TIPPING THE SCALESExtending Blended Learning Across 20 Institutions
Thomas Cavanagh, Ph.D.Assistant Vice President, Distributed LearningUniversity of Central Florida
The UCF-AASCU NGLC Project• To scale the UCF model of blended learning across the
AASCU network of institutions (and beyond).
About UCF• Orlando, FL• Metropolitan, suburban
university• 58,600+ students• 2nd largest university in U.S.• Carnegie classification: RU/VH Research University: Very
High Research Activity• 216 degree programs across 11 colleges• 11 Campuses throughout Central Florida
• Center for Distributed Learning• Over 30% of university SCH is online• Over half of all UCF students take at least 1 online course each
year.• Fully Online Programs
• 5 Undergraduate • 25 Graduate Degree• 29 Graduate Certificates
Defining Blended Learning
FullyF2F
FullyOnline
BlendedLearning
ì í î
Classes where a portion of the traditional face-to-face instruction is replaced by web-based online learning.
Why Blended Learning?• Engage faculty in online learning
• First step• Reduce delivery costs
• Maximize facility use• Increase flexibility and convenience• Improve student learning outcomes• Expand access to education
Strategic Alignment
Web-Enhanced
BlendedLearning
FullyOnline
Faculty Initiative Institutional Initiative
Blended Learning at UCF• Began with an Online initiative in mid-90s• Quickly realized that 75% of students were local• Was the catalyst for the blended learning initiative• Center for Distributed Learning
1995-96 2000-01 2005-06 2010-11500,000
700,000
900,000
1,100,000
1,300,000
1,500,000
1,700,000 Sources of UCF Student Credit Hour Growth
CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION
ONLINE-VIDEO
ONLINE-WEB
Blended Learning at UCF
Fully Online CoursesBlended Learning Courses
n n
500% growth in blended courses
Blended Learning at UCF
Blended Learning 2009-2010 Academic
Year
Totals since 2002
Sections 681 5,031Registrations 24,241 160,860Student Credit Hours (SCH)
70,438 476,823
UCF Fall 2008 Headcount
33,08765.8% 7,127
14.2%2,8475.7%
3630.7% 923
1.8%1,436 2.9% 2,046
4.1%
1,3012.6%
1370.3%
8651.7%
1110.2%
“Live” Main Campus Students43,466
“Live” Rosen Campus Students2,446
Web Students11,514
“Live” Regional Students4,800
UCF Fall 2009 Headcount
“Live” Regional Students4,809
Web Students14,543
“Live” Main Campus Students45,988
33,98863.5% 8,593
16.1%3,6376.8%
3750.7% 1,030
1.9%1,497 2.8%
1,8863.6%
8271.6%
6971.3%
7821.5%
2040.4%
“Live” Rosen Campus Students2,531
34,05960.6% 10,363
18.4%4,1137.3%
4780.9%
1,2132.1%
1,490 2.7%
2,0493.6%
7581.4%
7641.4%
6951.2%
2340.4%
UCF Fall 2010 Headcount
Web Students17,172
“Live” Regional Students5,251
“Live” Rosen Campus Students2,472
“Live” Main Campus Students47,926
Regional Campuses = Blended Learning
Alignment with Regional CampusesFully Online Blended
Academic Year SCH % SCH %
2002-03 22,801 27 5,711 72003-04 36,840 35 7,699 72004-05 33,690 35 7,159 72005-06 48,008 41 8,806 82006-07 57,393 44 9,946 82007-08 64,843 44 17,067 122008-09 74,561 46 10,847 72009-10 88,834 51 11,383 72010-11 116,508 55 13,481 6
2010-11 F2F = 31% SCH
Fall 2010Total UCF students 56,129Students in Face-to-Face (F2F) 49,510Web OR Blended 23,741F2F + Web 12,157F2F + Blended 8,827F2F + Web OR Blended 18,288F2F + Web + Blended 2,696Web Only 4,109
(Summer 2010: 6,459)
UCF Blended Programs = Choice and Access
Course Evaluation Ratings
Course Modality % Overall “Excellent”
Blended 51.2%
Fully Online 48.3%
Face to Face 48.2%
Lecture Capture (with classroom) 43.4%
Lecture Capture (no classroom) 41.6%
N = 672,185
Student Success Rates by Modality
Series10
102030405060708090
10087 91 87 88 9188
95 91 91 9488 88 86 88 88
Per
cent
Spring 09 Summer 09 Fall 09 Spring 10 Summer 10
F2F (n=618,899)
Blended (n=39,021)
Fully Online (n=109,421)
Withdrawal Rates by Modality
Series10
102030405060708090
100
4 3 3 3 24 2 3 3 15 4 4 5 4
Perc
ent
Spring 09
Summer09
Fall 09
Spring 10
Summer 10
F2F (n=551,065)
Blended (n=39,769) Fully Online (n=109,495)
Student Satisfaction in Fully Online and Blended Courses
39%
Fully online (N = 1,526)Blended (N = 485)
41%
11% 9%
Very SatisfiedUnsatisfiedSatisfied
Neutral
38%44%
9%
Very Unsatisfied
3% 5% 1%
Per
cent
Faculty Willingness to Teach Web/Blended Courses in the Future
Positive
Neutralor
negativeOnlinen=71
BlendedN=53
Modality
81%
16%2%
69%
13%10%6% 4%
DefinitelyProbablyProbably notDefinitely not
THE NGLC PROJECTExpanding Blended Learning Through Tools and Campus ProgramsA UCF/AASCU Project
Project Overview• Scale the proven UCF Blended Learning model via the
national AASCU network of more than 420 institutions and systems
• Starting with 20 targeted schools selected for their alignment with NGLC objectives (under 26, low income)
Scale UCF Model of Blended Learning
• Across 20 AASCU institutions and 11 states
Partners
Individual Institutions State Coordinating Institutions
State Participating Institutions
Columbus State University Missouri Harris-Stowe State University
Fayetteville State University
Southeast Missouri State University
Lincoln University of Missouri
Grambling State University Missouri Southern State University
Northwestern State University (LA)
Missouri State University
Indiana University Kokomo University of Missouri-St. Louis
Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi
Alabama University of North Alabama
The College at Brockport, State University of New York
Troy University University of South Alabama
Thomas Edison State College Minnesota St. Cloud State University
University of Maine at Fort Kent Winona State University
Project Administration Team• Principal Investigators
• Tom Cavanagh, UCF• George Mehaffy, AASCU
• John Hammang, AASCU• UCF:
• Linda Futch• Patsy Moskal• Chuck Dziuban• Elizabeth Wardle• Debbie Weaver• Tammy Muhs • Kelvin Thompson
Project Overview• An open educational resource (OER) Blended Learning
Toolkit containing:• Best practices, strategies, models, and course design principles.• Two OER prototype courses in Composition and Algebra. • Directions for applying the toolkit to create original blended
courses.• Train-the-trainer materials.• Assessment and data collection protocols, including survey
instruments and standards.
Project Overview (key measures)• 217 funded blended course sections across twenty project
institutions: target delivery of at least 85% of those sections (185).
• Targeted low-income students under age 26 (with the total population across the participating institutions being 187,500).
NGLC Assessment Expectations• Outcome 1: Build a blended learning infrastructure across
the network of participating AASCU member institutions. • 1-a. Identify participating institutions, communicate requirements,
and gather necessary data on courses, demographics, and assessment capabilities.
• 1-b. Develop the Blended Learning Toolkit materials and resources (including strategies, blended models, resources, and assessment protocols).
• 1-c. Package prototype courses in Composition and Algebra.• 1-d. Conduct Train-the-Trainer sessions.
NGLC Assessment Expectations• Outcome 2: Increased access to education via blended
learning (20 AASCU member institutions; 185-217 funded individual courses) for low-income students under 26 years old. This is the most critical outcome because it correlates directly to NGLC’s stated priorities. • 2-a. Disseminate toolkit materials and prototype courses to state
coordinating institutions and individual participating institutions.• 2-b. Implement courses across the AASCU network.• 2-c. Assess project success.
NGLC Assessment Expectations• Outcome 3: Increased student success and increased
student retention. • This is a supplemental measure external to the grant requirements
but very much consistent with NGLC’s long-term goals. In order to support eventual increases in student success and student retention, we intend to build longitudinal data collection into the project design. This data will be collected during the grant period for later analysis and reporting.
Original Delivery Plan by Discipline
Discipline Fall 2011 Winter/Spring 2012 TotalsMathematics (Algebra) Sections 23 23 46Mathematics (Other) Sections 8 8 16English (Composition) Sections 48 38 86English (Other) Sections 8 15 23Miscellaneous Sections 25 21 46TOTALS 112 105 217
Management Structure
Composition• Coordinators: Elizabeth Wardle & Debbie Weaver
• English Composition I: Expository writing with emphasis on effective communication/critical thinking. Emphasizes the writing process.
• “Flexible Template” model• Prix Fixe or A la carte
• 6-week online course for participating faculty to understand the blended format applied to the WAW curriculum.
• Monthly webinars starting in Fall.
Algebra• Coordinator: Tammy Muhs
• College Algebra: Algebra skills: Inequalities, high degree polynomials, graphs, rational, logarithmic, and exponential functions, and systems of equations.
• “Flexible Template” will allow for individualized customization.• One or more webinar sessions for participating faculty to
understand the blended format applied to the modified emporium model of the Algebra curriculum.
• Monthly webinars starting in Fall.
Assessment• Coordinator: Patsy Moskal
• IRB consultation• Assessment / Data Collection
• Centralized online form• Student perception • Student success• Course retention/withdrawal
Project Team Website• Central communications hub
• Schedule• Contacts• Proposal documents• Meeting recordings archives• Discussions• Events
Intellectual Property• Creative Commons
• Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license (CC BY-NC-SA)
• NOTE: Project materials produced by UCF/AASCU with NGLC funding will be “open.” However, the courses produced at each individual campus will be bound by their own institutional IP policies.
Blended Learning Toolkit
Now available: www.blendedlearningtoolkit.org
BlendKit2011
• Designed and facilitated by Kelvin Thompson• Generic instruction on blended course design and delivery• 5 week Quasi-MOOC (facilitated for grant)• Began 7/11/11• “Home Base”: http://bit.ly/blendkit2011
• Also accessible via the Blended Learning Toolkit under Faculty Development
= NGLC Institution= Non-NGLC Institution
NGLC Outcomes: Scale
• Fall 2011• 96 course sections• 2,661 students• 12 schools• 55 teachers• 46% low income
• Spring 2012• 62 course sections• 1,445 students• 12 schools• 36 teachers
NGLC Outcomes: The Student Experience
• Students in Fall sections surveyed
• 521 responses
• 84% freshmen
• 47% white/Caucasian
• 86% had never taken a blended course
• 66% had never taken a course using any web components
How satisfied were you with this blended course?
Series10
102030405060708090
100
9 8
2429 30
Per
cent
(n=520)
Very Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied Neither Somewhat
SatisfiedVery
Satisfied
What did you like most about this blended course?
Series10
102030405060708090
100
35
8 5 5 5
Per
cent
(n=515)
Convenient InstructorEase of access
Easy to get help
Dual-learning
What did you like least about this blended course?
Series10
102030405060708090
100
9 9 8 7 7
Per
cent
(n=515)
Technology issues
Less teaching time
Lack of help
Time consuming
Poor time management
What advice would you give to a student new to blended courses?
Series10
102030405060708090
100
26
7 6 6 5
Per
cent
(n=515)
Stay on task Use tutoringReview on own time
AttendClass
Better time management
NGLC Outcomes: Student success• Define student success as A, B, C• Collect grades from each campus• Aggregate all data into one file• Maintain anonymity• Examine success by
• Low income• Discipline• Gender• Ethnicity
NGLC Outcomes: The Faculty Experience
• Faculty in Fall sections surveyed
• 28 responses
• 54% math, 32% English, 14% other
• 75% white/Caucasian
• 48% had taught a blended course
• 45% had taught a course using any web components
In the future, if you had a choice, would you consider teaching a course in the blended format?
Definitely
not
Probably not
Not sure Probably Definitely0
102030405060708090
100
07
24 21
48
Per
cent
(n=28)
What are the positive aspects of teaching a blended course?
Series10
102030405060708090
100
24 24 2110
3
Per
cent
(n=29)
Best of both worlds
IndividualizedInteraction
Better use of F2F time
Reduced contact hours
What are the negative aspects of teaching a blended course?
Series10
102030405060708090
100
2110 10 7 7
Per
cent
(n=29)
Less F2F time
Online assignments
Lack of preparation
Undisciplined students
Technology Issues
How has teaching this blended course changed your F2F teaching?
Series10
102030405060708090
100
21
7 3 3
Per
cent
(n=29)
Enrich technology Plan better
Differentiate between modes
Slow down F2F teaching
NGLC Evaluation Issues• Kindness of strangers for responses• Different contexts• Local buy-in unknown• Granularity of evaluation• No budget for site visits• Cross organization evaluation UCF-AASCU• Unable to assess learning outcomes• Diseconomy of scale
NGLC Evaluation Issues• Excessive resources for start up• Technology issues• Very short grant period• Blended learning – a boundary object• Difficult to remove obstacles over distance• Grant participation negotiated by provosts
Questions?
Follow Along…
@tbcavanagh
@Blendkit
www.blendedlearningtoolkit.org