1
Overview of Blended Models and Course Re-designPatricia McGee, Ph.D.The University of Texas at San Antonio
Patricia McGee - This work is licensed under the Creative Commons NonCommercial Sampling Plus 1.0 License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/nc-sampling+/1.0/
2
agenda
• Defining the Blend• Models• Re-Design Overview
3
DEFINING BLENDED
4
Proportion of Content Delivered
Online
Type of Course
Typical Description
0% Traditional Course with no online technology used — content is delivered in writing or orally.
1 to 29% Web Facilitated
Course which uses web-based technology to facilitate what is essentially a face-to-face course. Uses a course management system (CMS) or web pages to post the syllabus and assignments, for example.
30 to 79% Blended/Hybrid
Course that blends online and face-to-face delivery. Substantial proportion of the content is delivered online, typically uses online discussions, and typically has some face-to-face meetings.
80+% Online A course where most or all of the content is delivered online. Typically have no face-to-face meetings.
Allen, Seaman and Garrett, Copyright ©2007 by Sloan-C™
5
What is the % blend?• University of Central Florida
mix of study modes – pure distance– face-to-face– between 90–10 and 10–
90 (Brown, 2001) . • Time per course (semester):
90-135 hours
6
Trends in blended• 50-70% + institutions in US offer
blended• Women participate and succeed
in blended/online courses at a higher rate than do men
• Web 2.0 and mobile tech have higher level of integration that in F2F
• Formal and informal learning• Individual assets + virtual teams• Students tend to earn higher
grades (Penn State)• Accelerated learning is often a
result of blended design (CM OLI)From http://maine121.org/tag/visualization/
7
Blended courses can…
◦ Lead to using more participatory and student-centered learning activities
◦ Transform the teacher-student relationship to be more centered on student learning
◦ Transform the instructor role to be more facilitative and learner-centered
◦ Other?
8
Guided informal learning
.edu
9
Discussion: Two sides of blendedAppeal? Challenges?
VS.
10
What does this mean for us?
• Learner preparedness and preparation
• Organization and explanation of course
• Scope of course content and activities
• Course standards and expectations
11
12
THE MODELS
eHandout
13
Focus: What’s your model?
• What do you look for/want in a framework for developing a blended course?
• What helps you develop a course?
14
Workforce Blended/Hybrid Model
Two or more forms of distinct methods of instruction, such as
Classroom + online (traditional blended)Online + mentor or coach (e.g., independent study)Simulations with structured classes (e.g., Second
Life™ and FTF)On-the-job training + informal learning (e.g.,
internships)Managerial coaching + eLearning (e.g., practicum)
(Maisie, 2002, p. 59)
15
U of Wolverhampton Model
1. Creative and stimulating use of electronic content2. Collaborative Learning3. Formative Assessment with integrated feedback4. Electronic Personal Development Planning ePDP
to increase learner’s awareness of themselves, 5. Save time and paper with electronic assignments
16
Hybrid Online Model (Martyn)
17
Design Principles 1st class FTF
eMail Chat Online Quizzes
Discussion Last class FTF
1. Student - Faculty Interaction
X X X X
2. Student-Student Interaction
X X X X
3. Active Learning X X X X X
4. Prompt Feedback X X X X
5. Time on Task X6. High Expectations X
7. Respect Diverse Talents X
Marjorie Martyn
18
The HyFlex Course Model
Brian Beatty, San Francisco State University, HyFlex Blog:http://drbrianbeatty.com
HyFlex Papers and Presentations:http://itec.sfsu.edu/hyflex/hyflex_home.htm
Veronica Diaz, PhD
19
Hybrid + Flexible = HyFlex
Online
Onground
HyFlex
Veronica Diaz, PhD
20
STARTING POINT
• Instructional Tech graduate program– Established, face to face history– 130 students, 3 FT faculty, 5-10 PT faculty– Regional campus (workers and commuters—2+
hours)• Seminar courses
– Instructional Technology topics (learning, design, integration, media, etc.)
• Technology users
Veronica Diaz, PhD
21
HyFlex Course Principles/Values
• Learner Choice: Provide meaningful alternative participation modes and enable students to choose between participation modes weekly (or topically).
• Equivalency: Provide equivalent learning activities in all participation modes.
• Reusability: Utilize artifacts from learning activities in each participation mode as “learning objects’ for all students.
• Accessibility: Equip students with technology skills and access to all participation modes.
Veronica Diaz, PhD
22
Two Course Types
• Type A: Small to moderate interactive classes– Content presentation and class discussion– Ex: Graduate seminars
• Type B: Large lecture classes– Minimal in-class interaction among students and
faculty– Ex: Undergraduate required courses
Veronica Diaz, PhD
Type A: Student ExperienceClass Topic,
Goals, Other Factors
Attend Class in person?
Online Agenda In-class Agenda
Shared Resources
Online Activity (discussion)
In-class Activity
(discussion)
Demonstrate Class Outcomes
Independent Activity
(information)
LMS
Veronica Diaz, PhD
24
Weekly Topic Area For Content
Veronica Diaz, PhD
25
DiscussionsOnground Participants Online Participants
AsynchronousTopical
Discussion
Live In-classInteractive Discussion
Weekly Reflection REQREQ
REQ
REQ OPT
OPT
Veronica Diaz, PhD
26
Type B: Lecture Capture
• Lecture capture technology is capable of packaging and distributing lectures in different formats (Rich media echo, Podcast (MP3), Enhanced Podcast, Video).
Veronica Diaz, PhD
27
Results (brief)• 80% say they learned as much as expected or
more• 80% prefer blended classes; 60% prefer to
choose their own blend (HyFlex)• Some like working online, most like in-class;
(almost) all like flexibility
Veronica Diaz, PhD
28
HyFlex Fit: Discussion
• What value would it add? (student-control, increased online offerings, resolve scheduling conflicts, increased course enrollment)
• What support/cost would it require? (training, staff, technology, admin structure, faculty/student acceptance)
29
Discussion: HyFlex Fit
• Can the content be taught in both modes?• Can students learn in both modes?• Can the faculty teach in both modes?• Do administrative structures support both?
Veronica Diaz, PhD
30
The Multimodal Model (Picciano)
Blending w/
Purpose
Content –CMS, media,
SM
Social/Emotional –
F2F
Dialectic/Questioning
-Discussion Forum
Synthesis/Evaluation –
Assignment, Assessment
Collaboration/Student -
generated Content – wiki
Reflection – blog, journal
31
Multimodal Learning Through Media Research (Cisco)
Fromhttp://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/docs/education/Multimodal-Learning-Through-Media.pdf
32
CoP Model of Blended
Learning
Yukawa, J. (2010).Communities of Practice for Blended Learning: Toward an Integrated Model for LIS Education. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 51 (2), 54-75
From http://www.jyukawa.com/research.html
33
CoP Example SME approach
Big Questions
Expert Teams
Research and Report
Critique and Reassess
Revise and Disseminate
Publish, present, take action
34
Activity: Make your own model
• What appeals to you most from the models? (see handout)
• What can you modify or extend so that you can follow through the design process?
35
RE-DESIGN OVERVIEW
36
Backwards Design
• Beyond course• Transfer
Desired Results
• Performance• Criterion
Reference• Informal/
Unplanned
Evidence
• Explain• Interpret• Apply• Have perspective• Empathize• Have self-
knowledge
Learning Design
37
Overview of Re-design Process
Objectives Assessment Activities/Assignments
38
Backwards Design Applied
• Communicate to multiple audiences
Desired Results
• Blog post (visits/posts?)
• Video (hits/downloads?)
• eZine (posts/subscription?)
Evidence• Observe• Study/
Research• Design• Test/pilot• Revise• Implement
Learning Design
39
Overview of Blend Process
Time Sequence Location
40
Bergtrom, G. (2011). Content vs. learning: An old dichotomy in science courses .Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15 (1). 33-44
41
Bergtrom, G. (2011). Content vs. learning: An old dichotomy in science courses .Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15 (1). 33-44
42
Bergtrom, G. (2011). Content vs. learning: An old dichotomy in science courses .Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15 (1). 33-44
43
Activity: Your priorities
• What are your high priority outcomes?• What are the desired results for the course?
44
Take-aways
• Consider high level approaches of design• Consider process re-design• Start with the end in mind
45
Patricia McGee, PhD
[email protected] work is licensed under the Creative Commons
NonCommercial Sampling Plus 1.0 License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/nc-sampling+/1.0/