Introduction

Active blended learning is a well-respected, evidenced approach that uses the best of both physical and digital learning approaches to provide students with a dynamic and engaging learning experience. Although the term has come into prominence since the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to recognise that a combination of physical and online learning has been a feature of LJMU’s Teaching and Learning Strategy since the acquisition of a Virtual Learning Environment in 2001. Active Blended Learning, therefore, signals a development from existing practice and expectations. In 2020, Active Blended Learning was identified as the best response to COVID-19-related restrictions. In the event, stricter than expected restrictions meant it was rarely delivered. Even in those areas where physical teaching was retained, the highly specific focus of that teaching did not always fully align with the Active Blended Learning principles. The response from academic staff to online delivery has been extraordinary. Programme teams immediately pivoted to online learning, with a rapid acquisition of skills and novel approaches. Whilst few see this as an ideal situation, student feedback from semester 1 module evaluation and student performance data suggests that online education has been broadly successful. In addition, academic staff have invested time and effort into the development of a significant number of online resources than can be reused or easily adapted for future cohorts. This indicates advantages in online learning that the University could exploit as it prepares for an easing of COVID-19-related restrictions in the future. Maintaining a degree of Active Blended Learning in the University's approach to educational provision in 2021/22 affords some benefits by:

• consolidating the considerable achievement in online academic practice seen across the University since March 2020;
• building on the skills and resources developed during this period;
• providing students with programmes that are rich in resource and learning opportunity;
• responding to diverse student needs by offering curricula that facilitate different approaches to learning and time management;
• developing greater flexibility in programme delivery;
• easing pressures on the estate and timetabling;
• contributing to University ambitions with respect to sustainability; and
• helping prepare programme teams to respond to any future COVID-19-related restrictions.

It is acknowledged that the development of active blended learning programmes needs to be driven by an institutional strategy informed by pedagogical principles, theory, and the evidence-base. This should articulate active blended learning within a single educational strategy that aligns digital and physical practice. It will also require carefully thought through managed curriculum design and review. It is not feasible that this will be in place for the coming academic year, particularly because institutional preparation means that programme teams should identify preferred delivery patterns by the end of March. Hence, it is suggested that the institution adopts a transition strategy to support active blended learning while a new institutional strategy is developed and rolled out.

Suggested Institutional Approach for the 2021/2022 Academic Year

Following discussions in the University’s Education Committee and Learning Environment Panel, informed by Faculty-level consultation through Faculty Education Committees, it is proposed that the University should:

1. Encourage Programme Teams to timetable approximately 20% of delivery as structured online activities. Delivery relates to contact hours as noted on module proformas, but will generally be viewed at programme level (see point 2).
2. Response to individual programme needs may result in a greater or lesser proportion of online delivery. This will allow delivery to reflect, for example, PSRB requirements, existing levels of online teaching, disciplinary norms/expectations, and the proportion of practical, skills-based, simulation, or placement-based learning. It could also offer discretion for different levels of online learning to meet the needs of, for example, post-graduate students, part-timers, degree apprenticeships, and international students.The eventual proportion of online teaching will be approved by the School Director.
3. Encourage the management of blended delivery at Programme, rather than module level. This flexibility would enable teams to focus teaching activity most effectively. It could, for example, result in a lower proportion of online provision at level four, increasing incrementally to level six.
4. Enhance institutional systems and processes (e.g. student information, data management and quality assurance) to facilitate the intended operation of Active Blended Learning.
5. Maximise opportunities for student socialisation by focusing online learning on individual activities, freeing the face-to-face timetable for more collaborative activity.
6. More clearly define the vocabulary of both physical and online teaching to help students to understand how to get the most from their education.
   1. In line with this, define online provision in Active Blended Learning as time-bound, detailed, and structured learning activities to distinguish them from independent learning or self-paced courses.
7. Continue to address the digital divide between students, in terms of access to equipment and data, as well as digital skills and literacy.
8. Invest and plan to increase digital capability of staff and students through explicit emphasis in recruitment, in addition to providing skills development opportunities.
9. Recognise that the risks associated with the use of new technologies or approaches might constrain innovation. In light of this, facilitate local innovation through adopting an approach that attempts to manage risk rather than eliminate it.
10. Enhance mechanisms in place for monitoring, analysing, understanding, and learning from the experiences of students and staff to inform local and strategic developments.
11. Fully integrate Digital Education into a revised, aligned with the development of the new Institutional Strategic Framework 2023-2028.

Recommendations

(Please see appendix 1 for further details)

Recommendation 1
Reflect teaching purpose in timetabling principles.
Recommendation 2
Build Active Blended Learning principles into an Institutional-wide IT Strategy and forthcoming Canvas review.
Recommendation 3
Maintain current level of Canvas resource (particularly with respect to live lecturing) to maximise teaching and learning opportunities. This will also ensure that the Institution can more efficiently adapt online learning in response to any future restrictions.
Recommendation 4
Revise the Educational Video and Audio Recording Policy.
Recommendation 5
Better reporting of good practice, both into and out of the appraisal process and through Teaching & Learning Academy activity.
Recommendation 6
Use timetabling principles to support efficient working on or off campus.
Recommendation 7
Identify suitable online study/delivery spaces on campus.
Recommendation 8
Link Canvas sites into personalised timetables, identify a clear, defined, and uncomplicated way for staff to articulate ABL designs to students.
Recommendation 9
Curate curriculum development materials, guidance, and support for programme teams and provide clarify for students.
Recommendation 10
Simplify processes associated with changes to module delivery.
Recommendation 11
Clarify factors that would limit timetable and delivery flexibility.
Recommendation 12
Explore options for dialogue between programmes (with shared modules) to manage Active Blended Learning in optional modules.
Recommendation 13
Clear and reassuring messages that recognise online learning as standard and normal learning activity.
Recommendation 14
Offer enhanced study skills before and during an extended induction period.
Recommendation 15
Conduct institutional research into students’ experiences of the digital divide to inform decision-making.
Recommendation 16
Identify opportunities for local TEL support that would complement the work of the Teaching & Learning Academy
Recommendation 17
Review how digital capacity is reflected in recruitment and staff development.
Recommendation 18
Ensure that the staff and student voice is reflected in plans through use of existing evaluation and survey data, alongside activities that encourage discussion and debate.
Recommendation 19
Employ effective analytics to support greater understanding of student engagement in online learning.

Appendix 1: Issues for Consideration and Recommendations

1 Timetabling to purpose. The reduction in face-to-face sessions [from ca. 100% to 80%] could facilitate more effective use of the estate by linking timetabling to the purpose of teaching. To maximise students’ learning experience, it is suggested that the duration of classes is influenced by the degree of likely interaction. The most common teaching is:

• Sessions for transmission of information – these are designed to communicate information and ideas. They rely on mostly one-way communication, e.g. a didactic lecture. Class sizes can be quite large as opportunities for interaction are likely to focus on checking understanding, the use of polling technology etc. Narrow opportunities for engagement in these sessions may limit attention spans, so timetabling should be restricted to one hour.
• Sessions for discussion of ideas – these would focus on interrogation of ideas that had been presented elsewhere. Class sizes would be relatively small. The intensive nature of these sessions might indicate the need to limit timetabling to one hour.
• Sessions for the exploration of ideas – these sessions mix instructional content with structured opportunities for students to examine and discuss ideas. Class sizes could vary, but would be unlikely to be very large. The mix of activities should support student interest and attention, allowing these sessions to be timetabled for longer periods.
• Sessions for the development of skills – these focus on ‘hands-on’ activities, typically in specialist teaching spaces, with reduced instruction or demonstration. Active participation should maintain student attention and support longer sessions.

Recommendation 1. Reflect teaching purpose in timetabling principles.

2) Suitability of digital education estate. In active blended learning, physical teaching is supported by structured online learning activities. Ongoing review of the management of digital education is needed to ensure that the Institution has the right technologies, arranged in the right ways, to maximise learning.

Recommendation 2. Build Active Blended Learning principles into an Institutional-wide IT Strategy and forthcoming Canvas review.

Recommendation 3. Maintain current level of Canvas resource (particularly with respect to live lecturing) to maximise teaching and learning opportunities. This will also ensure that the Institution can more efficiently adapt online learning in response to any future restrictions.

3) Recording face-to-face teaching. Feedback from students suggests that they appreciate the opportunity to revisit recorded lectures. Prior to the move to online learning, few lectures were recorded. This has changed, prompted by the ease of recording online activity. A return to in-person teaching might need a stronger Institutional position on whether classes should be routinely recorded, and which types of teaching that would apply to.

Recommendation 4. Revise the Educational Video and Audio Recording Policy.

4) Capturing good practice. Online teaching has resulted in some outstanding teaching practice. The Academy has produced Case Studies based on outcomes of Institutional surveys, but these do not reflect the full extent of activity. There needs to be a mechanism to support identification, analysis, and dissemination of such work.

Recommendation 5. Better reporting of good practice, both into and out of the appraisal process and through Teaching & Learning Academy activity.

5) Access to suitable study/workspace. Hybrid physical/online teaching and learning presents challenges associated with where people work. Students and staff will need access to suitable facilities for online delivery/participation if other timetabling/work commitments mean that they must be on-campus. Shared staff offices and open plan student areas are unlikely to be suited to online approaches.

Recommendation 6. Use timetabling principles to support efficient working on or off campus.

Recommendation 7. Identify suitable online study/delivery spaces on campus.

6) Clear information. Students need access to a clear and simple schedule of expected activity. They will need to know how the programme delivery will be managed in order to understand what will be expected of them. Current activity sits in two timetables: one for physical and a second for digital teaching. This can cause confusion and frustration, and doesn’t support the perception of an integrated approach to teaching and learning.

Recommendation 8. Link Canvas sites into personalised timetables, identify a clear, defined, and uncomplicated way for staff to articulate ABL designs to students.

7) Curriculum design. Whilst a wholesale review of curricula for 2021/22 is not realistic, academic staff need opportunity, time, and resources to consider how Active Blended Learning will work at both programme and module level. Associated with this, there need to be responsive, flexible, and user-friendly governance processes for oversight and approval of plans.

Recommendation 9. Curate curriculum development materials, guidance, and support for programme teams and provide clarify for students.

Recommendation 10. Simplify processes associated with changes to module delivery.

8) Delivery patterns. The flexibility of Active Blended Learning affords challenges as well as opportunities. Programme teams could opt to concentrate physical or digital teaching into intensive blocks. Although this might have pedagogical value, it may result in an uneven demand on physical resources and limit timetabling benefits. This might require the imposition of compensatory rules or processes.

Recommendation 11. Clarify factors that would limit timetable and delivery flexibility.

9) Optional modules. Programme-level oversight of the ‘location’ of online learning will be constrained by optional modules that are open to students from different programme areas. The most straightforward solution would be to allow greater flexibility in optional module delivery to maximise student choice. However, this would mean that students (albeit by choice) would experience diverse levels of physical and online teaching.

Recommendation 12. Explore options for dialogue between programmes (with shared modules) to manage Active Blended Learning in optional modules.

10) Student preparation. Presentation of any strategy needs to be carefully managed. Students’ current experiences of online learning are not representative of how this would be in an active blended approach. Nonetheless, talk of future Active Blended Learning might provoke anxiety. Furthermore, consideration needs to be given to how equipment requirements, digital skills, and associated learning strategies are addressed in pre-enrolment, induction, and early course activities. In addition, new and existing students have experienced a very disrupted learning experience. Pre-programme and in-programme scaffolding and transition work is needed to help them adapt to another new way of working.

Recommendation 13. Clear and reassuring messages that recognise online learning as standard and normal learning activity.

Recommendation 14. Offer enhanced study skills before and during an extended induction period.

11) Digital poverty. Increased expectation for online learning will add to the disadvantage of those with limited access to equipment and data. This will need management, aligned with a recognition that provision of resources, without addressing potential skills deficit, is insufficient to address digital poverty.

Recommendation 15. Conduct institutional research into students’ experiences of the digital divide to inform decision-making.

12) Increased technology enhanced learning (TEL) support. A move to a sustained level of online provision signals a need for greater Institutional support. Local TEL support at Faculty or School level is limited. Increasing this would offer a ‘hub and spoke’ model of TEL management to connect local needs with centrally provided services. Such as approach facilitates central TEL staff adopting a leadership function, ensuring staff in the spokes are at the cutting edge of practice and that they execute their duties to a consistently high standard. Strategic and pedagogically driven delivery of such support would focus subject-specific and digital fluency skills where it is most needed.

Recommendation 16. Identify opportunities for local TEL support that would complement the work of the Teaching & Learning Academy

13) Continued development of Active Blended Learning Teaching Effective Active Blended Learning requires teaching staff to be skilled in both online and physical delivery, as well as managing the interplay between the two. The last year may have suited some and bruised others, presenting the risk of pedagogic apartheid, with some staff retreating from online practice and others focussing on it. This may play to individual strengths and preferences but is not sustainable. Peer Review and Teaching Observation should address both online and face-to-face practice. In addition, an audit of digital capacity should be undertaken to identify areas where development is needed. In line with this, given the importance of digital skills for both physical and online teaching practice, the organisation should consider how these link to recruitment and ongoing training.

Recommendation 17. Review how digital capacity is reflected in recruitment and staff development.

14) Staff and student engagement. Effective engagement will ensure that the collective skills, perceptions, and experiences of both staff and students will support the identification of issues and solutions. This will facilitate continuous improvement of physical and digital resources and practices. It will also lead to greater ownership of curricula.

Recommendation 18. Ensure that the staff and student voice is reflected in plans through use of existing evaluation and survey data, alongside activities that encourage discussion and debate.

Recommendation 19. Employ effective analytics to support greater understanding of student engagement in online learning.