Contemporary Nurse

ISSN: 1037-6178 (Print) 1839-3535 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcnj20

Transition to blended learning: Experiences from

the first year of our blended learning Bachelor of
Nursing Studies (BNS) Programme

Mary-Rose Sweeney, Anne Kirwan, Mary Kelly, Melissa Corbally, Sandra O

Neill, Mary Kirwan, Susan Hourican, Anne Matthews & Pamela Hussey

To cite this article: Mary-Rose Sweeney, Anne Kirwan, Mary Kelly, Melissa Corbally, Sandra O
Neill, Mary Kirwan, Susan Hourican, Anne Matthews & Pamela Hussey (2016): Transition to
blended learning: Experiences from the first year of our blended learning Bachelor of Nursing
Studies (BNS) Programme, Contemporary Nurse, DOI: 10.1080/10376178.2016.1197781

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10376178.2016.1197781

Accepted author version posted online: 08

Jun 2016.
Published online: 08 Jun 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcnj20

Download by: [University of California, San Diego] Date: 24 June 2016, At: 07:38
 Publisher: Taylor & Francis & Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
Journal: Contemporary Nurse
DOI: 10.1080/10376178.2016.1197781

Transition to blended learning: Experiences from the first year of our blended
learning Bachelor of Nursing Studies (BNS) Programme.

Mary-Rose Sweeney1, Anne Kirwan1, Mary Kelly1, Melissa Corbally1, Sandra O Neill1,
Mary Kirwan1, Susan Hourican1, Anne Matthews1, Pamela Hussey1.
School of Nursing and Human Sciences, Dublin City University, Glasnevin, Dublin 9,
Ireland1.
Contact details
maryrose.sweeney@dcu.ie
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 07:38 24 June 2016

Anne.kirwan@dcu.ie
mary.t.kelly@dcu.ie
melissa.corbally@dcu.ie
melissa.corbally@dcu.ie
mary.kirwan@dcu.ie
susan.hourican@dcu.ie
anne.matthews@dcu.ie
pamela.hussey@dcu.ie
Lead investigator and corresponding author: Dr. Mary Rose Sweeney
Telephone number: 00 353 7007786
Fax number: 00 353 1 7005688
Email address: maryrose.sweeney@dcu.ie

ABSTRACT:
Background: The School of Nursing (SON) at Dublin City University offered a new
blended learning Bachelor of Nursing Studies (BNS) programme in the academic year
2011.
Aim: To document the experiences of the academic team making the transition from a
face-to-face classroom delivered programme to the new blended learning format.
Method: Academics who delivered the programme were asked to describe their
experiences of developing the new programme via two focus groups.
Results: Five dominant themes were identified: Staff Readiness; Student Readiness;
Programme Delivery and Student Engagement; Assessment of Module Learning
Outcomes and Feedback; and Reflecting on the First Year and Thinking of the Future.
Face-to-face tutorials were identified as very important to both academics and students.
Reservations about whether migrating the programme to an online format encouraged
students to engage in additional practices of plagiarism were expressed by some. Student
ability/readiness to engage with technology enhanced learning was an important
determinant of their own success academically.
Discussion: In the field of nursing blended learning is a relatively new and emerging
field which will require huge cultural shifts for staff and students alike.
 Keywords: Nurse education, Nurse, transition to blended learning, Education
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 07:38 24 June 2016
 Background: Globally, there has been substantial growth in the availability of
programmes of Higher Education (HE) study via remote means in the past 10 years.
Internationally, as it is in Ireland, this is driven by a range of factors. Government
policy emphasises the need to widen participation in higher education and to provide
access for students coming from ‘non-traditional’ areas. In addition, there is an
emphasis on the need to provide greater flexibility in educational delivery, thus
enabling students across the disciplines to take a pro-active approach in managing their
learning (Department of Education and Skills, 2011). In tandem, contemporary nursing
practice in Ireland is carried out in an environment characterised by shrinking financial
resources and reduced staffing levels, coupled with a greater emphasis on professional
accountability, autonomy, governance and continuing professional development. In
addition, funding bodies require that Higher Education Institutes (HEI) deliver nurse
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 07:38 24 June 2016

education programmes that are flexible and represent value for money (Office of the
Nursing and Midwifery Services Director, 2010). Therefore, HEIs have embraced the
digital philosophy in their strategic plans (MacKeogh & Fox, 2009). In that climate,
Dublin City University evaluated its provision of two separate Bachelor of Nursing
Studies degrees – one of which was a face-to-face degree based in the School of
Nursing and Human Sciences; the other a distance learning degree provided by Oscail,
the Dublin City University’s National Distance Learning Centre. Consequently, a need
to develop a blended learning degree, combining traditional classroom learning with
eLearning techniques (World Health Organization, 2015) was identified. The new
blended learning programme, based in the School of Nursing and Human Sciences, was
first offered in the academic year 2010-2011. The format combines technology-
enhanced learning resources such as audio video podcasts, and recorded video tutorials
using the software Camtasia within the framework of Moodle, the Virtual Learning
Environment (VLE) widely utilised by Dublin City University. The majority of the
programme relies on such eLearning technology, combined with a small number of
face-to-face tutorials that are attended by students who reside locally. For international
students, tutorials are provided through the virtual classroom in the VLE. Students were
encouraged to engage in learning activities linked to their workplace and relevant to
programme outcomes e.g. case studies based on service users experiences. There were
25 registered students in the class.

Building on the theory of Biggs (1999) the pedagogical design approach adopted
ensured a consistency of mapping between programme learning outcomes, and the
curriculum to be used in association with the teaching methods for an online blended
learning environment. Adopting a cognitive approach and using Piaget’s (1970)
constructivist theory of knowledge, a model of learning was devised that supported the
student’s ability to understand newly acquired knowledge while building on their
existing foundation of professional knowledge. Using Connole’s design approach three
specific activity profiles were used to assist students to abstract and learn core material
in online activities. Firstly assimilative activity was used: Students were asked to read
core material, watch video and access core resources. Secondly productive activity
were introduced and students were required to construct compose, reflect and write
 assimilated theoretical content. Finally interactive and adaptive techniques using
design patterns to experiment with newly acquired information to enhance their
respective practice was embedded into the programme. Design patterns used in the
adaptive techniques included focused discussion groups on case study and
contemporary topics. The process included peer group evaluation and a summative
assessment was included at the end of the module programmes. Module co-ordinators
were therefore facilitators in the online elements of the programme and learners were
encouraged to search for meaning independently rather than through instruction.

Many research papers have focused on the experiences, benefits and challenges of
blended learning for students including Smyth et al. (2012), Kelly et al. (2009), Hyo-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 07:38 24 June 2016

Jeong & Brush (2008), Gibbon (2006) and Aspden & Helm (2004), but little is known
about academics’ experiences. There can be no doubt that the adoption of eLearning
technologies by HEIs demands a change in the nature of academic work. However, it has
been observed that whilst eLearning technology has been adopted for traditional face-to-
face teaching, its application to non-campus attendance has not been realised (MacKeogh
and Fox, 2009).

There is some evidence to suggest that academics may not be fully prepared for this
“paradigm shift” (Paulus et al., 2010; Myers et al. 2011). Barrett and Santy (2009) argue
that a migration to online teaching presents similar challenges to teachers and students
alike, in that both parties have limited experience of eLearning and its implications for
the practice of either teaching or learning. Furthermore, many teachers do not have the
experience of being online learners. Indeed, nurse educators in Ireland have historically
been educated primarily in the delivery of face-to-face teaching.

Jokinen and Mikkonen (2013), Paulus et al. (2011), Ocak (2011) and Lindsay et al.
(2009) are among the authors who report the significant challenges of juggling existing
workloads with the time required to develop a blended learning programme. In Ocak’s
study (2011) this was a significant barrier to blended learning; his findings indicate that
blended learning was perceived to be more time-consuming than face-to-face teaching;
there was difficulty finding the right balance between the blended and face-to-face
components; and the time required to support students in the online environment
exceeded that of classroom teaching.

The published research would also suggest that academics who teach online are
concerned with their presence in that realm and with their interpersonal relationship with
their students. Henderson and Bradey (2008) conducted a longitudinal study with five
academics from professional disciplines to examine ways in which teaching practises are
affected by professional and academic identities in the online environment. Their findings
identify the ways in which particular knowledge forms are privileged by academics,
rather than the particular experiences of academics making the transition to online /
blended learning. Nevertheless, they do highlight the importance of the academic’s
presence in the online learning environment. Lindsey et al. (2009) report on a similar
concept, referring to concerns about the nature of interpersonal relationships between
 academics and their “invisible” students. McShane (2004) in a separate longitudinal study
with five “early adopters” of online teaching, notes that it prompted an increased
awareness in academics of their own teaching practises, with his study participants
reporting greater self-monitoring arising from the perceived “scrutiny” of their students.
Despite their willingness to engage with online teaching, McShane’s (2004) participants
ultimately considered their face-to-face teaching to be the essence of their practice, thus
indicating that online learning is as much a paradigm shift for academics as it is for their
students.

To summarise, a review of the literature identifies a number of overlapping themes: lack

of experience of eLearning / teaching; the time required to develop online / blended
learning programmes; and the need for academics to maintain a presence in the online
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 07:38 24 June 2016

environment. In general, however, there is a paucity of published research providing

advice for those embarking on the process for the first time.

Gilly Salmon’s (2007) theoretical framework is of interest to this study, particularly as

applied to the concept of socialisation to the online environment. Salmon conceptualises
eLearning as a five-stage process during which learners build on previous experiences
with the support and guidance of their teacher / moderator. Each stage is characterised by
increasing comfort in the online environment and increasing complexity of online
activity. The moderator (teacher) has a key role to play in supporting these stages. The
first stage of Salmon’s model is concerned with access (to a computer, broadband,
eLearning resources and so on) as well as motivation to participate. Stages Two to Four
of the model relate to the establishment of an online identity, the exchange of
information, and the construction of knowledge. These stages are not necessarily discrete
but Salmon (2007) argues that socialization to the online environment is a critical factor
if effective online participation is to ensue. Furthermore, the interconnectedness of learning
and social participation are highlighted by Hrastinski (2009). We argue that academics as well
as students may encounter challenges in social participation in their early experiences of
online teaching. This is considered in light of some of the findings presented below.

Aim: In this paper we document the experiences of our programme team making the
transition from a traditional classroom delivered course to the new blended learning
format, so that other academics making a similar transition might learn/benefit from our
experiences.

Method: A qualitative research approach was used for this study: two focus groups were
undertaken. The participants were purposefully recruited. The entire team of academics
with responsibility for delivering the programme were invited using the staff email list to
describe their experiences of developing the new programme via two focus groups using
semi-structured interviews. All of the team accepted the invitation to partake in the focus
groups. Eight full-time lecturers participated in the study. Disciplinary backgrounds
included nursing (n=6), health sciences (n=1) and biological sciences (n=1). A colleague
who was not involved in the programme facilitated the group interviews.
 The emphasis was on what had worked / not worked and what factors had influenced the
transition positively and negatively. In addition, future plans for the blended learning
programme were discussed. A topic guide was developed (Appendix 1) which covered 3
broad areas: preparation, teaching and assessment. In each interview, approximately 20
minutes was spent on each of these areas. The focus groups lasted approximately 75
minutes. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded. Themes and
subthemes were identified by the lead investigator by thematic analysis and these were
independently corroborated by two experienced academics, both of whom performed
their own analysis of the transcripts blindly. Advice from the DUBLIN CITY
UNIVERSITY Research Ethics Committee was that ethical approval was not required as
this was an educational evaluation. The project was carried out according to the highest
ethical standards of educational evaluation.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 07:38 24 June 2016

Results:
The main themes and subthemes which emerged are illustrated in Table 1 below and are
discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs. Five dominant themes were
identified: Staff Readiness; Student Readiness; Programme Delivery and Student
Engagement; Assessment of Module Learning Outcomes and Feedback; and Reflecting
on the First Year and Thinking of the Future.
Staff Readiness
The theme of staff readiness, or lack of it, emerged strongly in response to the prompt
“How did you feel when you learned that the programme had to be delivered in a
blended learning format?” It was clear that a very big task was required at short notice, in
addition to the existing workload which had already been allocated for the year. There
was a management expectation that the programme would be ready to run in the new
academic year. Making the transition from face-to-face delivery to blended learning
involved significant front-loading of work to get the programme up and running. This led
to heightened stress levels for some academics. One participant reported that they were:
“Genuinely panic-stricken at the volume of work to be undertaken”
In addition to the workload issues and tight timeline there was some initial apprehension
about the need to develop new pedagogical practises. Some of the study participants
(n=2) had prior experience in e-learning and for these academics the new programme
presented a positive challenge and an opportunity to develop new competencies.
However, the majority (n=6) had little previous exposure to, or experience of, eLearning
methods and particular concerns were expressed about competency in the new audio-
visual methods to be employed, particularly in relation to developing pod-casts and
Camtasia presentations. Another issue related to the academics’ perceptions of how they
might appear in these new learning resources:
“First thoughts were utter fear… no clue, no background in eLearning, I was frozen at
the thought of making a video with myself in it” and “I felt a cringe factor listening to my
own voice and seeing my face. It takes a bit of getting used to”
Another participant expressed concerns that the short lead-in time would compromise the
integrity and quality of the new programme. Nonetheless, the programme team were
happy with the level of support provided by the University’s Learning Innovation Unit,
which provided the assistance of a learning technologist as well as a series of workshops
that focussed specifically on developing eLearning resources, in conjunction with the
School’s audio-visual technician. There was a general consensus that this support was
 very important to the process and that without it the new programme could not have been
developed or delivered. However, existing workloads prohibited full attendance at the
development workshops, this compounding anxiety levels:
“I did feel a bit harassed, kind of – a little bit of harassment about the workshop which I
could not attend”
In the early stages of the programme’s development, the academic team were urged by
the University’s Learning Innovation Unit to have the full academic year’s material
prepared and available to students from the outset. In retrospect, this followed the model
of the distance learning centre, which provided students with ‘packs’ containing all of
their reading requirements at the beginning of each academic year. This was a cause for
concern among the group, again in terms of time constraints, and it was pointed out that
in traditional classroom-delivered modules, lecture preparation is frequently on a week-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 07:38 24 June 2016

by-week basis. One lecturer commented:

“Trying to get the 24-week block ready for September proved too mammoth a task
however and we eventually came to the realization that this was not achievable and far
too ambitious so we agreed to put up the first twelve weeks (on the VLE). In fact some
staff ended up only putting up six weeks material in the end”.
In hindsight there was consensus this was probably a good thing as it allowed the
modules to evolve in response to student needs, which we could not otherwise have done.
It was apparent that quality of teaching was at the forefront of the lecturers’ minds. The
academics expressed confidence in their knowledge of their subject matter but were not
as confident about how to communicate it remotely or by use of eLearning approaches.
They were concerned that the interpersonal relationship in the traditional face-to-face
classroom could be lost in the technological delivery. Other concerns related to the
impact of geographical and temporal distance on interpersonal connections with their
students:-
“sometimes you wonder if there really are any students out there”
Something which also emerged very strongly was the notion of peer support for the
programme team. It was acknowledged that this was a useful and enjoyable aspect of the
programme development which is not normally available to lecturers when developing
their teaching, which typically takes part in isolation from the rest of the team. Sharing of
materials and new innovations took place periodically amongst the programme team and
this served to give ideas to the others present. It was also noted that at times the
programme team were engaged with aspects of preparation which would have been better
suited to others, such as experts in audio-visual methods; therefore it was felt that some
time could have been put to better use:
“There is expertise around which was not always available and then I ended up doing
things myself that somebody else could have done much quicker. So in some ways it was
an inappropriate use of my skills maybe. Half days were wasted here and there”

Student readiness
Student readiness emerged as a strong theme for the programme team; it was felt that this
was crucial both philosophically and technologically. In other words, students needed to
be in the correct frame of mind to embark on blended learning in terms of accepting that
the face-to-face time with lecturers would be limited; that the programme would be
largely self-led and self-motivated; and that learning would be a more independent
 process than they would hitherto have been exposed to. This presented challenges both
for students who had “transferred” from the old distance learning programme, as well as
the new registrants:
“One of the issues that arose was the fact that some students didn’t realise that there
would be any difference in the blended learning programme and were finding it a huge
change. In fact one of them said to me ‘the programme wouldn’t it be great if that could
have more tutorial time’. She was asked what she meant by more and she replied that she
would like one tutorial each week, or even two, which really defeats the purpose of the
blended learning approach”.
Several new students didn’t get very far beyond registration and it soon became clear that
they were not ready to embark on this type of process for learning. So they exited the
programme at this stage. It was also acknowledged that readiness in terms of being
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 07:38 24 June 2016

physically able to use the technology was important:

“One very poor-scoring student revealed to me that she didn’t know how to access or
down load the material and had been relying on friends to do this for her. Her
technological ability was very poor”.
As a result of these types of issues and in an effort to reduce attrition from the
programme it was recognised that a number of additional resources and support would be
necessary going forward. All incoming students were contacted by telephone to ascertain
their level of IT proficiency typically 6 months before the start date of the programme. If
students were not IT proficient at this point they were advised that it would be essential
that they acquire typing skills before commencing the programme and to reach a
reasonable level of competency in using information and communications
technology (e.g be able to book a flight online or do business such as e banking). They
must have access to dedicated laptop or personal computer. They were advised to attend
the University’s mature student orientation http://Dublin City
University.ie/students/mature/index.shtml programme at the beginning of the academic
which included a writer’s workshop as well as the programme team’s designated face to
face orientation day. A virtual hotline was also made available to incoming students on
the programme for the first three weeks of the programme at dedicated times through
adobe acrobat virtual classroom. Traffic on the hot line was small and the main issues
arising related to accessing passwords and downloading of eBooks and presentations. In
addition they were directed to the University’s lets resource
(https://www.dcu.ie/library/lets.shtml) a series of online tutorials for students to help
locate, evaluate and use information effectively.

Programme Delivery and Student Engagement

It was clear that despite the original plan to have all of the academic content available to
students from the beginning of the year, in some ways it was fortuitous that this did not
happen. Having flexibility around the material timelines meant we could add
supplementary material deemed necessary to student’s learning after we’d had time to do
baseline knowledge assessment, thereby employing constructivist teaching
methodologies.
The modules were delivered in a block of 24 weeks over one calendar year. Moodle was
the University’s chosen virtual learning environment so this was the main route of
 content delivery. PowerPoint presentation slides were kept to minimum of 3 or 4 slides.
Camtasia clips were also used:
“I was unsure of Camtasia but my students loved the Camtasia sessions and asked for
more at the first tutorial. So I made more of them”
One lecturer made extensive use of self-developed audio visual podcasts and developed
11 new video podcasts for her module. Students reported enjoying these, as they could
rewind and replay them to support understanding and learning. It was evident that these
supported flexible learning; some students reported listening to them while out jogging or
while commuting to and from work:
“I am very happy with the way the podcasts look and the way they sound. They seem to
have been well received by the students. Informal feedback from them has been good”
This lecturer reported however that the video podcasts took a huge amount of front
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 07:38 24 June 2016

loading of work:
“I shot all the videos first and left all the editing until the end. This was a bad idea as I
had a huge volume of work to do as well as lots of software to install and get to grips
with”
There were mixed feelings about the availability of other resources, in particular the
availability of good quality electronic textbooks (ebooks). The available selection was
considered to be below the desired standard for degree-level nurse education and there
were restrictions on the accessible content in addition to time restrictions. One lecturer
argued that students were not comfortable using ebooks. Despite the fact that electronic
textbooks were recommended, it transpired that some students had reported they did not
enjoy reading them online and had purchased hard copies instead. It was felt that a
“cultural shift” (participant’s words) was required by both academics’ and students’ to
fully engage with the use of eLearning technology:
“traditionally we like to gather loads of material, bits of paper etc. in order to get our
degree, trying not to have everything in print going forward will be difficult to achieve”
There was a strong consensus among the programme team that face-to-face tutorials were
hugely important in order to initiate meaningful engagement between academics and
students. In the early stages of the programme, academics struggled with students’
reticence to engage with them in the online environment. For some lecturers the face-to-
face tutorial was actually the first individual contact had with their students, even though
4-6 weeks of material had been delivered at that point:
“Very few students made contact with me on-line. Mostly they saved up all their queries
for the first tutorial and maybe this is something I need to take more responsibility for
and to be more proactive in initiating this on-line contact. Certainly I will be looking at
this going forward”.
The issue of peer support and peer learning among students emerged very strongly here
also, with one lecturer observing that the tutorial was the first point where students were
not “isolated” in the online learning environment:
“They felt a sense of identity, with the other students, a side effect of eLearning is the
isolation…it’s the polar opposite of large groups, where they can learn from each other
in addition to me. In this format I appeared to them to be the only source of knowledge”.
At the face-to-face tutorial it was observed that students exchanged phone numbers with
each other and subsequently initiated online forum discussions which had not occurred
prior to meeting up with each other. It was acknowledged by the academic team that
 generally, the use of online forums and chat rooms by both lecturers and students was
minimal in the first year of the programme. It was agreed that academics would need to
take a more pro-active approach in initiating online discussion and participation.

Assessment of module learning outcomes and feedback

There was general agreement among participants in both focus groups that regular
formative feedback allowed students to take on board critique that led to improvements in
subsequent assignments. This also allowed academics to identify those who required
greater support, at an early stage in the programme. It was agreed by all that early
feedback is strongly linked to student progress:
“After feedback big improvements were evident in these students who achieved these
lower scores over time”
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 07:38 24 June 2016

It was acknowledged that such feedback should be on an individual level, particularly in

the online environment, where students might not identify with generic (group) feedback.
However, this practice requires a significant investment of time and its sustainability was
questioned in the event of larger cohorts of students.
The majority of the programme modules were assessed by continuous assessment, such
as essays, project work and discussion forum contributions. One staff member retained
an end of year online exam which was resource intensive, in that an academic member of
staff was required to supervise each student’s exam remotely using video cameras, in
order to minimise the risk of cheating. There were mixed feelings among participants
about the low ratio of examinations versus course work. One lecturer felt “nervous”
(participant’s expression) about having so much course work, arguing that it facilitated
plagiarism practises, such as purchasing assignments online; others disagreed on grounds
that it is no more likely to happen in an online programme than in a traditional face-to-
face one. All student assignments were submitted via “turn it in” an online tool on the
moodle VLE to reduce plagiarism.
Reflecting on the first year and thinking of the future
The data collection for this study took place following the first year of the new blended
learning BNS. One of the study aims was to reflect on how participants currently felt
about the programme. In response to the question “How do you feel now that the first
year is over”, a distinct sense of relief was expressed. Responses varied from
“veryglad the first year was over”,
“Enjoyed the learning curve”
to a feeling that students
“Continuous Professional Development was achieved”
Interestingly there was no evidence of dissatisfaction or disgruntlement despite the huge
front loading of work and extra load. On the contrary, the study participants expressed
pride that this was the first University blended learning programme and they considered
that their experience of blended teaching might be beneficial for their traditional face-to-
face modules:
“It has completed shifted my thinking on the face-to-face, (it is) very difficult to engage
with the bigger (face-to-face) groups and it has made me think that a blended learning
format might work really well within our other undergraduate programmes too” where
the numbers of class sizes are larger (~ 200).
 There was general feeling that we had gotten the first blended learning programme in our
School “over the line” but much more support would be needed going forward as well as
a lot more time for maintaining and improving it:
“I saw this as phase 1 of on-line learning and would like to see more support going
forward - it had to be done so quickly… if the University are serious, they need to give
more support going forward”
Overall, it was felt that the programme needs to become more “international” in content.
This belief arose from the fact that originally, the face-to-face BNS was designed for
Irish-registered nurses working in Ireland. Consequently, certain elements of the
programme were concerned with national nursing issues. It was considered that if the
BNS were to attract remote / international students, a broader global focus would be
required. Furthermore, it was felt that in the context of very little opportunity for face-to-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 07:38 24 June 2016

face orientation to the programme, the links between the programme modules would need
to be made very explicit and clearly demonstrated to the students.
One participant expressed some hesitancy about an expectation that university educators
will uncritically embrace eLearning. She wondered:
“…whether we are simply trying to keep up with social networking?... there is a big push
toward on-line learning and we must be seen to be going after it. We don’t have a choice.
But we must keep an open mind and see which aspects are good and bad. Some things
just work better face to face”
Discussion
A number of important issues emerged in this study that merit consideration. The first
related to the significant time commitment required for such a transition. This time
commitment involved not only in developing the materials and front loading of work but
also getting to grips with the new technologies themselves and finding innovative ways to
deliver material and get comfortable with it. In addition designing new smaller activities
to both assess learning outcomes and engage students remotely required additional time
and planning. These activities had to be conducted at the same time as existing or on-
going programmes were being delivered and the usual workload allocation was in place
for these staff members. Arising from this we recommend that consideration be given to
staff involved in making programme transitions from traditional face to face to blended
within workload allocation
The work of Paulus et al, 2010 who document a transition to blended learning concurs
with our finding that additional time is required to make this transition. This is all the
more interesting considering the different context in which the research was conducted
(USA versus Ireland). Paulus and colleagues highlight the difficulties in balancing
current workload responsibilities with preparation of a new blended learning programme,
and the time constraint issues arising for them as a result. Similar issues also emerged in
a study conducted by Meyer et al (2010), who note the fears and anxieties of staff
embarking on the transition to blended learning as well as the time constraints in
preparing the new programme.

Fears and apprehensions and hence staff readiness to use the new technology emerged
strongly in our data. The idea that a staff member would be “frozen at the thought of
making a video with myself in it” is a concern and indicates a training requirement which
should have been addressed prior to this point where the programme was about to be
 rolled out. Paulus et al. (2010) also refer to this concept of “role shifting” from “expert”
to “leaner”. In Salmon’s (2007) five-stage framework, socialization to the eLearning
environment is a critically important stage that includes developing an online identity and
establishing connections with others. It is evident from our findings that the teacher’s
socialization is also a significant factor. The majority of our study participants had little
prior experience of online teaching, and trying to engage students and promote
participation proved a struggle in the initial stages, as evidenced by the fact that
meaningful contact did not occur until the face-to-face tutorial.
In addition the value of peer teacher to teacher sharing of modes of content delivery and
experiences emerged as important in resource terms and time sparing and not simply for
collegial or morale support. In a previous study Bennett and Santy (2009) noted the
benefits of peer support, although they observed each other’s online practice, whereas in
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 07:38 24 June 2016

our study peer support occurred through discussions at programme development

meetings.

Concerns about how to enhance student engagement were expressed. Regular and early
communication and interaction were identified as key to enhancing active participation
and to prevent the feeling of isolation at student level. Face to face tutorials were also
identified as important to facilitate peer learning and socialisation amongst students and
between staff and students. It is recommended that some element of face to face time be
incorporated into programmes where possible to enhance the “presence” of staff and
enhance interpersonal relationship. Even remote classrooms went some way to address
these issues.

Concerns about student readiness were also a key discussion point and was identified as
key to successful participation and outcome for the student. Additional supports were
required by those who were not competent in the use of technology and this meant an
additional time allocation by staff.

The need to sustain the momentum and strive for continuous improvement in the
programme was also cited as a key consideration with quality of teaching a core value.
The need for the evolution and improvements in material over time was a shared view
amongst this group also.

A study from Taiwan (Li-Ling and Suh-Ing, 2011) examined the factors associated with
learning outcomes in a blended learning undergraduate nursing programme. Their
findings indicated that regular online dialogue is a predictor for successful learning
outcomes and they recommend retaining the face-to-face elements. It is evident, therefore
that active social engagement by both teachers and learners are essential pre-requisites for
success. Other studies would suggest that academics’ (initial) discomfort in the online
environment is not unique to our context. In the study by Paulus et al. (2010), for
example, participants discussed difficulties in relinquishing control over the learning
process to their students. Similarly, participants in Myers et al (2011 p. 5) debated the
amount of “social presence” required of the online teacher.
In our study, the move to blended learning has increased our awareness of “what worked”
in our teaching. It quickly became evident that placing large chunks of course material on
 the VLE did little to promote active student participation and that measures to promote
active student participation were required. Myers at al. (2011). Paulus et al. (2010) and
McShane (2004) also noted that the transition to a blended learning format provoked self-
scrutiny of and reflection on teaching practises among academics. Another study which
reflected our findings was conducted by Lindsey et al. (2009). The authors also report
challenges in making the transition to online learning including lack of time for course
development, anxiety about how to get to know and reach out to their “invisible”
students, and low levels of knowledge about how best to use the technology.
Our programme will continue to foster innovative, flexible and integrated education
relevant to current and future practice and reform. An important principle underlying
the transition of this programme was the opportunity to apply and understand
contemporary healthcare in real life situations.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 07:38 24 June 2016

Conclusion
Moving from a traditional classroom delivered programme to a blended learning format
is feasible provided that adequate support is available and adequate time is given for the
roll-out. Development of these programmes must involve “technical” and “learning
innovation” staff at all stages of the development and support must be ongoing even after
the programme has been launched. Quality of content should remain the core
consideration for the programme team but work should be undertaken with the available
supports, for example learning / teaching development departments in HEIs, to enhance
the delivery of this in an innovative and engaging way.
We identified that the face-to-face component provided at the two tutorials was very
valuable to both students and academics, for student-to-student relationships building and
student-to-staff relationship building. This appeared to work even when the face-to-face
tutorials were conducted in a remote classroom using software such as Wimba or
Blackboard Collaborate. Therefore, we conclude that activities promoting synchronous
engagement between students and academics are essential to enable socialization of both
academics and students to the online learning environment.
The retention of some element of online examination is considered desirable in order to
reduce the reliance on 100% course work and subsequent risk of plagiarism, but this
would be a concern for all educational programmes and is not unique to online / blended
learning. Early, regular and timely feedback to students was identified as critical to
student improvement particularly amongst the weaker students; this can also help to
identify students who are particularly challenged in the online environment. Ongoing
work should be undertaken as the programmes progress into subsequent years to improve
content and delivery and enhance sustainability. The need for a more global content is
desirable, after all the very idea of eLearning is the prospect of reaching wider audiences.
Visible linkage between modules across the programme is also an important
consideration. Finally, the sharing of experiences and examples of innovative use of
eLearning technology should be encouraged as a learning opportunity for academics
involved in online / blended learning programmes.
In the field of nursing within Ireland, eLearning is a relatively new and emerging field
which will require major cultural shifts for staff and students alike. The very notion of not
having lots of books is a new concept which will take some getting used to. The general
 consensus is that the blended learning approach seemed to be the most appropriate
approach for the future as it incorporates the best of face-to-face delivery and eLearning
resources. We should not become too purist and insist on everything being delivered
through that medium; otherwise we might be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
This article documents the experiences of staff making the transition from traditional face
to face programme delivery to blended learning. In this paper we highlight the challenges
encountered, and make some recommendations to overcome these – this may be useful
for others making the transition in different contexts around the world as the lessons
learned are likely to be transferable to other settings are not unique to Ireland.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 07:38 24 June 2016

Table 1.

References

Aspden, L. and Helm, P.,2004. Making the connection in a blended learning

environment. Educational Media International 1 (3), 245–52.

Bennett, S. and Santy, J., 2009. A window on our teaching practice: enhancing individual
onine teaching quality through online peer observation and support. A UK case study.
Nurse Education in Practice 9, 403-406.

Biggs, J. 1999 Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Buckingham : Society for
Research in Higher Education and Open University Press

Conole, G. Designing for learning in an open world. Explorations in learning sciences,

instructional systems and performance technologies. 4th ed. New York:Springer , 2013

Department of Education and Skills, 2011. National Strategy for Higher Education to
2030. Government Publications Office. Dublin.

Gibbon, C., (2006) Enhancing clinical practice through the use of electronic resources.
Nursing Standard, 20 (22) 41-46.

Henderson, M. and Bradey, S., 2008. Shaping online teaching practices: the influence of
professional and academic identities. Campus-Wide Information Systems 25 (2), 85-92.
 Hyo-Jeong, S.O. and Brush, TA., 2008. Student perceptions of collaborative
learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment:
relationships and critical factors. Journal of Computers and Education 51, 318-336.
Hrastinski, S.A., (2009) A theory of online learning as online participation.Compters and
Education 52 (1) 78-82.
Kear, K., Woodthorpe, J., Robertson, S. and Hutchinson M.,2010. From forums to wikis:
perspectives on tools for collaboration. Internet and Higher Education 13, 218-225.
Kelly M., Lyng C., McGrath M., Cannon, G., 2009. A multi-method study to determine
the effectiveness of, and student attitudes to online instructional videos to teach clinical
nursing skills. Nurse Education Today 29 (3) 292-300.
Lindsay GM, Jeffrey J, Singh M., 2009. Paradox of a graduate human science curriculum
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 07:38 24 June 2016

experienced online: a faculty perspective. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing 40

(4), 181-186.

Li-Ling HSU, Suh-Ing Hsieh., 2011. Factors associated with learning outcome of BSN in
a blended learning environment. Contemporary Nurse 38 (1–2), 24–34.

Myers CR, Mixer S J, Wyattz TH, Paulus TM, Lee DP., 2011. Making the move to
blended learning: reflections of a faculty development program. International Journal of
Nursing Education Scholarship 8 (1) Article 20.

McShane K. (2004) Integrating face-to-face and online teaching: academics’ role concept
and teaching choices. Teaching in Higher education 9 (1) 3-16.
MacKeogh, K., and Fox, S., 2009. Strategies for embedding elearning in traditional
universities: drivers and barriers. Electronic Journal of eLearning 7 (2) 147-154.
Office of the Nursing and Midwifery Services Director, 2011. The strategy of the office
of Nursing and Midwifery Services Director 2010-2015: leading the nursing and midwifery
contribution in the provision of delivery of safe, high quality, accessible healthcare services in
Ireland. Health Service Executive. Available at:
http://www.hse.ie/eng/about/Who/archive/ONMSD_Strategy.pdf.

Ocak, M.A., 2011. Why are faculty members not teaching blended courses? Insights
from faculty members. Computers and education 56, 688-699.

Piaget, J. 1970 Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child, New York Orion
Press

Paulus, T.M., Myers, C.R., Mixer, S.J., Wyatt, T.H., Lee, and Lee, J.L., 2010. For
faculty, by faculty: a case study of learning to teach online. International Journal of
Nursing Education Scholarship 7 (1) Article 13.

Salmon G. (2007) Etivities: the key to active online learning. Routledge Falmer. London.
 Smyth, S., Haughton, C., Cooney, A., and Casey D., 2012. Students’ experiences of
blended learning across a range of postgraduate programmes. Nurse Education Today 32,
464-468.

The World Health Organization, 2015. eLearning for undergraduate health professional
education: a systematic review informing a radical transformation of health workforce
development / edited by Najeeb Al-Shorbaji et al. World Health Organization. Geneva.
Switzerland.

Table 1. Themes and subthemes arising from the focus group discussions.
Themes Subthemes
Readiness - staff Previous exposure was limited
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 07:38 24 June 2016

Fears and apprehension were commonplace

Time constraints
Enthusiasm and willingness to learn were very high
Motivation levels were very high
Technological ability was mixed
Existing workloads were perceived as high
Learning supports needed
Upskilling and Training were needed
Confidence levels high in content but not in mode of delivery
Inexperience was apparent
Sometime could have been better spent

Students Philosophically ready to embrace the process

Lack of technological ability/lack of was a huge issue
Fears/Apprehension were widespread
Previous exposure was very limited
Programme Occurred in response to student needs and ability.
Evolvement A dynamic process constantly changing
Quality assurance
Content more global
Delivery and Teaching methods – blended format was very important – not purely e format
Student e-communication to be encouraged and staff led
Engagement Feedback – should be timely and often
Assessments should be often and graded
Face-to-face component remains very important
Peer staff and student support is very important
The future Constantly striving to improve the materials/assessments/ feedback/reducing risk of
plagiarism/ /enhancing engagement/quality/optics/appropriate personnel/ become
more global.