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

Patricia.mcgee@utsa.eduThis 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/