Investigating Blended Learning in Undergraduate Education

Download Investigating Blended Learning in Undergraduate Education

Post on 26-May-2015

483 views

Category:

Education

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li> 1. COHERE 2013 Conference Open Resources, Open Courses: Their Impact on Blended and Online Learning October 24, 2013 | Vancouver, BCINVESTIGATING A BLENDING OF CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION WITH MOODLE IN UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES Dennis York, Ron Owston, Susan Murtha, and Janna Finkel</li></ul> <p> 2. OverviewAbout the ProjectModels of e-Learning ProgrammingMajor FindingsConclusionsMethodology 3. About the ProjectModels of e-Learning ProgrammingMajor FindingsConclusionsMethodology 4. About the Project Guided by the e-learning framework (Yorks eLearning Business Case, 2010) Respond to enrolment pressures Provide better experience for commuter students Better engage students Improve student learningInvolved three Faculties Faculty of Fine Arts Faculty of Health Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies Evaluation components Student experiences Moodle course website design Instructor experiences 5. About the ProjectModels of e-Learning ProgrammingMajor FindingsConclusionsMethodology 6. Models of e-Learning Programming Web-enhanced model No reduction of face-to-face timeBlended modelsBlend I (70:30 ratio) 1/3 in-class is replaced with online activitiesBlend II (50:50 ratio) In-class and online sessions are equally balancedBlend III Rotation of in-class lectures and online tutorials on a fixed scheduleBlend IV Rotation of online lectures and in-class tutorials on a fixed scheduleBlend V Rotation of on-class lectures and hybrid tutorialsFully online model All activities were conducted online 7. About the ProjectModels of e-Learning ProgrammingMajor FindingsConclusionsMethodology 8. Student Survey Adapted from existing surveys (Blended LearningToolkit, CLASSE, 2006; Cook et al., 2004; Garrison &amp; Vaughan, 2008) 23 likert-type and 6 multiple choice items address Course satisfaction E-learning preferences Flexibility Engagement and interaction 5,082 students across three Faculties 2,597 completed surveys (51% response rate) Learning outcomes A paper version of survey administered in class at the end of thesemester 9. Analytical Framework for Evaluation of Moodle Sites Guided by QM Rubric, Chicos Rubric for Online Instruction, andQuality Online Course Initiative Rubric Major criteria: Moodle organization and layout design Instructional design and delivery Student engagement Student support and resources 31 Moodle sites were evaluated (77.5%) 10. About the ProjectModels of e-Learning ProgrammingMajor FindingsConclusionsMethodology 11. eLearning Formats / ParticipantsBackground Courses: 40 e-Learning formats: Blended: 35 Online: 3 Web-enhanced: 2 Participants: 2,597 (51%) Traditional and mature students Class size: small, medium, and large Course level: introductory and advancedBlend II 369 (14%)Online, 90 (4%) Web-enhanced, 386 (15%)Blended, 2,121 (81%)Blend I 720 (28%)Blend III 348 (13%)Blend V Blend IV 160 (6%) 524 (20%) 12. Student participants 44.1% did not work16.9% worked less than 10 hours21.3% worked between 10 and 19 hours17.7% worked more than 20 hours76.7% commuted to campus23.3% lived on campus 13. Course SatisfactionAcross different blends *All courses 57.3%Online (90%) Blend I (70.9%) Blend II (73.5%)22.8%19.7% Web-enhanced (43.6%)Blend III (49.1%)Blend IV (40.5%) Blend V (44.3%)3.48 (1.13)*Based on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). 14. Learning Preferences (All Courses)Face-to-face formatFully online format38% Video lecturesBlended format47.7%14.1%Lectures41.1%35.0%22.1%Tutorials51.3%23.0%25.7%42.9%26.7%30.3%Online discussions In-class tutorialsDiscussions 15. Effectiveness of Technology Use 73%67%64%able to find course information easily at Moodlefound resources useful at Moodlefound technology used reliableOnline &amp; Blends I, II (79-91%) Blends III &amp; V (56-58%)Online &amp; Blends I, II (75-84%) Blends III &amp; V (48-53%)Online &amp; Blends I, II (74-94%) Blends III &amp; V (56-58%)19%reported technology interfered with learning Online &amp; Blends I, III &amp; Web (10-18%) Blends II, IV &amp; V (23-27%) 16. e-Learning Experiences Online, 96% Blend II, 85% Blend I, 70% Blend IV, 64% Blend V, 59% Blend III, 55% Web-enhanced, 30% Online, 96% Blend II, 70% Blend I, 65% Blend III, 39% Blend V, 36% Blend IV, 31% Web-enhanced, 16% Blend II, 37% Blend I, 30% Web-enhanced, 28% Online, 19% Blend III, 15% Blend IV, 14% Blend V, 13%Flexibility in personal schedule (63%)Travel time reduction (47%)Connection to other students (24%) Online, 16% Blend V, 18% Web-enhanced, 30% Blend I, 30% Blend III, 31% Blend II, 34% Blend IV, 35% Online, 25% Web-enhanced, 39% Blend V, 44% Blend II, 44% Blend I, 45% Blend III, 50% Blend IV, 51%Information overload (31%)Required extra effort (45%) 17. EngagementI was more engaged in this course Online56%All courses Blend II46%31.9% Blend I 32.2%44%Blend V24%Web-enhanced24%35.3% Blend III 2.91 (1.21)21%Blend IV16% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% 18. Interaction (31%)(27%)46%Blend II36%38%Blend I32%37%Web-enhanced29%20%Online30%20%Blend III19%21%Blend V15%19%Blend IV19% 19. Learning Outcomes Increased interest in material (56%) Improved understanding of key concepts (51%) Online (79%) Blend I, II (67-63%) Blends IV, V, Web (43-47%) Online (76%) Blends I, II (60-64%) Blend IV, Web (45-47%) Blends III, V (35-38%) Online, Blends I, II (33-35%)Developed better Blend V, Web (25-27%) communication skills (27%) Blend IV (16%) Online, Blend II (54%)More opportunities to reflect Blend I, V (45-49%) (39%) Web, Blend IV (26-31%) 20. IntroductionModels of e-Learning ProgrammingMajor FindingsConclusionsMethodology 21. Blends I and II Most effective blended models Blend I Needs improvementNearly a third of scheduled course time to be spent in class was replaced with online activities- High course satisfaction - Better learning outcomes - Easy to navigate Moodle sites - Useful online resources - Flexibility in personal schedule - Travel time reduction Blend II A blending of in-class and online sessions is equally balanced with a split of roughly 50-50 between time face-toface and online instructional- Strengthen an online community of learners - Improve engagement - Increase online interaction with instructorSuccess factors 22. Blends III, IV and V Least effective blended models Blend III A rotation on a fixed weekly schedule between in-class lectures and participation in TA-facilitated Moodle discussionsSuccess factors- Low satisfaction - Weak community ties - Low level of engagement and interaction - Less positive about learning outcomes Blend IV A rotation of online lectures and in-class tutorials facilitated by TAs Blend V A rotation of in-class lectures and participation in TA-facilitated hybrid tutorials (on-campus and using Moodle discussions)- Easy to navigate Moodle sites - Somewhat positive about flexibility and reduction of travel timeNeeds improvement 23. RecommendationsImplications Emphasize active learning Proportion of time spent online is an influence on student satisfaction and other related perceptions*. Findings provide some guidance for (re)designing blended courses in choosing the amount of time instructors want students to spend on online activities. Greater student engagement with the material and with oneanother Reach out to students of different needs and preferences Take advantage of a diverse repertoire of online tools withinMoodle Improve student support on Moodle course sites Increase on-demand, individualized assistance*Contingent upon the instructors teaching style and/or course subject. Consider the differences of reading online text Think carefully about strategies of organizing and presentingcourse information on Moodle 24. Contact us For more information Dennis York dennis_york@edu.yorku.caRon Owston rowston@edu.yorku.ca</p>

Recommended

View more >