blended learning wendy l. mahan, ph.d. instructional designer, chhd
TRANSCRIPT
My Background
Education Technology Services (ETS) Courseware Initiative 2003-2005 Blended Learning Initiative 2005-2007
CHHD/Nursing since Jan 2008
BLI – Quick History
General education courses Develop online version and hybrid version. Purpose: Curricular Integrity, efficient use of
resources, free up classrooms, student preferences.
Assessment completed by SITE.
Broad Recommendations from the Literature• Redesign - don’t add on elements.
• Hold an initial kick-off meeting.
• Make students aware of what a hybrid course entails.
• Assist with time management skills.
• If using teams, do the following:
• Use early F2F meetings to establish community, roles and rules.
• Decrease these meetings as semester goes on.
• Ensure F2F meetings are of *value.*
Recommendations based on BLI Experience
• Kick off meetings are essential.• Face-to-face meetings must include active participation.• Face-to-face meetings must result in some type of points
earned.• Face-to-face meetings must be integrated with online materials,
and together, they must keep the student engaged during the week.
• Face-to-face meetings provide the opportunity to create better student-instructor interaction than online only.
• Developing an online course first, and then developing the hybrid is easier than vice versa.
Lessons learned based on BLI Experience
• If students find that they are not accountable for face-to-face meetings, attendance will drop – dramatically.
• Blended learning decreases class size and increases faculty workload – unless the designed correctly.
• If the online activities and face-to-face experience are not seamless and engaging, it is very easy for the student – and the faculty member – to forget about the class.
• Before choosing a day for the F2F meeting, decide on the design first.
Table of Comparative Advantage
David Brown, VP and Dean of International Center for Computer Enhanced Learning at Wake Forest University.
This technique encourages one to place the right activities in their most appropriate environments.
Table of Comparative Advantage"What activities that I normally pursue in a traditional classroom can be transitioned online with the least loss in effectiveness?"
Activity F2F only Online Notes
Lectures Disadvantage
Advantage F2F passive; online can be made interactive and more adaptable to individual needs
Guest speakers
Disadvantage
Advantage Difficult to find someone free during class time; student who can’t attend cannot make it up.
Small Group discussions
Advantage Disadvantage Easier to communicate F2F, but run out of time frequently; could extend to online message boards
Table of Comparative Advantage"What activities that I normally pursue online that will increase in effectiveness if I move them back to a F2F format?
Activity F2F only Online Notes
Online Lessons Disadvantage Advantage Address individual learning needs; always accessible
Online Quizzes Disadvantage Advantage Self-scoring- lessens workload
Periodic Message board Discussions
Disadvantage Advantage Can’t do F2F due to large class size and room layout
Bullet-Proof Model (Troha, 2002)
1. Conduct a learner & context analysis of your course
2. List your learning objectives.
3. Conduct content analysis - course outline.
4. Identify the learning activities in the outline that would be the *best* in a face-to-face, traditional setting.
5. Identify the learning activities in the outline with the potential for online delivery.
6. Make final decisions about course delivery considering #1-#5:
1. List learning objectives.
2. Classify each according to three components.
3. Determine how much of the course will be devoted to each type of component
Rule of Thumb: Content, 33%; Communication, 33%; Construction, 33% Mathematics: Content, 30%; Communication, 20%, Construction, 50% Nutrition: Content, 80%; Communication, 5%; Construction, 15%
4. Determine delivery system based on aspects of that particular course.
Who is the audience? Is group work involved? What are the costs (time, travel, cognitive demands, etc.)
3-C Didactic Model (Kerres & De Witt, 2003)
What do these models have in common?
Break down your content Identify the delivery method (online vs. F2F). Consider the above in conjunction with
targeted audience, context of instruction, available resources, etc.
Analysis and Design
Faculty workload/Access to
TAs
Individual characteristics of
faculty
Consistency of who will be teaching
semester to semester
No. of Students enrolled in course
Student MotivationLearning objectives/
content covered
Existing format of course
No. of meetings per week
My experienced confirmed…
Online
High Workload, no TAs
More research focused;
conservative
Taught by TAs
High enrollmentLow student motivation – required courseLower –level
objectives; survey course
Currently F2F format
Not enough to do in F2F or all F2F lectures
Things to consider
Hybrid
Reasonable Workload or access
to TAs
Teaching focused; adventurous
Same instructor teaches every
semester
Low enrollment (<30 students)
High student motivation ;major –related course
High level objectives
Currently online format
Variation in meetings lends itself to
collaborative projects
Things to consider
ANGELBest for:• Online lessons• Posting links to online resources or placing articles on
course reserve.• Discussion forums• Quizzes
Advantages: In control of content, grading, secureDisadvantages: Storage issues, students view as rigid and constricting
Web 2.0 ToolsFor student-created, collaborative assignments and projects – some examples include:• Google Docs or Zoho• MyPlick• WetPaint• Ning• Gliffy• Toondo
Advantages: Encourages collaboration and creativity, low learning curve, freeDisadvantages: No control over content, copyright issues, grading
PSU Resources
Blogs @ Penn StateAdobe ConnectDigital Commons (student-created podcasts and videos)
Advantages: In control of content, secure, tech supportDisadvantages: technical glitches, frequent updates to new platforms, tech support, plus scheduling issues with Digital Commons
ReferencesModels:Troha, F. J. (2002). Bulletproof instructional design: A model for blended learning. USDLA Journal, 16 (5). Retrieved October 20, 2005 from: http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/MAY02_Issue/article03.htmlKerres, M. & DeWitt, C. (2003). A didactic framework for the design of blended learning arrangements. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3). Retrieved September 2005 from: http://online-campus.net/edumedia/publications/Draft-JEM-BL.pdf
ExamplesUniversity of North Texas – Blended Learning Project: http://web3.unt.edu/cdl/BLP/index.cfm?M=Courses
Web 2.0 ToolsGoogle Docs: http://docs.google.comZoho: http://www.zoho.com/MyPlick: http://www.myplick.com/Ning: http://www.ning.com/Gliffy: http://www.gliffy.com/Toondo: http://www.toondoo.com/
PSU ResourcesBlogs at Penn State: http://blogs.psu.edu/Adobe Connect: http://meeting.psu.edu/forumDigital Commons: http://digitalcommons.psu.edu/