2
Working draft date: August 1, 2014
CLU Faculty Guidebook:
Assessing the Empirical Evidence and Creating and Facilitating Blended Learning Undergraduate Classes
California Lutheran University
by
Harry Starn, Jr., MS, CFA, CFP®
Cia DeMartino, PhD
Table of Contents
Introduction 3
A. Guidebook’s Intended Audience and Purpose 3
B. Definition: Hybrid versus Blended Classrooms 3
C. Why consider a blended format if our face-to-face classrooms aren’t broken? 4
Section I: Pedagogical Opportunities in Blended Learning Classes 6
A. Empirical Evidence – Outcomes in Blended Classrooms 6
Research from Meta-Analyses 6
Research from Smaller Institutions Contrasting Undergraduate Blended Learning with Face-To-Face Instruction. 7
B. Theory 8
C. Other Reasons for Adoption 10
Transformative Potential for Pedagogical Innovation 10
Millennial Learner 11
Hard and Soft Skills for the Jobs of the Present and Future 12
Section II: Designing a Blended Class 13
A. Tenants of Quality Undergraduate Teaching 13
B. Integration – The Core Concept of Blended Course Design 15
C. Orchestrating the “Best of F2F” with “Best of Online” 16
D. Leverage Technology to Serve Your Pedagogical Agenda 18
E. Avoiding the Course-and-a-Half (1.5x) Tendency 19
F. Creating a Flipped Classroom 19
G. Discovering the Right Mix between Classroom and Online 20
Section III: Best Practices In Facilitating The Blended Classroom 22
A. Preparing Students for the Blended Classroom 22
B. Embracing Revised Faculty and Student Roles 23
C. Maintaining “Strategic Presence” 24
D. Connecting Classroom and Online Interactions 25
E. Building Community 26
F. Sustainable Faculty Workload 26
Section IV: Summary 28
Rethinking the Traditional Format: Implications from teaching a blended course. 28
Appendix I: Resources 29
Appendix II: Course Design Map 34
Introduction
[1]
A. Guidebook’s Intended Audience and Purpose
This guidebook, which represents a work-in-progress draft, is intended to serve as a resource for faculty at California Lutheran University. It was created for the express purpose of: 1) exploring pedagogical reasons that support a transition from a fully face-to-face class to a Blended classroom environment, 2) examining “best practices” for Blended classroom design, and 3) communicating practical strategies for facilitating the blended classroom. The information in this guide emanates from a variety of sources, including: academic literature, CLU faculty and guides from other universities. A comprehensive resource list is provided within the appendix.
B. Definition: Hybrid versus Blended Classrooms
The terms “hybrid learning” and “blended learning” have often been used to express the same general concept. Both refer to a classroom-delivery format that involves some combination of face-to-face and virtual-classroom time. Participants at a 2005 Sloan-C Workshop on the topic adopted the following definition for blended learning:
1. Courses that integrate online with traditional face-to-face class activities in a planned, pedagogically valuable manner; and
2. Where a portion (institutionally defined) of the face-to-face time is replaced by online activity (Laster, Otte, Picciano, and Sorg, 2005).”[2]
Based on their research of best practices, Patricia McGee and Abby Reis offer the following definition, which we will embrace in this guide: “Blended course designs involve instructor and learners working together in mixed delivery modes, typically face-to-face and technology mediated, to accomplish learning outcomes that are pedagogically supported through assignments, activities, and assessments as appropriate for a given mode and which bridge course environments in an manner meaningful to the learner.”[3]
The Graduate School of Educations (GSOE) at CLU created operational definitions of courses based on the percentage of instructional time that is delivered online, which this guide will also adopt.
C. Why consider a blended format if our face-to-face classrooms aren’t broken?
Why transition from a fully face-to-face experience? This is a relevant question, which has been voiced by faculty in our undergraduate program. After all, we are a small-size liberal arts university that prides itself on personalized face-to-face engagement. Our classroom sizes are intentionally capped, which ensures students get to interact and know their faculty. We create community and a unique experience for our students. Why would we think about giving up even a portion of our “face time” to engage in a virtual environment, when that is what makes us so unique and effective[4]? Why should be consider creating blended courses when our face-to-face classrooms aren’t broken?
Most will agree that there are non-pedagogical reasons that motivate institutions to offer Blended learning classes. These include competitive positioning that creates a potential for increased enrollments, improved student and faculty scheduling flexibility and access, and efficient uses of infrastructure. Moreover, it’s clear that the external environment in higher education is radically changing as content is becoming ubiquitous and student debt has reached crippling levels. In response to uncertainty surrounding the future of our country’s higher-education system, universities and colleges are repositioning. Paraphrasing one of the panel participants during this year’s UPCEA Conference on Online Leadership, “we didn’t know where the (MOOC) tsunami was going but we wanted to make sure we were riding the wave.” That same mindset – not sure where higher education is going but making sure to be on board – is prevalent at many institutions, but provides no assurance that going along for the ride will benefit our students.
As faculty, our concern remains fixed on the student-learning experience and the quality of our teaching. Faculty should assess evidence in order to determine if a transition from a fully face-to-face experience to one that offers the option of blended delivery is pedagogically justified. Peter Shea echoed the same frame when opening his chapter contribution to the 2007 Sloan Blended Learning report:
“What problem does blended learning solve? Why would we want to move instruction out of the classroom and put some, but not all of it into an online format? What are the benefits? What are the losses?”[5]
Before exploring the empirical evidence regarding learning outcomes, it’s worth pausing to reflect on reasons faculty have elected to move from the fully face-to-face classroom to a blended environment. Osguthorpe and Graham offered the following, “Those who use blended approaches base their pedagogy on the assumption that there are inherent benefits in face-to-face interaction (both among learners and between learner and instructor) as well as the understanding that there are some inherent advantages to using online methods in their teaching.” [6] Kaleta, Skibba and Joosten discovered in a qualitative study involving ten participants across three educational institutions that faculty taught blended courses because of teaching and learning benefits. “These benefits included increased student learning and the potential to ‘get students to work independently’ and become ‘more responsible for their own learning.”[7] Starenko concluded from their qualitative study involving 29 faculty that the “great majority” decided to try a blended format in order to address “communication among and with students.”[8]
Section I: Pedagogical Opportunities in Blended Learning Classes
A. Empirical Evidence – Outcomes in Blended Classrooms
History has painted a two-sided scholarly argument over whether the qualities of the medium can affect learning[9]. On one extreme are researchers like Clark, a particularly vehement proponent of the impossibility of learning differences due to the medium an educational message used[10]. His argument is primarily based on the “replaceability” criterion: any learning outcome from a specific medium can be replicated using a different medium, and therefore the difference is not in the medium itself. The different qualities or attributes of a given medium are only more efficient for certain learners or goals; they are moderating, rather than independent, variables. For example, while a film can zoom in to show a close up of an insect’s wing, a teacher can draw it on the board; in both cases, the method of highlighting details is what impacts learning.
Research from Meta-Analyses
Decades’ worth of evidence comparing online versus traditional classroom settings has supported this hypothesis, starting with Clark’s own (1985) review of a meta-analysis conducted by Kulik, Kulik, and Schwalb. The original meta-analysis had found that computer-based education had positive effects on learning for adults. Clark sampled and re-analyzed 30% of the studies included in Kulik, Kulik, and Shwalb’s meta-analysis[11]. He concluded that media factors, such two-way communication and use of the Web, were not significant predictors of learning outcomes above and beyond methodological and/or pedagogical factors. Clark found that the research reviewed that did find learning effects from media attributes had confounded media and methodology variables.
Other reviews and meta-analyses that provide support to this position are Zhao et al. and Russell, 2001. Russell’s appropriately-named website http://www.nosignificantdifference.org/ and companion book, "The No Significant Difference Phenomenon", catalog 355 research reports, many of which share his conclusion of no learning differences dependent on delivery mode.
Likewise, Zhao and three colleagues (2005) conducted a meta-analytical study of research to determine factors that impact the effectiveness of distance education. Their work added to the literature that confirmed that there is “no significant difference in outcomes between distance learning and face-to-face education,” although, there were differences across studies. The authors noted that “not all distance education program are created equal.” They submit that important elements of a quality distance education program include: opportunities for interaction, the “presence” of a live instructor, and the right mix between human and technology.[12]
On the other side of the argument is Kozma (1994), who argued for years against Clark’s position. Kozma thought that even if there was no evidence at the time for the learning effects of media, it did not preclude the possibility of effects in the future. He believed that the attributes of a medium can directly influence learning outcomes. Some of the new media attributes he pointed to were media convergence, multimedia capabilities, and social connectivity.[13]
Intriguingly, the future Kozma imagined might be now, particularly when investigating hybrid courses. The previous meta-analytic work comparing traditional courses versus fully online courses found no significant differences, but current work comparing hybrid courses to traditional courses has found significant differences.
The strongest evidence of the benefits of a hybrid courses comes from meta-analysis of studies contrasting online (or blended) with face-to-face education[14]. Means et al. (2009) found that a blended curriculum best enhanced learning. Students who had a part or their entire course online achieved superior objective learning outcomes (g+ =.25, p<.001). Contrasts of completely face-to-face with blended courses only had even larger positive effects in learning outcomes in favor of the blended courses (g+ = .35, p.<001). This relationship was partially, but not completely, mediated by time; students had more time to complete online tasks than immediate tasks, and having more time was found to enhance learning. However, controlling for time on task still, courses with any online component still had better learning outcomes (g+ = .19, p<.001).
In the most recent meta-analysis, Bernard et al. (2014) focused on the details of blended learning (BL) courses to tease out demographic and pedagogical factors that moderate effects on learning achievement. 96 BL studies were included in the analysis, and then further separated out studies that had a clear control group using no technology, and studies having some technology in both groups. Study features were coded across four major categories; research design, publication demographics, course demographics, and pedagogy (Cohen’s K = .84). They found a modest, but significant benefit of blended learning: “In terms of percentile difference (i.e., U3 minus 50 %), students at the median of the control condition (i.e., no BL) would be expected to be 13.0 % higher in achievement had they experienced the BL conditions.” (p. 115). Their average effect size was in line with Means et al.’s (2009) at g+= 0.334 (k=117). They found no difference between STEM and non-STEM courses; both types of classes are appropriate for BL.
Research from Smaller Institutions Contrasting Undergraduate Blended Learning with Face-To-Face Instruction.
· Georgia Gwinnet College (2011) – GGC is a small, public liberal arts school. Napier, Dekhane and Smith evaluated student outcomes from the final exam and student satisfaction via mid- and end-of-term surveys for freshman and sophomores in a core computer literacy course. The data came from a total of five sections taught by three instructors. The authors offer the following outcomes: a) there was no meaningful difference in final exam performance outcomes between the blended and face-to-face section (i.e., hybrid sections performed slightly better than traditional sections on four of eight assessment goals, traditional sections performed slightly better on three goals, and both groups scored about the same on the remaining goal), b) there was no meaningful difference between student retention and c) average student ratings for the blended class were three points and above (on a five point scale). “Those who agreed to having trouble using technology reported lower overall satisfaction with the course as compared to the students who disagreed with the statement.” Students identified positive aspects as: flexibility, interaction with the professor, independent learning, prepared you for the real work, focus on learning and social presence. One the other hand, concerns included: requires discipline, requires time management skills, took away from class time, need to be comfortable with technology, and need to work outside of class.[15]
· West Chester University (2011) – Kenney, a faculty teaching undergraduate education psychology (professional education core for teacher preparation), conducted research that focused on five aspects of the student-learning experience in a blended class: student learning, engagement, preparation for the face-to-face meeting, participation and student interest in the material. “On the unit test, the blended section had a slightly higher average score (47.46 out of 60) than both the large, non-blended section (44.34) and the small, non-blended section (47.40)… Overall the results of the action research study were positive. The students using the blended format learned the content, and many indicated that their engagement, preparation, participation and interest increased. When asked if they preferred a blended to a traditional course, 35% preferred a blended format, 25% preferred a traditional approach and 39% were unsure. However, 78% recommended that the instructor continue using the blended approach.”[16]
· Bryn Mawr College - Empirical research on the application of blended learning in small liberal arts settings is still limited, so Bryn Mawr College created the Blended Learning in the Liberal Arts Initiative, to partner with 40 liberal arts universities and colleges to explore student learning outcomes. While the initiative is still in its infancy, early findings have been positive. They found it improved learning outcomes and that both students and faculty found it consistent with Liberal Arts values. For STEM courses, 93.5% of students in blended classes passed with a 2.0 or higher, versus 83% in non-blended courses. The faculty members have also found the hybrids to be worthwhile; every faculty member at Bryn Mawr who started with the pilot have continued teaching their courses as blended, as have the majority of faculty at their partner institutions[17].