hybrid online face-to-face teaching - grand valley state university

Hybrid Online face-to-face teaching

Hermann KurthenGlenn G. Smith

VOLUME 12, NUMBER 5

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

��

��

�

��!��"��!��#��$%%&�$%%'��(��"��)��!��"*�+� �� #�,�"��!��,�*��#�

��+� �� #,�"��!��

�

-�$%%&�$%%'�.��!��/)��.!/��

-�$%%&�$%%'�.!��#��#�� /�+� �� #�

�

��!��!��0�#��1�� 1��!��1��!�!��1�!��#*)��!��)��! ��0��!�� #��#��

��+��*��.��!��/)��1��!��2� �*�"��#��#�� !!��1��

��"��!�� !!��!��#��3��!)��!��4��!��5�� #��"��!�� 6��

�

�77��899:�;9;9�.��/)�899:�;&9%�.��/�

,�"��!��7��

�

�� !��1��#�<��!�!�" ��#�1��

��"��1��#�"*��!!��#��!��* ��!��1��!!�!��

�

�*��!��+� �� #�(��2��!��+ +�� *��!��!*!��

��+� �� #7�1��

Hybrid Online face-to-face teachingWhen is it an efficient learning tool?

Hermann Kurthen, Grand Valley State University, United States of AmericaGlenn G. Smith, University of South Florida, United States of America

Abstract: Abstract: Hybrid online courses, that is combined online and face-to-face courses, have grown steadily in the lastyears in higher education, but have been less researched than fully online or traditional face-to-face courses. This studyused a microsociological symbolic interactionist perspective to test the possible advantages and drawbacks of hybridteaching. This paper will present and discuss the following findings from the analysis of undergraduate courses taught ata U.S. American research university: 1) while online teaching is a constrained medium compared to face-to-face interaction,it can be a very efficient pedagogical tool in reaching out to all students, improving student writing, class participation andattendance, help develop group identity, provide unmatched clarity and efficiency of instruction, and eventually result inimproved student satisfaction. 2) The success of hybrid teaching depends much on the actual mix of face-to-face and onlinecomponents. 3) Course-specific events, instructor personality, class content, and class composition can have a strong influenceon learning success. Hybrid learning may become a teaching tool of the future, if it combines the advantages of traditionalin-class and online teaching.

Keywords: Online Teaching, Virtual Classrooms, Digitally Mediated Interactive Learning

Introduction and Literature Review

THEFIRSTWAVE of E-learning, fully web-based asynchronous college courses, hastaken the world by storm, quickly grabbinga sizable portion of the college market,

opening up college education to new demographicgroups and dominating educational research confer-ences. Now a second wave of E-learning, blended-hybrid learning, combining online and face-to-face(FTF) activities, is creating a quiet revolution amonginstructors who want to combine the advantages ofonline and FTF.Virtually all U.S. universities have online course

management systems, such as Blackboard, WebCT,First Class, Angel etc., as an infrastructure for theirfully web-based courses. Recently instructors areusing online course management systems to add on-line components to their traditional FTF classes. Asinstructors add online components, their FTF classesare morphing into something slightly different.These combined online face-to-face courses go

by terms such as web-enhanced, blended and hybridcourses. However because these terms are relativelynew there is no consensus on definitions. At a recentconference, Kaleta and Aycock (2004) defined web-enhanced as any course with 20% or less online withthe remainder face-to-face. They defined hybrid asany course with more than 20%, but less than 80%,online. Because some online courses have a face-to-face orientation or summation meeting, Kaleta and

Aycock (2004) classify anything over 80% onlineas fully online E-learning. Other researchers useterms like “blended” and “hybrid” synonymouslywithout a precise definition (Parkinson, Green, et al,2003; Voos, 2003).The current authors think that three distinct cat-

egories provide a more useful taxonomy. Thereforewe suggest that these combined face-to-face andonline classes can be classified into three broad types,1.web-enhanced; 2. blended; and 3. hybrid learning,defined by the percentage of web-based interaction.

1. A growing number of instructors put portionsof their course online for convenience, savingstrain on the department photocopier andavoiding lugging bundles of handouts to class.Web-enhanced courses add on a minimal num-ber of web-based elements such as the syllabusand course announcements, into an otherwiseentirely FTF course.We consider web-enhancedcourses to be predominantly FTF and, therefore,have not included them in this study.

2. In blended courses, the instructor adds somesignificant online learning activities, whichchange the flavor of the class. A blended coursemight include online quizzes, real-time chatroom or online asynchronous discussions,counting for about 10% of the course grade. Inblended courses, these online activities representthe lesser part of the course. Either they do notreplace any of the regular FTF class meetings

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING, VOLUME 12, NUMBER 5, 2005/2006http://www.Learning-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9494 (print), 1447-9540 (online)

© Common Ground, Hermann Kurthen, Glenn G. Smith, All Rights Reserved, Permissions: [email protected]

or if they do replace FTF meetings, it is lessthan 40%.

3. If the online activities replace FTF class meet-ings by more than 40%, but less then 80%, thenthe course is considered hybrid.

In our taxonomy, classes with 80% or more E-learning, are considered fully online. Given that fullyonline courses have already received their share ofresearch (see, for example, Swan, 2001; Blignautand Trollip, 2003; Sutton, 2001 and many others),we will exclude them from our further deliberationsin this paper.Some may consider online activities natural for

students raised on computers and video-games. Butoffering an online activity is no guarantee that stu-dents will embrace it, even if heavily graded. It ishard to predict which type of blended or hybrid on-line course and design will be successful and ‘takesoff.’ The authors propose a blended-hybrid 'threshold'effect derived from micro sociological theory basedon the concept of norm internalization. Based oncase studies and empirical studies (see Smith andKurthen, in press), we also will consider a numberof additional factors (integration, timing, ownership)that influence student adoption of online components.Our ideas from the pilot study suggest a frameworkfor future research and provide food for thought forinstructors to predict which hybrid E-learning designsreduce student resistance.

The Centrality of Norm InternalizationHow students internalize the norms of an online classis a major factor in how and whether students adoptthe online components of hybrid and blendedcourses. People make sense of their social worldthrough a psychological process called "accounting,"i.e., using brief verbal, “signs,” to interpret their ac-tions within a social context. Much of this is donethrough shorthand statements which assume a com-mon knowledge based on previous shared socialsituations (filling in the meaning with the "et ceteraprinciple," Garfinkel, 1967). Garfinkel’s work andsome of the ideas presented in this paper derive fromsymbolic interactionism (andmicrosociology) whichfocuses on micro-interactions at the individual level,i.e., "the interaction between a person’s internalthoughts and emotions and his or her social behavi-or.” (Mead, 1934 cited in: Wallace and Wolf, 1999,p. 191).Students (and virtually all people) develop a sense

of group membership, a sense of “us versus them,”by signs which have meaning only to those withinthe group. A fluent use of these signs creates a senseof bonding in the group. As a person tries to be ac-cepted into the group, s/he makes tentative attemptsto make the signs and understand and correctly inter-

act using these signs and gauges progress of accept-ance by feedback from group members. This pointis better understood if we compare the traditionalclassroom with E-learning interactions.Students interpret a traditional classroom experi-

ence as "orderly" when the professor is teaching infront of the class and writing notes on the blackboardas he speaks. How the instructor says certain sen-tences emphasizes for the audience how s/he feelsabout a given subject. Unspoken meanings aretransmitted not only by verbal, but also by non-verbalcues.However E-learning lacks body language. An on-

line instructor cannot present an "orderly" classroomsetting, standing in front of a class and writing thingson the blackboard as s/he tries to convey to studentsthe meaning of the lesson. Gone are personal pres-ence and non-verbal communication. Signs ofmutualunderstanding and meaning that are not explicitlyverbal or written (Garfinkel, 1967) are limited. Theunderstanding of vague references, the missingmeanings and unspoken intentions of FTF conversa-tions are lacking in E-learning interactions. Studentsof online classes have to decipher written instruc-tions, announcements, examples, or assignments tounderstand what is expected of them and what is ofimportance. Online instructors remark that instruc-tions need to be highly detailed and even redundant,since there is less immediate question and answerand less non-verbal communication to disambiguateinstructions (Smith, Ferguson and Caris, 2002).It is not clear whether the more constrained non-

physical and indirect ("virtual") communicationprevent students from a better understanding of re-quirements and learning in comparison with FTFclasses. Parks (1996) suggests that there is no"missing meaning" in online interaction. Internetlanguage also has group-adopted “signs” functionallyidentical with the common group jargon of FTF in-teractions used to solidify group membership, suchas repetitive use of words or abbreviations, certainwriting and composition styles, use of emoticons,etc. Internet communities also learn the unspokennorms of their community. Online students learnwhat language is appropriate to use for what purposeand at what time. They learn to understand expres-sions by the instructor that have an underlyingmoral,critical, or motivating tone. They also adopt expres-sions with commonly-held implied meaning to de-scribe situations otherwise difficult to explain moreliterally.If an instructor uses very sloppy language, gram-

mar, punctuation, etc. in his responses to the studentsand also lets pass sloppy online responses, studentsassume that informal communication is ok and notgrade-relevant. Such classes will see an increase ofinformality. On the other hand, if an instructor is

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING, VOLUME 12238

very formal and official (for example as being ad-dressed as 'professor' in emails and also formallyaddressing students) this will also be reflected in theoverall rigidity of 'forum' and personal professor-student interaction. These issues become even trick-ier if an instructor claims informality or 'bad lan-guage' for himself, but hypocritically tries to enforceformality of students responses. That can lead toconfusion, conflict, dissatisfaction and a decrease inlearning .In online classes, the instructor has to construct

an effective framework to transmit knowledge andsymbolic meaning, and to establish group norms,group codes, and bonds in virtual reality (Lincolnand Guba 1985). Those who claim that online inter-action is a medium devoid of emotions and humanexpression, ignore that people can, in the writtenformat, communicate their feelings and "virtual"gestures via slang and with letters, digits, andgraphical symbols, such as "shouting" via capitalletters, exclamation or question marks, periods,"happy face" symbols, etc. (James and Jansen 1997).Online instructors also bond with students throughthe character, length, frequency, and type of re-sponses. A key factor for establishing and maintain-ing online relationships is the amount of time andthe degree of involvement participants invest in vir-tual interaction (Parks 1996). Students in onlineclasses do not have immediate real-time questionand response to disambiguate assignments. Howmuch and how quickly the instructor responds is amajor factor in student satisfaction (Shea, Swan,Fredericksen and Pickett, 2001; Trippe, 2001). Pre-vious studies measured successful appropriation ofE-learning components and the quality of interactionpatterns, for example, by counting and analyzingparticipation rates and message posting (Noriko,Bonk and Angeli, 2000).Online communities also develop a shared sense

of membership andmutual trust, perhaps compensat-ing for the lack of non-verbal signals (hand shakes,looks into eyes, gestures and grimaces, sounds, bodylanguage, etc.). Chat room communities develop ashared use of language, stories and codes, providingcommon meaning and expectations about member-ship behavior. In fact, the written language used inemails, forums, instant messaging, or chat rooms canbe more effective in creating community than thefleeting spoken word in FTF interactions (Putnamand Pacanowsky, 1999, p. 110).For example, in one of the classes the authors

studied, a student, who willingly provided advice inasynchronous discussions, became the “computerexpert.” After he answered an identical issue exhaust-ively several times over a period of about ten days,he reacted angrily when approached again with thesame question. He pointed out that he voluntarily

had given an answer previously and refused to do itagain since there was an answer trail readily availablefrom previous postings. Other students posted sup-porting comments. After this episode, the studentexpert continued to answer questions, but was neveragain approached with repetitive questions. It wasconsidered rude to ignore his previous postings.Students of blended and hybrid courses do see

each other in the face-to-face portion of the courseand may have internalized norms and developedsome group codes FTF. However because of lack offamiliarity with the environment and perceived isol-ation in E-learning, it may take longer and requiremore effort to internalize norms and develop codesin that environment. Students may not be willing tospend the extra time. Because of unfamiliarity andperceived isolation, adjusting to the norms of onlinelearning in blended and hybrid courses may involvegreater anxiety than adjusting to traditional FTFcourses.How do these issues of learning and internalizing

norms relate to student adaptation of online compon-ents? Which E-learning type, hybrid or blended,better reduces student resistance and increaseslearning efficiency? And what other course designand psychologicalmotivational factorsmay influencestudent adoption of online components so that acourse successfully ‘takes off?” It is helpful to exam-ine these issues by comparing the outcome of anumber of case studies the authors conducted at aresearch university in the United States.

Pilot Study Method and Data CollectionThe authors used a non-probability purposive sampleof five blended and hybrid college courses to conducta time-series pilot study investigating how studentsinteracted in the online and FTF portions of theseclasses. Data were collected through instructor inter-views, content analysis of online postings, andstructured observations of FTF courses during 14-week semesters between 2000 and 2003. Construc-tion of the research instruments was motivated byhypotheses based on micro sociological theories,such as “Initial student reluctance/resistance againstE-learning will be resolved over time when studentsbegin making sense of online routines.”The hybrid class involved chat room and forum

postings and some FTF class meetings. Online dis-cussions and assignments represented a substantialpercentage (about 70%) of the contact time in a So-ciology theory course (SOC 362) with 75 studentsin the first and 29 students in the second section.The blended classes were from a large survey

course on technological trends in society (EST 201).E-learning accounted for about 40% of the grade inthe Fall 2001 EST course (N=98 students), about

239HERMANN KURTHEN, GLENN G. SMITH

30% in the Fall 2002 EST course (N=65), and about25% in the Spring 2003 EST class (N=242).The instructor interviews were based on personal

records (class journals and notes), observations, andcontinuous conversations about the causes of courseprogress.For the content analysis the authors trained under-

graduate and graduate research assistants whocounted, classified, and qualitatively analysed post-ings from the E-learning components of the hybridand blended courses. We looked at frequency andpercentage of "on time" asynchronous class discus-sion forum and chat room postings per week ormodule, length of postings (paragraphs) as well asthe qualitative comparative improvement of theircontent, at assignment complaints, etc.To obtain some measure of interaction between

students and instructors in the FTF components ofhybrid and blended classes, undergraduate researchassistants (working for credit) were trained and sup-plied with a one page observation sheet to conductstructured observations. Observations were enteredinto a database, recording information such as classinteraction types between students and instructors,attendance, and other relevant information.

Pilot Study ResultsUsing quantitative and qualitative indicators similarto other studies (see Noriko, Bonk andAngeli, 2000),the authors sought to find out whether student's initialreluctance to E-learning would resolve over time asstudents made sense out of the routines of onlinelearning. We expected that as students internalizednew rules of interaction through virtual online post-ings and learned a new code of expressing them-selves through writing, they would ask fewer organ-izational, technology, or grading related questions.Instructors would intervene less often with positiveor negative feedback. For blended and hybrid coursesover the course of each semester, we expected a de-crease in total number and relative frequency of stu-dent postings related to non-content related issues.Similarly we expected a relative increase in content-oriented postings by instructors although the totalnumber of instructor postings would decline in abso-lute terms. These assumptions were confirmed forthe two hybrid classes and the 40% online blendedcourse, but not for the two blended courses with lessthan 30% E-learning content (see Figures 1 and 2).In addition, the authors expected that students

would post, after some adjustment time, fewer butanalytically deeper and better online contributionsas students developed "orderly patterns" of behaviourin the E-learning settings of blended and hybridclasses. Correspondingly, the total number of instruct-or postings would decline too. Again, this turned out

to be true only for classes with more than 40% E-learning share. Here the student and instructor post-ing frequency declined over time, while the lengthand analytical depth of individual postings increased.Again, the most obvious difference was that the hy-brid classes had a higher percentage of online com-ponents, replacing FTF meetings (see Figures 3 and4).For example, in section 01 of the hybrid Sociology

course, students posted 139 answers on the classdiscussion forum in weeks 2-3, i.e., 2.28 postingsper student. The number of postings declined inweeks 6-7 to 90 postings, i.e., 1.58 postings per stu-dent, and 75 in weeks 12-13, i.e., 1.34 postings perstudent (compared to a semester average of 1.64postings per student). While the number of postingsdeclined over time, the length and qualitative content(depth) of the postings in the hybrid course increased.The average length of postings in weeks 2-3 was oneparagraph per student. In weeks 10-11, it was sixparagraphs and the content was significantly betterwith stronger analytical thinking and in-depth prob-ing of topics. In the blended classes with e-learningcontent below 30%, none of these trends were replic-ated.Another indicator, the ratio of instructor postings

to student postings, declined significantly in section01 of the hybrid course over time from 53/139 (aratio of 0.87) in weeks 2-3, to 40/90 (a ratio of 0.70)in weeks 6-7, to 18/75 (a ratio 0.32) in weeks 12-13(compared to a semester ratio average of 0.62).

Learning in Mixed Environments and‘Threshold’ EffectsThe instructor of one of the blended courses men-tioned that he had great difficulty getting students toparticipate in online discussions. Over the course offour semesters, he tried many different strategies toboost student participation in online discussions.Despite online discussions counting for one third ofthe course grade, students never fully participated inthe online discussions. Apparently students’ resist-ance to E-learning (a relatively new environment atthe time – 2000 to 2003) was overcome in the hybrid,but not the blended course. Our results suggest a'threshold effect' in E-learning. Based on first au-thor’s (Dr. Kurthen’s) use of microsociology as acontext for researching online interaction, the secondauthor Dr. Smith has hypothesized a threshold effectin adoption of online components, with variouscontributing factors. A critical mass of the courseactivities must be online to motivate students tosuccessfully adapt to and learn from the E-learningcomponents of blended/hybrid courses. This directlycontradicts earlier studies such as Noriko, Bonk and


Angeli (2000) which suggest that students tend toparticipate online as often as required.An instructor of yet another blended class, a course

on multi-media design, encountered a similar reti-cence in online participation. The instructor changedthe format of the online discussions to increase stu-dent “ownership,” assigning a student moderator toread the journal article and generate a discussionquestion. The moderator coordinated the discussion,wrote a summary on why the discussion did or didnot take off, discussed best postings, and evaluatedthe original discussion question. With this newformat, all of the students participated. However itwas still hard to get the students to read and evaluatethe articles, and to participate at a high level support-ing their arguments with evidence and criticalthinking. The instructor’s view was that having thestudents take ownership improved discussion some-what. She was still dissatisfied with overall studentparticipation and involvement.We suggest that the 'threshold' effect, mentioned

above, is a logical explanation for the relative failureof online components in this type of blended course.It would be interesting to replicate the format of thecourse in different versions with larger and smallerpercentages of the course taught online and then as-sess learning, student satisfaction, and the acceptancerate of the online portions.The choices of the instructor (or instructional de-

signer) are not easy. Sometimes there are a numberof different online tools and environments that seemvital. However, components and additional toolspresented at the beginning of the course are morequickly accepted as part of the normative environ-ment than those introduced later. In our experience,students perceived online components introducedlater as non-essential “add-ons,” even if graded. Fora variety of personal and course-related reasons stu-dents tended to resist inclusion of additional toolsand learning components later during the semesterand perceived such a policy as disingenuous.When it comes to incorporating diverse environ-

ments (online and FTF) in the same course, “howintegral” and “how soon” are key questions for stu-dent adoption and learning. However, an overridingpsychological or emotional need for an additionalcomponent can turn the issues “how soon” or “howintegrated” into moot points. For example, a coursecoordinating a K12 teacher internship program metFTF once a month (Saleh, 2004). During the inter-vening time the students did on-site teacher intern-ships. Halfway through the semester, the instructoradded online discussions which really took off. Thestudents working as interns had a powerful feelingof isolation, insecurity and real need for day-to-dayemotional support as they took on the daunting taskof student teaching. The monthly FTF meetings

simply did not provide the needed day-to-day emo-tional support. Therefore the students embraced theonline discussions (Saleh, 2004).

Factors that Affect Blended and HybridCoursesIn the above mentioned pilot case studies, the onlinecomponents of the hybrid courses (more onlinecomponents) took off, while those in the blendedcourses (fewer online components) did not. Thispattern was repeated in other hybrid and blendedcourses. Based on our data collection, class observa-tions, and instructor interviews, we ascribe this dra-matic difference in online student participationbetween the blended courses and the hybrid class toat least three factors: 1. the degree of norm internal-ization engendered by the percentage of online coursecomponents ('threshold' effect); 2. the integrationand timing of E-learning components with the overallstructure and content of the course; and 3. the own-ership needs of students.

1. Norm Internalization: In the blended ESTcourse, the E-learning components represented30% of the course grade, but did not actuallyreplace any of the FTF lectures. So if studentsaveraged half an hour a week in online discus-sion (a generous estimate), then E-learningrepresented 12.5% of course contact time. Inthe hybrid sociology course, the E-learningcomponents actually replaced more than 70%of the FTF meetings (including quizzes andtests). We believe that the percentage of acourse that is in an alternate environment (on-line in this case), is a major factor determiningwhether students embrace it. Students mustovercome some resistance and internalize thenorms and rules of another learning modality.Instructors have to provide sufficient explana-tion, training and advice at the beginning of acourse to reduce ‘learning curve’ problems. Ifonline interaction does not reach a critical mass,it hampers norm internalization. From a stu-dent’s perspective it may not be worth the ef-fort. E-learning components, then, do not ‘takeoff.’ If the novel online component is only inter-mittent, the students may actually have to re-peatedly habituate to the norms. Student resist-ance will be especially pronounced as they clingto familiar modalities, i.e., traditional FTFclasses.

2. Integration and Timing Effects: The blendedEST course was a large enrolment survey classwith lectures by the instructor, a number ofguest lecturers, text-book readings, in-class as-signments and online discussions. The mainassessment was multiple choice tests. The cul-


ture of the class revolved around the FTFclassroom meetings. When the instructor ini-tially developed the course, he believed thatonline discussions might overcome the imper-sonal, passive qualities endemic to many largelecture courses, i.e., that adding online discus-sions wouldmake it more personal and learner-directed. However, the students seemed to per-ceive the 120 minute FTF lecture as the funda-mental social unit of the class. Online discus-sions which spanned two or three weeks had avery different sense of time than the rest of thecourse which often focused on a 120 minuteperiod. Because the content of the online discus-sions was only peripherally related to themesin the text and lectures, the online discussiondid not “feel” integrated with the rest of thecourse. Also the grading structure was com-pletely separate for the online discussions versusthe FTF lectures. The online discussions weregraded according to quality and quantity ofdiscussion postings, whereas the lecture mater-ial was assessed bymultiple choice exams. Thismay have contributed to a perceived lack of in-tegration between online and FTF components.

Another important point is the timing of intro-ducing a new environment. The timing seemsto heavily affect whether students perceive the'new' modality as integral or peripheral to thecourse. New teaching modes ('environments')introduced at the beginning of the course, whenstudents are busy with internalizing norms andclass codes, are more likely to be perceived as“integral.” Once that initial period of internaliz-ation is over, students may be loath to learn anew environment and internalize its associatedsocial rules. Internalizing norms of new envir-onments is tacitly the “business” of the begin-ning of the semester.

3. Ownership Needs: The integration and the per-centage 'threshold' effects can be compensatedor even rendered moot, if there is an over-ridingemotional or psychological need for an alternat-ive modality. The course coordinating a K12teacher internship program provides a powerfulexample. Meeting FTF once a month did notprovide sufficient emotional support. But theaddition of online discussionsmet a real psycho-logical need.

A corollary of psychological-emotional andmotivational function is the student perceptionof ‘ownership.’ It is a basic human need to wantto actively control one’s life. The educationalphilosophy of constructivism has tapped intothis desire to motivate students to customizetheir own learning experience and to build on

their existing knowledge and experience. Itshould come as no surprise that a student senseof ownership, as illustrated by the blendedmulti-media class, can boost participation in anonline component. However the need for activecontrol is a general emotional need. The ex-ample of the course coordinating the internshipprogram is a specific and unique context-depend-ent psychological-emotional and motivationalneed. Instructional designers should be on thelookout for specific tools that foster courseidentification and curiosity (competitive groupdynamics, online projects, student homepagesand chat rooms, etc.) and attempt to use themto achieve their learning goals beyond the reli-ance on extrinsic motivation (grades).

In our case studies, the cumulative weight ofthe effects mentioned above, i.e., 1) the'threshold' percentage of online course compon-ents providing sufficient norm internalization,2) integration and timing effects, and 3) psycho-logical-emotional and motivational owner-shipneeds,may explain why the learning effic-acy of online components in blended and hybridcourses is often significantly different. We hy-pothesize that these factors therefore are alsocentral for the understanding why students door do not embrace components of a course.

ConclusionInstructors adding online elements into their FTFclasses should consider whether there is good reasonto include them andwhether those online componentsare likely to “take off.” The factors mentioned aboveare a good starting point for estimating the probabil-ity that students will embrace online components.But before even entering the discussion of which

online components will be adopted by students, in-structors should ask if there is a good reason to in-clude them in the first place. Adding online compon-ents because other instructors do it or because ofpressures by peers and administrators is not recom-mended. Convenience may be a legitimate factor.By putting the syllabus, announcements, assign-ments, quizzes, and handouts online, instructors savepaper, class-time, and the problem of distributionmaterial and its access. Furthermore, if changes aremade to the syllabus or and assignments, studentscan immediately see those changes. For example,course management systems like Blackboard havethe advantage of being able to reflect up-to-the-minute events like class cancellations or providingtext related revisions, etc. The online posting of afew course documents requires students to download,but not interact socially with each other or with theinstructor. Socialization effects are negligible.


However before instructors include online compon-ents with social interaction below the 40-80% hybridlevel, they should ask themselves whether the adjust-ment required of students is realistic and justified.What are specific reasons why a particular class

should be transformed from traditional FTF intoblended or hybrid learning? Perhaps a discussion-oriented class might have an enrollment slightly toolarge to allow each student to fully participate face-to-face. Online discussion can help extend the discus-sion so that all students can participate. Perhaps thecharacter of a student population may suggest onlineactivities. If the course requires out of class groupprojects and most of the students are commuters,then online group activities make a lot of sense. Ifthe course involves a lot of remote fieldwork, then

frequent face-to-facemeetingsmay be awkward andE-learning components become vital. Some classesmay benefit from informational resources that aremore accessible in an online format. For example,in a course where students are required to conduct aresearch literature search, an online document describ-ing how to write such a literature search can linkthem directly to research databases at the universitylibrary web page.Finally if a decision is made to add online compon-

ents, the instructor should consider the design factorsthat make it likely for the online components to “takeoff,” factors such as norm internalization, integra-tion, timing, and ownership needs, all of which mayhelp to put them over a participation threshold.

References

Blignaut, S. and S. Trollip. “A taxonomy for faculty participation in asynchronous online discussions.” Published conferenceproceedings of ED-MEDIA 2005: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunic-ations, Honolulu , Hawaii , June 2003.

Garfinkel, H. Studies in Ethnomethodology . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1967.Hara, N., C. J. Bonk, and Ch. Angeli , Ch. “Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology

course.” Instructional Science 28,2 (2000): 115-52.James, V. and J. Erin. "Emoticon or smiley," in: Netlingo http://www.netlingo.com/smiley.html, 1997.Kaleta, R. and A. Aycock. "Getting faculty ready for hybrid/blended teaching." Paper presented at the conference EduCause,

Denver, CO, 2004.Lincoln, Y. S. and E. G. Guba. Naturalistic Inquiry . Newbury Park , CA : Sage, 1985.Parkinson, D., W. Green, Y. Kim, and J. Marioni. "Emerging themes of student satisfaction in a traditional course and a

blended distance course." TechTrends 47, 4 (2003): 22-28.Parks, M. "Making Friends in Cyberspace." Journal of Communication 46, 1 (1996): 80-97.Putnam, L. and M. E. Pacanowsky. Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach . Beverly Hills , CA :

Sage, 1999.Saleh, S. "Interns find support in cyberspace." Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2004: World Conference on Educational Multi-

media, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Lugano , Switzerland , 2004.Shea, P., K. Swan, E. Fredericksen E. and A. Pickett. "Student Satisfaction and Reported Learning in the SUNY Learning

Network." In: Elements of Quality Online Education , Vol. 3 in the Sloan-C Series, The Sloan Consortium NewYork , 2001.

Smith, G. G., D. Ferguson , and M. Caris. "Teaching Online versus Face-to-face." Journal of Educational TechnologySystems 30, 4 (2002): 337-364.

Smith, G., G., D. Ferguson , and S. Gupta. "Diagrams and math notation in E-learning: Growing pains of a new generation."International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 35, 1 (2004): 681-695.

Smith, G.G. and H. Kurthen (in press). "Frontstage and Backstage in hybrid E-learning: Microsociology of Hybrid Face-to-Face Online Courses."

Sutton, L. “The principle of vicarious interaction in computer-mediated communications.” International Journal of Educa-tional Telecommunications 7, 3 (2001): 223-242.

Swan, K. “Immediacy, Social Presence, and Asynchronous Discussion.” In: Elements of Quality Online Education , Vol.3 in the Sloan-C Series, The Sloan Consortium New York , 2001.

Trippe, A. "Student Satisfaction at the University of Phoenix Online Campus." In: Elements of Quality Online Education, Vol. 3 in the Sloan-C Series, The Sloan Consortium New York , 2001.

Voos, R. "Blended Learning." Perspectives in Quality Online Education , Vol. 2, 1 (2003) in the Sloan-C View Series.Wallace, R. A. and A. Wolf. Contemporary Sociological Theory . 5th edition. Upper Saddle River NJ : Prentice Hall,

1999.


Figure 1: Percentage of Student online contributions related to topic.

Figure 2: Percentage of Professor online contributions related to topic.

Figure 3: Average number of Postings per Student.


Figure 4: Average number of online paragraphs posted by instructor.

About the AuthorsDr Hermann KurthenGrand Valley State University, United States of America

Glenn G. SmithUniversity of South Florida, United States of America


��

�

�

��

��

�� !! �� "��

�

��#��$�%��

�� &�'��( ��)��"��

��(��*��

�� &�'��( ��)��"��

��*��+,�� +�� &� �" ��*��

�� &��& �� +��

�� &�'��"��

�� &��"�(�� &� �" ��

��!��-��*��

��"��(��*��

��#��$��!�� .��

��%�� (��/��

&��'��

��.��(0��

��.��(0��

��1 ��

�� &�'��"��

�� &�' �� + �+��

��(��)�$�� "�*�- "�� &��0��(��

�� &�'��( ��"��

��%��2��+��

��*��$�� &��0�� .��(��

��+�� &��"�(�� &� �" ��*��

��&�+,�� &�'��/��"�� 0��&��(��

�� &�'��/��"�� 0��&��(��

-��-��(0 �� &��"�(�� %��3��+�� !��0��

. ��'��/��(0 �� &��"�(�� %��3��+�� !��0��

��0�� &�%��(�� -��

��) ��"��0��"��

�� &��(��(��(0� � +��"�� !��1��

��0�� &��"��-��

��1)#��2�� &��"��-��

��!�� &��"��-��

!��!�� &��"��-��

�

�

��4556�

#��7�0��-788///��+)� ��( !�

�

��2��

#��7�0��-788///��+)� ��( !�

�

��%��

#��7�0��-788///��+)� ��( !�

�

��9��

�!��7�(+)��-- ��:( !! �+� ��"-�1��0��+�( !�

hybrid online face-to-face teaching - grand valley state university

Documents