Paul Reid-Bowen Bath Spa University

 Philosophy and Bath Spa.  New programme, first intake:  Major, joint and minor honours degrees.  Small department with a specific market identity: 1.Philosophy as a global phenomenon. 2.Subject specific thinking skills. 3.Applied and contemporary.

 John Biggs (2003, 2007)  Consistency through alignment.  Intended learning outcomes define the assessment criteria, assignments and teaching and learning activities.  If for most students the assessment is the curriculum, then construct assessment items that effectively ‘trap’ students and guarantee that they meet the learning outcomes.

 Managing a transition from what?  Good experiences of ‘A’ level Philosophy are widely reported. ◦ “Stimulating, exciting” ◦ “Brilliant teacher” ◦ “Inspired”  Arguably, “there is no spoon”

 But there is a need to introduce and inculcate:  University expectations and conventions (in terms of referencing, research and style),  subject specific requirements (e.g. a need to argue and debate),  the development of precise communications and presentation skills, and  the collaborative nature of philosophical enquiry.

 Formative work: 1.argument and 2.bibliography.  Substantive: 1.Essay (25%) 2.Presentation (25%) 3.Presentation (25%) 4.Examination (25%)

 Increased emphasis on:  1.the performance of critical tasks; 2.applied and project work of varying forms; 3.progression towards independence of learning; 4.an ability to apply philosophical and ethical knowledge and skills in diverse contexts; 5.utilisation and assessment of online discussion fora.

 Five factors for success (Sharpe, 2006): 1.utilise the term; 2.make it applicable to the disciplinary context; 3.utilise it as ‘a transformative driver for course redesign’; 4.support the student understanding of their role within the process; and 5.communicate the results of evaluations.

 Some limitations:  infrastructure requirements,  varying set up and technological costs,  the need for specialist knowledge and/or training,  a loss of sensory cues and context that would otherwise be available in face-to- face synchronous communications.

 Some advantages:  tends to promote more careful reflection and conceptual precision than face-to- face verbal communication;  facilitates a ‘community of inquiry’ (Ganura and Hanuka, 2004: 97);  provides space and time for dialectical reasoning.

 As Ganura and Hanuka add, online discussion fora are a:  ‘platform where participants can confront questionable ideas and faulty thinking in more objective and reflective ways than might be possible in a face-to-face context’ (Ganura and Hanuka, 2004: 99).

 Furthermore, there is:  less distraction than at the face-to-face level,  greater ability to focus on the core concepts or substantive issues,  more time to formulate a response, counterargument or gather evidence; and,  a greater capacity for ‘task-oriented communication’ (Locke, 2007: 188).

 relate to the questions, themes and/or topics?  advance an argument?  make points clearly and concisely?  demonstrate good communication skills?  contain an appropriate level of analysis?  engage with relevant concepts, debates and theories?  reflect on and respond to other contributions in a critical and constructive manner?  contain appropriate acknowledgement of scholars’ ideas and sources of information?  avoid spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors?  cover the number of questions, themes and/or topics specified?  conform with the wordage specified?

 Students demonstrated engagement, coupled with:  a development of the debates initiated in the workshops;  a responsiveness to the arguments and ideas of fellow students; and  reflection and evidence of metacognition.

 Any effective educational community of inquiry requires (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004: 97-98):  social presence,  cognitive presence and  teaching presence.  However, the teaching presence in online discussion fora can be rather limited.

 However:  a colleague’s experiences were rather different qua negative;  numbers of students are relevant;  factual and procedural errors must be addressed;  students experience the blend differently (Sharpe et al 2006: 4);  ‘community design is never final’(Stuckey and Barab, 2007: 442).

 Andrews, R. and Haythornthwaite, C. eds. (2007) The SAGE Handbook of E-learning Research. London: SAGE.  Athanasopoulos, C. (2008) ‘Bibliographical Resources for e-Learning in Philosophical and Religious Studies’ [online] available from: view.html/prsdocuments/397  Biggs, J and Tang C. (2007) Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill and Open University Press.  Biggs, J (2003) Aligning Teaching and Assessment to Curriculum Objectives. Imaginative Curriculum Project, LTSN Generic Centre  Garrison, D. R. and Kanuka, H. (2004) ‘Blended Learning: Uncovering its Transformative Potential in Higher Education’. Internet and Higher Education, 7, pp

 Locke, T. (2007) ‘E-Learning and the Reshaping of Rhetorical Space’. In: Andrews, R. and Haythornthwaite, C. eds. The SAGE Handbook of E-learning Research. London: SAGE, pp  Salmon, G. (2002) E-tivities: The Key to Active Online Learning. London: Kogan Page.  Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G. and Francis, R. (2006) ‘The Undergraduate Experience of Blended E-learning: A Review of UK Literature and Practice.’ The Higher Education Academy. [online] available from: work/research/literature_reviews/blended_elearning_exec _summary_1.pdf  Stuckey, B. and Barab, S. (2007) ‘New Conceptions for Community Design’. In: Andrews, R. and Haythornthwaite, C. eds. The SAGE Handbook of E-learning Research. London: SAGE, pp