Chile. It is important to explore how its methods and findings apply in this novel context. This is particularly relevant as relational research conceives of that reality is socially constructed and gives importance to the context in which phenomena happen (Richardson, 1994). Also, although studies have been conducted on teaching or learning when learning technology is used, there have not been studies exploring associations between them. Prior relational research has demonstrated that approaches to teaching and learning are associated in settings where face-to- face learning activity is the norm (Martin & Ramsden, 1998; Trigwell et al, 1999). A natural further step is to explore whether this finding remains consistent when e-learning is involved. Therefore, research in this area is important and timely. It will critically inquiry whether methods and outcomes of prior relational research may be applied in this novel context; it will help to gain a better understanding on how ‘blended’ learning is conceived of, and approached; and will also provide guidance on how to better design ‘blended’ environments and how to support teachers and students in using e- learning in ways that are most beneficial for them. Finally, it is important to highlight that outcomes of the present research may help to provide guidelines for improving poor quality learning experiences in Chilean higher education, as stated by the recent OECD (2009) report. This provides a framework, rationale and focus for the research proposed in this application.

14 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION III.2 HYPOTHESES: State your working hypotheses. Use the available space only.

The literature review presented in the previous section demonstrated that is worth conducting research on teachers and students’ experiences of ‘blended’ learning where relational research has not been employed; and that there are gaps in knowledge that need to be addressed. The aim of this proposed research is to increase knowledge in this area, through an inquiry into university teachers and students’ experiences of ‘blended’ learning environments. Such inquiry needs to consider the main elements of the experience of teaching and learning (conceptions, approaches, perceptions and outcomes) at both face-to-face and online; as well as associations between these elements and between teachers and students’ experiences. The main question guiding this research is:

1. What are university teachers and students’ experiences of ‘blended’ learning?

Such a complex phenomenon can be better explored when the main question is broken down as follows and each question is associated to one hypothesis:

a) In relation to university teachers:

1. How do university teachers conceive of teaching in face to face and online contexts? The hypothesis is that teachers will vary in their conceptions of teaching face to face and online and that conceptions of teaching face to face will not necessarily differ from the ones in the online context despite the different affordances each context allows (Hypothesis 1). 2. How do university teachers approach teaching in face to face and online contexts? (With what intention? Using what strategies?). The hypothesis is that it will be possible to identify student-focused and teacher-focused approaches across modes of teaching (face to face and online) (Hypothesis 2). 3. How is the teaching situation perceived by teachers? The hypothesis is that there will be variation in perception of the teaching situation and that perception of the face to face context will not necessarily differ from the perception of the online context (Hypothesis 3). 4. Are there associations between conceptions, approaches and perceptions of the teaching situation? The hypothesis is that there will be associations among quality of conceptions and approaches, and positive or negative perceptions (Hypothesis 4). For example, cohesive conceptions will be associated with teacher-focused approaches and positive perceptions irrespectively of context of teaching (face to face or online).

b) In relation to university students:

1. How do university students conceive of learning in face to face and online contexts? The hypothesis is that students will vary in their conceptions of learning face to face and online and that conceptions of learning face to face will not necessarily differ from the ones in the online context despite the different affordances each context allows (Hypothesis 5). 2. How do university students approach studying in face to face and online contexts? (With what intention? Using what strategies?). The hypothesis is that it will be possible to identify surface and deep approaches across modes of learning (face to face and online) (Hypothesis 6). 3. How is the learning situation perceived by students? The hypothesis is that there will be variation in perception of the learning situation and that perception of the face to face context will not necessarily differ from the perception of the online context (Hypothesis 7). 4. Are there associations between conceptions, approaches and perceptions and students’ achievement (expressed as course final mark)? The hypothesis is that there will be associations among quality of conceptions and approaches, positive or negative perceptions; and course outcomes (Hypothesis 8). For example, cohesive conceptions will be associated with surface approaches, positive perceptions and high course achievement, irrespectively of context of learning (face to face or online).

c) In relation to associations between teaching and learning

1. How are experiences of teaching and learning in ´blended´ environments associated? The hypothesis is that positive teachers’ experiences (cohesive conceptions, student-focused approaches, positive perceptions) will be more likely to be associated with positive students’ experiences (cohesive conceptions, deep approaches, positive perceptions); leading to mostly high levels of achievement (Hypothesis 9).

15 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION III.3 GOALS: (general and specific).

General goal

1. To investigate university teachers and students’ experiences of ‘blended’ learning environments.

Specific goals

- Qualitative phase:

1. To investigate university teachers’ conceptions of, and approaches to, teaching both face-to-face and online; and perceptions of their teaching situation in ‘blended’ learning environments. 2. To investigate how elements of the teaching experience in ‘blended’ environments are associated. 3. To investigate university students’ conceptions of, and approaches to, learning both face-to-face and online; and perceptions of their teaching situation in blended learning environments. 4. To investigate how elements of the learning experience in ‘blended’ environments are associated (including final marks). 5. To investigate how experiences of teaching and learning in ‘blended’ environments are associated.

- Quantitative phase:

1. To further investigate, in a broader sample of teachers and students, how approaches to learning and teaching, face to face and online, are associated among them, with perceptions of the situation and students´ final marks.

16 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION III.4 METHODOLOGY: Describe the methods you plan to use to achieve the proposed goals. For example: experimental techniques, sampling procedures justification, statistical analysis of results, etc.. The maximum length for this section is 3 pages. (Use Arial/Verdana font size 10).

Qualitative phase

1. Sample

A purposive sample of teachers and students will be developed in accordance with guidelines for qualitative sampling presented in sub-section ‘Methods employed in relational research’. Steps in developing the sample will be as follows: Firstly, senior university e-learning and academic development staff will be contacted in order to develop a list of teachers who have incorporated e-learning in their on-campus courses. The focus will be on those who have received support from the e-learning and academic development units. From the list, teachers who teach in courses with more than one section will identified. Secondly, these teachers, together with their colleagues in parallel sections, will be invited to participate in this study. This is to have contrasting experiences, which will form later the base for analysing different experiences in the context of the same course and content of study. In building the sample, disciplinary differences will be taken into account following Becher and Trowler (2001) classification. The final sample will incorporate one course from hard disciplines (for example, physics), one from hard applied (for example, engineering), one from soft disciplines (for example, history) and one from soft applied (for example, education). Thirdly, students from courses whose teachers have agreed to participate will be contacted to be involved as interviewees or respondents to open-ended questionnaires. Within each course section, students will be randomly selected to participate as interviewees. This procedure will be carried out until a number around 15 to 20 per course, fairly distributed among sections, is achieved. The rest of students willing to participate will answer an open-ended questionnaire.

2. Data gathering

Coherently with phenomenographic research, interviews and open-ended questionnaires will be employed as the data collection method. There will be different instruments for teachers and students. For teachers, interviews only will be carried out. An interview schedule will be developed containing questions relevant for this study. Examples of possible questions are: What is good teaching in this course (face to face and online)? How do you approach teaching in this course (face to face and online)? How do you integrate both sides of the teaching experience? How do you perceive incorporating e-learning in your course in relation to issues such as: students´ characteristics, workload, institutional support, control over your teaching? For the case of students, interviews and open-ended questionnaires will be employed. An interview schedule will be developed. Examples of possible questions are: What did you learn in this course (face to face and online)? How did you engage with this course content and activities (face to face and online)? What did you want to achieve? What learning strategies did you use? How do you perceive elements such as: workload, teaching, assessment, goals and objectives? The open ended questionnaire will contain the same questions. Also for the case of students, final marks will be obtained from end of semester course reports. In order to do this, their student number will be requested when interviewing or when answering the open-ended questionnaires.

Preliminary versions of teachers interview schedules and students’ interview schedules and open-ended questionnaires will be subject to expert judgement for feedback and will be trialled with a small group of teachers (3 to 5) and students (3 to 5). Both feedback and initial trials will help to develop the final versions of these instruments. Teachers will be interviewed at the beginning of the course, as the focus is on what they are doing and preparing to do during the semester. Students will be interviewed at the end of the course, as the focus is on their experience of the contents and activities during the semester. Contact with students will be previously carried out to avoid not finding them at the end (by mid- semester with a remainder towards the end).

3. Analysis

The following steps will be followed in the analysis process: In the first place, interviews will be transcribed verbatim and uploaded to NVIVO. Answers to open-ended questionnaires will also be transcribed and uploaded to NVIVO. Secondly, traditional phenomenographic procedures will be employed for analysing interview transcripts and answers to open ended questionnaires. It implies that, for each key element investigated (conceptions, approaches and perceptions), an ‘outcome space’ will be built. These analyses will be carried out separately for teachers and students. Dialogic reliability tests will be conducted by the chief researcher and assistant when building the ‘outcome spaces’. Thirdly, teachers and students will be allocated to the highest category of description they present in the interview transcripts (and open-ended questionnaires for the case of students) in order to generate data to inquiry associations between elements of the experience of teaching or learning (coding). Besides, in the case of students, this will be associated with their end of semester marks. Allocation will be carried out by both the chief researcher and assistant to ensure consistency of data generated. A database with the outcomes of this coding process will be created in SPSS. Suitable statistical tests (chi square, fisher exact) will be

17 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION employed to test significance of associations between elements of the teaching or learning experience. Finally, after focusing on teachers or students separately, as the case of the above mentioned analyses, results obtained from their experiences will be compared and contrasted.

Quantitative phase

1. Sample

The population will be defined as all undergraduate campus-based courses which have an active website, during second semester of 2010 (when this research is expected to be conducted), within the university VLE. A stratified random sample, where Faculties are the strata, will be developed. In order to accomplish this, senior e-learning university staff will be contacted to assist with identifying the population. Previous evaluation exercises, carried out by the e-learning department, have found around 500 to 600 courses meeting the population characteristics during one semester. From this list, a number of 200 courses will be defined as the number to achieve. A final sample of around 200 courses, considering around 200 teachers and around 1500 students (similar to evaluation studies carried out by the university e-learning department) is expected to be surveyed. With the sample built, teachers in charge of the selected courses will be contacted by email to explore their willingness to participate and involve their students in this research.

2. Data gathering

Different questionnaires for teachers and students will be employed in this phase. For teachers: the ‘approaches to teaching’, ‘perception of the teaching situation’ and ‘approaches to teaching using e-learning’ questionnaires. For students: the ‘approaches to studying´ and ‘course experience’ (including the e-learning scale) questionnaires. Information on these questionnaires was provided in sub-section ‘methods employed in relational research’.

Procedures for data gathering will be as follows: First, questionnaires will be uploaded to an online survey tool (most probably surveymonkey.com). One webpage will be for teachers and one for students. Each of them will incorporate the information and consent forms, background information (gender, discipline, course, etc), questionnaires (appropriated for teachers and students) and one open-ended question for possible comments they may want to include. Besides, in the case of students, their university number will be requested to get their final mark in the course they are taking into account for answering the survey. Second, before contacting potential respondents, tests will be conducted to ensure there will be not problems accessing the website in which the survey is hosted. This will be carried out from within the university network and from outside. This is to be sure that no technical problems may hinder the data collection process. Third, in parallel, teachers in charge of sampled courses will be contacted by email explaining the objectives and scope of this study, requesting their participation and asking them authorisation for contacting their students. In cases in which they express they want to participate, an email containing the questionnaires, background questions and information and consent forms will be sent both to them and to the students in their courses. Fourth, a second e-mail will be sent five working days after the first one. In this one, thanks will be given to those who already answered and a gentle remainder will be given to those who did not. It is expected to increase the response rate following this procedure. No further contact requesting answering the survey will be used.

3. Analysis

The following analyses will be carried out: First, data will be imported into SPSS from the online survey tool. In preparation for the analyses, variables will be labelled and values will be assigned. Also, items belonging to specific scales will be summated. Final marks will be incorporated from the university registrar database by matching both databases through the student number. In the second place, an initial descriptive analysis will be carried out through percentages, means and standard deviation, both at the level of individual items and summated scales. In the third place, reliability tests, through Cronbach’s alpha will be conducted for each of the summated scales. Fourth, correlation analyses will be conducted assess the strength of association between questionnaires’ summated scales. Fifth, principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation will be used to look at structural relationships amongst groups of variables . Sixth, hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward’s technique, which is based in the increasing value of the squared Euclidean distance between clusters will be employed to look at sub-groups of teachers and students. These are analyses traditionally employed in relational research, which was explained in detail in the sub-section ‘methods employed in relational research’.

Table 1 presents a summary of methods to be employed in this research, including phase, participant, questions/hypothesis, specific goals, instruments and analysis.

18 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION Table 1: Summary of research methodology Phase Participant Questions/Hypothesis Specific Goals Instruments Analysis How do university teachers conceive of teaching in face to face and online contexts? Hypothesis 1 To investigate university teachers’ How do university teachers approach teaching in conceptions of, and approaches to, teaching face to face and online contexts? Hypothesis 2 both face-to-face and online; and Teachers How is the teaching situation perceived by perceptions of their teaching situation in teachers? Hypothesis 3 ‘blended’ learning environments. Interviews

Are there associations between conceptions, To investigate how elements of the teaching approaches and perceptions of the teaching experience in ‘blended’ environments are Qualitative situation? Hypothesis 4 associated. phase Phenomenogpraphic How do university students conceive of learning in face to face and online contexts? To investigate university students’ How do university students approach studying in conceptions of, and approaches to, learning face to face and online contexts? Hypothesis 5 both face-to-face and online; and Students How is the learning situation perceived by perceptions of their teaching situation in Interviews and open- students? Hypothesis 6 blended learning environments. ended questionnaires

Are there associations between conceptions, To investigate how elements of the learning approaches and perceptions and students’ experience in ‘blended’ environments are achievement (expressed as course final mark)? associated (including final marks). Hypothesis 7 How are experiences of teaching and learning in To investigate how experiences of teaching Interviews and open- Both ´blended´ environments associated? Hypothesis 8 and learning in ‘blended’ environments are ended questionnaires associated.

Approaches to How do university teachers approach teaching in teaching and face to face and online contexts? Hypothesis 2 approaches to e- Teachers learning questionnaires Quantitative How is the teaching situation perceived by To further investigate, in a broader sample of Perception of the Reliability tests, phase teachers? Hypothesis 3 teachers and students, how approaches to teaching situation descriptive statistics, learning and teaching, face to face and questionnaire correlation, principal How do university students approach studying in online, are associated among them and with Approaches to components factor face to face and online contexts? Hypothesis 5 perceptions of the situation, students´ final studying analysis, cluster Students marks and students´ satisfaction with their questionnaire analysis How is the learning situation perceived by learning experiences. Course experience students? Hypothesis 6 questionnaire Both How are experiences of teaching and learning in All already mentioned ´blended´ environments associated? Hypothesis 8 questionnaires

1 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION III.5 WORK PLAN: On the basis of your stated goals, indicate the stages and describe the activities to be carried out each year. The maximum length for this section is 1 page. (Use Arial/Verdana font size 10). If appropriate, use a Gantt chart.

2010 2011 l t r r r r e y y y y h i s l e e e e r r r c a n u r b b b b u a a p u J g a o M J u u t m m m A r u n c e e e M b t a c A v J e O e p o F e D S N

Research preparation Hiring and training of assistants; and selection of master’s student Qualitative phase Preparation of qualitative instruments Contacting potential interviewees (teachers) Conducting teachers’ interviews Conduction students’ interviews and applying open-ended questionnaires Transcribing and preparing NVIVO database for analysis Qualitative analysis Quantitative phase Preparation of quantitative instruments Preparation of quantitative data gathering (sampling, survey webpage, etc) Quantitative data gathering Preparing SPSS database for analysis Quantitative analysis Outcomes reporting Reports and papers writing

1 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION III.6 RESEARCHER ACTIVITIES: Describe the activities you will carry out each year. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.

TASKS/ACTIVITIES TO CARRY OUT

Training of research assistant and master’s student

This activity will imply introducing research assistants and the master’s student to the theory and methods employed in relational research. Specific training will be as follows:

1. Introduction to phenomenography , the qualitative branch of relational research, is particularly relevant. At the present, this is not, as far as I know, taught in any education or social sciences Faculty in Chile. Therefore, an initiation ‘from scratch’ will be needed. Phenomenography is a complex method, which requires a clear understanding of its application in every step of the research process. Guidelines developed by researchers facing this problem will be employed in training the research assistant and the master’s student. 2. Given the methodological training that social researchers receive in Chile, is highly likely that they will know the statistical techniques to be employed in this study. However, it will be important to make them aware of the particularities of using them within the framework of relational research. Therefore, training will be aimed at specific techniques and their application in the context of this particular study. 3. Training in research software and online databases will be also needed. NVIVO, SPSS and EndNote, as well as Web of Science and Scielo, will be intensively employed in this research. Depending on the current level of use of these software and databases, I will guide them towards a skilled use of these research tools.

Finally, in this point, it is important to mention that, although there will be formal training at the beginning of this project, I see the research assistants and master’s student involvement with the theories, methods and tools as a continuous process. Therefore, it is expected that they learn, as part of an inclusive community of scholars, through the entire process of conducting this research.

Data gathering

1. Preparation for data gathering:

For the qualitative phase, this will imply developing interview questions and open-ended questionnaires. Also, it will imply developing appropriate samples, contacting possible interviewees and preparing where the interviews will be carried out. It will also imply further work with some of the university teachers to contact and interview and/or request answering the open-ended questionnaire to some of their students. For the quantitative phase, this will imply defining the sample, uploading the questionnaires to a survey management web site and testing that it is working..

2. Data gathering activities:

For the qualitative phase, it will imply conducting the interviews, storing appropriately the voice files and sending them for transcription. Interviewing will be carried out by the chief researcher together with the research assistant. The chief researcher will progressively leave the assistant alone as she/he demonstrates confidence with phenomenographic interviews. Qualitative data gathering will be also carried out by means of open-ended questionnaires. This activity will be carried out in selected courses in class time. For the quantitative phase, this will imply sending emails to the previously developed sample of teachers and students. A first email will be send and then, after a week , a second email requesting the participation of those who have not yet answered will be sent. This will be the last attempt to increase the response rate. Information gathered will be stored in an appropriate server and be kept in there ready to be downloaded for analyses.

Analysis

1. Qualitative analysis

Qualitative analysis will be carried out in accordance with description presented in point III 4. This will imply :

1) Preparing an NVIVO database with the transcripts 2) Reading repetitively the transcripts. 3) Searching for similarities and differences within and between transcripts, annotating and summarising illustrative paragraphs. 4) Conducting dialogic reliability tests. 5) Developing an initial set of categories of description. 6) Iterating the process until the system of meaning stabilise.

2 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION 7) Allocating teachers to the highest ‘categories of description’ they present in the transcripts. 8) Conducting inter-researcher agreement for allocation. 9) Input the outcome in matrices. 10) Testing for significance. 11) Compare teachers and students experiences.

2. Quantitative analysis:

Quantitative analysis will also be conducted in accordance with presented in point III 4. This will imply :

1) Preparing data for analysis in SPSS. 2) Carrying out descriptive statistics (percentages, means and standard deviation). 3) Conducting reliability tests by means of Cronbach´s alpha. 4) Conducting correlation, principal components factor analysis and cluster analysis.

Literature up-dating

A very important research task is to keep the literature review up-to-date. This will be done by using the ‘current contents connect’ tool (Web of Science) , by keeping subscribed to table of contents of the academic journals in the area of this research which are not ISI rated; and by running periodical searches in the main academic literature databases, using keywords employed in this study. At the same time, an eye will be kept on new titles from main publishers key collections (for example, Routledge, Open University Press, etc). New relevant papers and books will be reviewed and incorporated to the project’s EndNote database.

Reports and paper writing

Almost entirely the last four months of the proposed research will be employed in writing up its outcomes. This will imply writing a research report containing the process and findings of the study as well as three research papers. The report will be for the VRAID and for internal (within the Faculty of Education) dissemination. The research papers will be for external dissemination of results. I will target two international journals to present the results. Depending on the outcomes this may be some the following:

1) Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 2) Higher Education Research and Development. 3) Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 4) Studies in Higher Education. 5) Higher Education.

At the same time, I will target one local journal. This may be:

1) Estudios Pedagógicos. 2) Calidad en la Educación. 3) Pensamiento Educativo. 4) Boletín de Investigación Educacional.

3 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION III.7 TIME COMMITTMENT TO THE PROPOSAL: On the basis of the above described activities, indicate the number of hours per week committed to the proposal.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 20 hours per week

4 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION IV. PRIOR WORK ON THE PROPOSAL TOPIC: In the space below, summarize the results of your previous work conducted on the topic of this proposal. (Use Arial/Verdana font size 10).

I did a PhD on ‘University teachers’ experiences of teaching in blended learning environments’. Next I provide a summary of the thesis:

‘This research was about university teachers’ experiences of teaching in blended learning environments. In recent years, this type of environments has become increasingly common. Universities have realised the value of the incorporation of e- learning, making teaching more professional and offering higher quality learning experiences. The present research took a relational approach (Marton & Booth, 1997; Trigwell & Prosser, 1999) to investigate what university teachers think e- learning is good for in their teaching, how they approach teaching when e-learning is involved, and how their perception of the teaching situation affects the use of e-learning. Associations between these elements were also explored. The research had a qualitative and a quantitative stage. In the qualitative stage, 18 university teachers, coming from two research-intensive Australian universities were interviewed. This stage focused on conceptions, approaches and perceptions. In the quantitative stage, 86 university teachers answered a web-based survey used to explore associations between approaches and perceptions. Results showed that conceptions and approaches to teaching, in face-to-face settings and using e-learning, ranged from being focused on content and information to being focused on learning and the student. Conceptions and approaches to blended teaching emerged from associations between the teaching face-to-face and online. Several elements influencing teaching in blended learning environments were also identified. Associations between conceptions, approaches and perceptions were explored through ‘teaching profiles’ and ‘orchestrations’ (Postareff et al, 2008). Results of the quantitative stage tended to support prior qualitative findings, and also identified ‘incoherent’ associations between approaches and perceptions.’

So far, I have published the following peer reviewed journal and conference proceedings articles based on my PhD work (* indicates ISI indexed journals):

*González, C. (2010). What do university teachers think e-learning is good for in their teaching? Studies in Higher Education.35(1), 61-78.

González, C. (2009). Teaching in ‘blended’ learning environments: how are conceptions of teaching and eTeaching associated? Proceedings of the annual conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE). New Zealand, Auckland. 6-9 December, 2009. pp. 346-353.

*Lingard, J., Minasian-Batmanian, L., Vella, G., Cathers, I., & González, C. (2009). Do students with well-aligned perceptions of question difficulty perform better? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(6), 603-619.

*González, C. (2009). Conceptions of, and approaches to, teaching online: a study of lecturers teaching postgraduate distance courses. Higher Education, 57(3), 299-314.

González, C (2008). University teachers’ experiences of teaching in blended learning environments. Proceedings of the annual postgraduate and newer researchers conference of the Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE). United Kingdom. Liverpool. 9 December, 2008. p. 39.

González, C. (2007). Variation in lecturers’ experiences of teaching undergraduate on-campus courses using the web. Proceedings of the annual conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE). Singapore, Singapore. 2-5 December, 2007. pp. 333-338.

González, C. (2007). Teaching postgraduate distance courses using the web: a study of conceptions and approaches. Proceedings of the annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE). Australia, Fremantle. 25-29 December, 2007. No page numbers.

This work has received citations in articles published in the annual conference proceedings of the “Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE)”, the ISI rated journals “Distance Education” and “British Journal of Educational Technology” and the very recent book by Ellis & Goodyear: “Students’ experiences of e-learning in higher education: the ecology of sustainable innovation”, published in 2010 by Routledge. I have included, in the annexes, some pages of this book as an example of how my work has helped to shape other researchers’ perspectives.

A natural further step is to continue developing this line of investigation by replicating my doctoral research and also extending it. Extension of this line of research will be carried out by 1) incorporating students’ perspectives, 2) exploring how teacher and students’ experiences are associated; and 3) employing previously developed theoretical and methodological frameworks in a novel context: a Chilean higher education institution.

5 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION

V. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Include other information that you consider relevant, not included elsewhere, which would facilitate this proposal's review. Use only the space provided (Use Arial/Verdana font size 10).

This proposal was presented last year (2009) without success. In that opportunity I received valuable feedback from anonymous reviewers, who considered the project as worth being conducted as they saw an innovative proposal, in an area where little or no research has been conducted in Chile, and with a strong theoretical framework. They also expressed concerns referred to epistemological assumptions, level of detail used to describe the methodology, presence of articles “too old” and use of resources. Next, I explain how I addressed these concerns in this new version of the proposal.

1) It was suggested to deepen the description of epistemological assumption on learning and teaching. I extended this discussion in the introduction in section ‘proposal description, theoretical background and literature review’. I have given further details on what the relational perspective means and implies for research purposes; and how it is different from other theoretical perspectives in education, such as cognitivism and individual and social constructivism. 2) It was suggested to eliminate quotes more than 20 years old. I have done this, only keeping these articles when they are “classics” of the field. 3) It was stated that the methodology was too general and disperse. In order to address this issue I did the following: I incorporated a new sub-section in ‘proposal description, theoretical background and literature review’ called ‘methods employed in relational research’. Here, I described mainstream methods employed within the relational framework in a general manner. Then, in the ‘methodology’ section I explained in detail how I will employ them in this particular research, giving importance to steps to be followed in each phase of the study. Also, to make this clearer, I incorporated a table summarising the main methodological aspects. This table includes phase, participant, questions/hypothesis, specific goals, instruments and analysis. 4) Finally, in order to better employ resources requested for this project, I cut some costs and maximized participation of assistants and master´s student.

It is also important to state, in this ‘additional information’ section that I have, at the present, three articles submitted to peer reviewed journals. Two of them are for ISI indexed journals (“Instructional Science” and “Teaching in Higher Education”) and one is for the Chilean journal “Calidad en la Educación”. All of them received positive initial response from editors and reviewers. I am working on them at the present and expect to have them accepted in the next few months. I have attached, in the annexes, letters sent by editors.

Finally in this point, it is important to mention that I regularly participate as a reviewer for the following journals and conferences:

a) Journals:

- Instructional Science (ISI indexed). - Studies in Higher Education (ISI indexed). - Informatics in Education. - Calidad en la Educación.

b) Conferences:

- Networked learning conference. - Australasian society for computers in learning in tertiary education (ASCILITE) conference.

6 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION VI. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR CURRICULUM VITAE

VI.1. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION 1 1 8 6 0 6 8 7 - 6

TAXPAYER ID # (Do not include decimal point)

Gonzalez Ugalde Carlos

FATHER ‘S SURNAME MOTHER’S MAIDEN SURNAME NAMES

12 02 71 M X F Chilean 6865365 5530092

Day Month Year

DATE OF BIRTH SEX NATIONALITY TELEPHONE FAX

Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile Faculty of Education Av. Vicuña Mackenna 4860 Macul Santiago CHILE MAILING ADDRESS

Metropolitana Santiago [email protected]

REGION CITY P.O. BOX E-MAIL ADDRESS

Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile

INSTITUTION

VI.2. ACADEMIC BACKGROUND

Professional Title(s) UNIVERSITY COUNTRY YEAR

Sociólogo Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile Chile 1996

Academic degrees

Licenciado en Sociología Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile Chile 1996

Master of Education The University of Sydney Australia 2005

PhD in Education The University of Sydney Australia 2009

Other

Post-doctoral studies Institute of Education, The University of London United Kingdom 2009

7 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION Main Lines of Research/Specialty Areas

1.- Higher education

2.- Learning and teaching

3.- e-learning

8 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION ACADEMIC APPOINTMENT(S) INSTITUTION HOURS PER WEEK

Assistant Professor Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile 44

VI.3. PARTICIPATION IN FONDECYT-APPROVED PROJECTS AS PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR IN A POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCH PROJECT OR COINVESTIGATOR IN A REGULAR PROJECT.

YEAR PROJECT NUMBER & TITLE ROLE Begin End

VI.4. PARTICIPATION IN OTHER PROJECTS OR RESEARCH PROGRAMS FUNDED BY NATIONAL OR FOREIGN SOURCES. SPECIFY THEIR GOALS AND DIFFERENCES WITH THIS PROPOSAL. (Attach additional sheets, if necessary). FONDECYT Councils, at their discretion, may request proper certification.

YEAR FUNDING PROJECT TITLE ROLE Begin End SOURCE

SPECIFICATION:

9 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION VI.5. PUBLICATIONS. Please provide full references (author(s), publication title, journal full name, volume, pages, publication year) for articles accepted or published over the last 5 years. If appropriate, specify the FONDECYT project number.

Please, be aware that female investigators who have given birth between 2003 to 2008, must report their scientific productivity since 2002. a. PUBLICATIONS SINCE 2003. Use additional sheets, if necessary. Use an "X" to check the appropriate box*.

González, C. Author(s)

Conceptions of, and approaches to, teaching online: a study of lecturers teaching postgraduate distance Publication Title courses Higher Education FONDECYT PROJECT Journal full name

Year Vol. Issue Pages Publication status to date.* Bibliographic Reference 2009 57 3 299-314 Published X In Press Accepted

Lingard, J., Minasian-Batmanian, L., Vella, G., Cathers, I. & González, C. Author(s)

Do students with well aligned perceptions of question difficulty perform better? Publication Title

Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education FONDECYT PROJECT Journal full name

Year Vol. Issue Pages Publication status to date.* Bibliographic Reference 2009 34 6 603-619 Published X In Press Accepted

González, C. Author(s)

What do university teachers think e-learning is good for in their teaching? Publication Title

Studies in Higher Education FONDECYT PROJECT Journal full name

Year Vol. Issue Pages Publication status to date.* Bibliographic Reference 2010 35 1 61-78 Published X In Press Accepted

These three journals are ISI indexed.

10 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION b. BOOKS AND BOOK CHAPTERS SINCE 2003: Please provide full references and use additional sheets if necessary. Use an "X" to check the appropriate box*.

Author(s)

Book/ Book Chapter Title

Editor(s) (Books or Book Chapter) Editor Place and Publication Date Type of Publication or Product* Pages Book Book Chapter Monograph

Author(s)

Book/ Book Chapter Title

Editor(s) (Books or Book Chapter) Editor Place and Publication Date Type of Publication or Product* Pages Book Book Chapter Monograph c. PUBLICATIONS IN PROCEEDINGS OF SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS SINCE 2003. Include publications in Conference/Congress Proceedings relevant to the proposal topic.

González, C. Author(s)

Teaching postgraduate distance courses using the web: a study of conceptions and approaches Abstract Title

Annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Congress Title

Place & Date Country: Australia City: Fremantle Date: 25 – 29 December, 2007

González, C. Author(s)

Variation in lecturers experiences’ of teaching undergraduate on-campus courses using the web Abstract Title

Annual conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE) Congress Title

Place & Date Country: Singapore City: Singapore Date: 2-5 December, 2007

11 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION González, C. Author(s)

University teachers’ experiences of teaching in blended learning environments Abstract Title

Annual postgraduate and newer researchers conference of the Society for Research into Higher Education Congress Title (SRHE) Place & Date Country: United Kingdom City: Liverpool Date: 8 December, 2008

González, C. Author(s)

Teaching in ‘blended’ learning environments: how are conceptions of teaching and eTeaching associated? Abstract Title

Annual conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE) Congress Title

Place & Date Country: New Zealand City: Auckland Date 6-9 December, 2009

All these conferences have a strict peer reviewing process for submitted articles. d. PUBLICATIONS RELEVANT TO THIS PROPOSAL'S TOPIC PRIOR TO 2003. (No more than 5).

Author(s)

Publication Title

FONDECYT PROJECT Journal full name

Year Vol. Issue Pages Publication status to date.* Bibliographic Reference Published In Press Accepted

Author(s)

Publication Title

FONDECYT PROJECT Journal full name

Year Vol. Issue Pages Publication status to date.* Bibliographic Reference Published In Press Accepted

Author(s)

Publication Title

FONDECYT PROJECT Journal full name

Year Vol. Issue Pages Publication status to date.* Bibliographic Reference Published In Press Accepted

Author(s)

Publication Title

FONDECYT PROJECT Journal full name

Year Vol. Issue Pages Publication status to date.* Bibliographic Reference Published In Press Accepted

12 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION Author(s)

Publication Title

FONDECYT PROJECT Journal full name

Year Vol. Issue Pages Publication status to date.* Bibliographic Reference Published In Press Accepted e. THESIS DIRECTION. List Undergraduate, Doctoral and Master’s theses directed over the last 5 years.

Degree, Institution & Year Students Names Thesis Title Awarded

13 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION VII. AVAILABLE RESOURCES: If applicable, identify means and resources available at the sponsoring institution to carry out this proposal.

14 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION VIII. AMOUNTS AND JUSTIFICATION OF FUNDS REQUESTED FROM FONDECYT.

Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Faculty of Education. Curriculum, technology and evaluation department.

INSTITUTION (University/Faculty/Department)

Av. Vicuña Mackenna 4860 81.698.900-0 Macul

MAILING ADDRESS INSTITUTION TAX ID

Santiago 6865336 5530092

P.O. BOX CITY TELEPHONE FAX

[email protected]

E-MAIL ADDRESS

VIII.1 BUDGET ITEMIZATION

BUDGET ITEMS ANNUAL AMOUNTS (1000 CLP$) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 TOTAL

1. STAFF 2560

2. TRAVEL

2.1 PROPOSAL TRAVEL

Domestic Per Diem

International Per Diem 80

Domestic Fares 200

International Fares

2.2 TRAVEL INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

International Per Diem

International Fares

Total Travel 600

3. OPERATIONAL EXPENSES 740

4. EQUIPMENT 100

TOTAL REQUESTED (1+2+3+4) 4000

15 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION VIII.2 FUNDS REQUESTED FOR RESEARCH STAFF. Please see Application Instructions.

RESEARCH UNIT (INSTITUTION / UNIVERSITY/ FACULTY/ DEPARTMENT) ANNUAL AMOUNTS (1000 CLP$)

ROLE FULL NAME Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 TOTAL

Principal Investigator

Thesis Students 480

Technical & Support Staff 2080

TOTAL STAFF (1000CLP$) 2560

VIII.3. JUSTIFICATION OF REQUESTED AMOUNTS: Justify the amounts requested for each of the items above.

a. Describe the tasks of all technical & support staff for which honoraria are being requested in relation to the goals and proposed work plan.

The amount requested under the item ‘technical & support staff’ is for hiring two research assistants to support both phases of this research. One assistant for the qualitative phase will be hired for a total period equivalent to half day for four months. This will not be continuous but she/he will work during periods during the year when her/his help is more needed. Key functions will be selecting and contacting potential interviewees, data gathering and analysis. A second assistant will help with the quantitative phase, as this is less intensive in workload (there are not interviews to conduct or hundreds of pages of transcripts to read). She/he will be hired for a total period equivalent to half day for one month and a half. As in the case of the qualitative assistant, her/his support will be requested in key stages of the quantitative phase of the study, such as developing the sample, preparing the web site with the questionnaires, prepare the database for analysis and conducting part of the statistical analysis. b. Specify if this proposal intends to fund theses students. If so, indicate the topics of the theses you intend to direct. If students are already selected, indicate their names and degree objective.

Remember that funding may only be requested for Undergraduate and Master degree students.

I will offer to one master’s students the opportunity of developing a thesis in the context of this research. This student will be invited to participate as part of a community of research where she/he may find a topic to develop her/his thesis.

16 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION VIII.4 PROPOSAL TRAVEL: Funding may be requested for activities directly related to the proposal development and dissemination of results. a. FOREIGN TRAVEL:

All trips abroad require a clear justification. Indicate tentative destinations, number of days and amounts for each trip. Estimate annual international travel fares and per diem expenses. Remember that only coach fares are acceptable. Please read the Application Instructions.

Amounts (1000 CLP$) Purpose No. Days Fares Per Diem

Attending to one international conference. This will most Year 1 200 80 probably be the “VI congreso iberoamericano de docencia 5 universitaria” to be held in Lima, Perú by the end of 2010

Year 2

Year 3

Justification (for each year):

I will attend the mentioned conference with the aim of presenting preliminary outcomes of this research. This is an important activity to receive feedback on my work and get involved with people from the region who is working on similar topics.

17 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION b. DOMESTIC TRAVEL & FIELD TRIPS: Per Diem expenses related to field trips must be justified. Provide a detailed schedule including transportation means to be used. Include a tentative calendar of national scientific meetings you plan to attend.

Amounts (1000 CLP$) Purpose No. Days Fares Per Diem

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Justification (for each year):

18 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION c. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION FOREIGN TRAVEL ITEM: Please justify your request for international cooperation activities funding. Explain why the visit of a researcher residing abroad will benefit your proposal goals achievement. Remember that only coach fares are acceptable. Please read the Application Instructions.

AMOUNTS (1000 CHP) Justification No. Days Fares Per Diem

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

19 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION VIII.5 OPERATIONAL EXPENSES: Specify and justify for each proposal year the amounts requested, if applicable, for the following items: computing-related items, reagents and other laboratory non-durable materials, books purchases, scientific journals and subscription fees (all of which must be registered with the performing unit), scientific meetings registration fees, payments for services, hiring of occasional auxiliary personnel, publishing costs of proposal-derived papers on ISI-indexed journals or equivalent depending on the nature of the field.

1) Occasional personnel for interview transcriptions: there will be one or two people (most probably students from the Faculty of Education) helping with transcripts. They will be required to provide verbatim transcriptions and will be supervised by the research assistant and myself.

2) One NVIVO license. We do not have NVIVO readily available at the Faculty of Education (as we have SPSS). This qualitative analysis software is essential for conducting this study. Therefore, one license (as a minimum requirement) is needed.

3) Proof reading for papers preparation: this is very important for being successful in submitting papers to international peer reviewed journals. Non-native English speakers tend to make mistakes even if they are fluent in English. In order to avoid this, and increasing the chance of continue having papers accepted in top-rated journals, I will send my papers for proof reading to a native English speaker. In the past, I have done this both with my Doctoral thesis and papers. This has proved to be a successful strategy.

4) Photocopies, batteries, paper: this item is for occasional office material expenses.

A summary of the requested amounts is presented in the next table:

(1000 CLP$) Occasional personnel for interview transcriptions 300 NVIVO license 240 Proof reading for papers preparation 150 Photocopies, batteries, paper 50 TOTAL 740

20 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION VIII.6. EQUIPMENT REQUEST. The amounts requested must include transportation, insurance and applicable import taxes costs. Non-durable, expendable items, must be included under Operational Expenses. a. Equipment specifications. A formal quotation for the equipment requested is not required, thus you must provide a full descrip- tion and technical specifications for each of the items funding is requested for. Please include the full name of the distributor/manufacturer you have consulted.

IDENTIFICATION AND Amounts (1000 CLP$) SPECIFICATIONS OF EACH PIECE OF TOTAL EQUIPMENT Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Qty. 1000 CLP$ Qty. 1000 CLP$ Qty. 1000 CLP$ Qty. 1000 CLP$ Digital voice recorder 2 100

TOTAL 100

21 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION b. EQUIPMENT JUSTIFICATION: Each piece of equipment requested must be clearly justified considering the proposal goals and intended work plan. Purchase of furniture or physical space furnishing is not allowed.

As part of the study, an important number of interviews will be carried out. Two digital voice recorders are essential for such qualitative data gathering process. The reason why two are requested is because I foresee that could be situations in which the researchers may be conducting interviews separately.

22 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION References

23 2008 INITIATION INTO RESEARCH FUNDING COMPETITION

Load more

  42

Copy Link