USING A BLENDED LEARNING APPROACH TO ADDRESS WSU LECTURERS’ TEACHING-RELATED NEEDS: A FORMATIVE EVALUATION OF PEP BY F.N.MASHIYI

TABLE OF CONTENTS Background to the Study Problem Statement Conceptualization and Development of PEP Purpose and Scope of the Evaluation Effort Study Objectives Evaluation Questions Conceptual Framework Research Design Findings: Questionnaire & POEs Conclusions Recommendations

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY Retention and success of students linked to quality teaching Aims of capacity building: - improve (teaching) competence: Centres of Teaching Excellence - equity imperative - address inequalities within HEIs ( CHET Report:2009) Ist aim takes precedence at WSU because of its context.

Statement of the Problem Graduation and throughput rates low (WSU SoE throughput study, ST 14 July 2011) Challenges facing tertiary educators in a merged comprehensive institution: - most lecturers challenged regarding teaching in a context where : large classes, diversity, LOLT, under- prepared students - no teaching background/ higher education experience >>> academic induction & orientation.

Purpose & Scope of the Evaluation Effort Evaluation of an educational intervention (the PEP, LTHE Module in particular) with the aim of improving programme effectiveness. Ensure that programme inefficiences are identified earlier on during its life-cycle --- formative evaluation. FER pays particular attention to components or dimensions, rather than holistic accounts (Scrivens 1997:498). Only LTHE module evaluated

Purpose of the LTHE Module Develop teaching competence and improve student learning Module Outcomes: -Understand HE context and respond to the diverse needs of students, -Promote the use of interactive teaching strategies, -Apply insights gained from learning theories and constructive alignment in their own teaching

Conceptualisation & Development of PEP Needs Analysis -(Nuffic, ECSA report, new entrants in the HE sector: WSU ASD Policy provisions) Programme Design and Delivery (collaboration between CLTD & Nuffic) - evidence- based - blended learning delivery mode - materials development (uploaded on Wise-Up) - 2 day campus-based interactive workshops - Monitoring & support Assessment -Structured POE tasks Time frames (implementation plan) - Pilot all 3 Modules in FSET, in 2010 & 2011

Aims and Objectives of the ER Aim: Programme improvement Objectives: - Determine whether PEP, LTHE in particular, has met the teaching –related needs of participants – - Identify programme impact - Compare results with programme intention – decide what to stop, continue or modify -Alternatives for making it more effective

Evaluation Questions What has the programme been able to accomplish/failed to accomplish? How has it benefitted the participants? Has the programme addressed the identified teaching – related needs? What can be done to improve programme effectiveness (retained, modified, discontinued?)

Conceptual Framework Systems Approach - ‘ begins with sum total of parts working independently to achieve a useful set of results at societal level, adding value for all internal partners’ Kaufman et.al 2006:53). Inputs (needs of academics)>>>training & development activities>>trained workforce. Output (deliverables) provides feedback that repeats cycle of events (Erasmus,Leodollf, Mda & Nel:2010) Organisational Elements Model (OEM) -(relates inputs, processes, products, outputs, outcomes) -alignment of elements

Analysis and Discussion of Findings Analyse what already exists regarding the objectives and compare that with what should exist to attain them ( Mason & Bramble 1989:389). Tacit understandings of teaching and learning and educational theory brought together>>> REFLECTION >>>CHANGE

Research Design Participatory Action Research (PAR) Evaluation tools :semi-structured questionnaire & POEs, Population and sample size: (23 SOE lecturers) Limitations of Study: I out of 3 modules evaluated Quality Assurance Issues: informed consent, confidentiality.

Cont… Strengths: relevant content/ covered key issues in t-l, emphasis on active learning, variety of topics on teaching practice, integration of teaching experience into the discussions, best practices shared Modify: include practical component (micro-teaching), allocate more time for structured discussion. Add: classroom management skills –large classes Weaknesses: ‘More theoretical than practical,’ time constraint, some content not related to Engineering (application challenges???/ pedagogy vs.specialisation???).

Conclusions Relevant programme content – beef up content & incl. topics suggested by participants. Value –adding (rated highly). Programme impact: influence on teaching practice - new skills acquired: identification of sts at risk; active learning, increased repertoire of teaching skills; use of e-learning; consciousness – raising on becoming a good lecturer.

Recommendations Introduce supervised video-recorded micro- teaching Evaluation of dept level: Monitoring of teaching practice Strengthen e-learning component of the programme Update content as per needs assessment results and workshop evaluation feedback

END QUESTIONS, COMMENTS THANK YOU!!!