investigating blended learning in undergraduate education
TRANSCRIPT
INVESTIGATING A BLENDING OF CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION WITH MOODLE IN UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION:
OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
Dennis York, Ron Owston, Susan Murtha, and Janna Finkel
COHERE 2013 ConferenceOpen Resources, Open Courses: Their Impact on Blended and Online LearningOctober 24, 2013 | Vancouver, BC
Overview
About the ProjectModels of e-Learning
ProgrammingMethodology
Major Findings Conclusions
About the ProjectModels of e-Learning
ProgrammingMethodology
Major Findings Conclusions
About the Project
• Respond to enrolment pressures• Provide better experience for commuter students• Better engage students• Improve student learning
Guided by the e-learning framework (York’s eLearning Business Case, 2010)
• Faculty of Fine Arts• Faculty of Health• Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies
Involved three Faculties
• Student experiences• Moodle course website design• Instructor experiences
Evaluation components
About the ProjectModels of e-Learning
ProgrammingMethodology
Major Findings Conclusions
Models of e-Learning Programming
• No reduction of face-to-face timeWeb-enhanced model
• 1/3 in-class is replaced with online activitiesBlend I (70:30 ratio)
• In-class and online sessions are equally balanced Blend II (50:50 ratio)
• Rotation of in-class lectures and online tutorials on a fixed scheduleBlend III
• Rotation of online lectures and in-class tutorials on a fixed scheduleBlend IV
• Rotation of on-class lectures and hybrid tutorialsBlend V
• All activities were conducted onlineFully online model
Ble
nd
ed m
od
els
About the ProjectModels of e-Learning
ProgrammingMethodology
Major Findings Conclusions
Student Survey • Adapted from existing surveys (Blended Learning Toolkit, CLASSE, 2006; Cook et al., 2004; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008)
• 23 likert-type and 6 multiple choice items address• Course satisfaction• E-learning preferences• Flexibility • Engagement and interaction• Learning outcomes
• A paper version of survey administered in class at the end of the semester
• 5,082 students across three Faculties
• 2,597 completed surveys (51% response rate)
Analytical Framework for Evaluation of
Moodle Sites
• Guided by QM Rubric, Chico’s Rubric for Online Instruction, and Quality 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%)
About the ProjectModels of e-Learning
ProgrammingMethodology
Major Findings Conclusions
eLearning Formats / Participants
Blend I720 (28%)
Blend II369 (14%)
Blend III348 (13%)
Blend IV524 (20%)
Blend V160 (6%)
Blended,2,121 (81%)
Online, 90 (4%)
Web-enhanced, 386 (15%)
• 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 advanced
Background
Student participants
44.1% • did not work
16.9%• worked less
than 10 hours
21.3%• worked
between 10 and 19 hours
17.7%• worked more
than 20 hours
76.7% commuted to campus
23.3% lived on campus
Course Satisfaction
Web-enhanced (43.6%)
Blend I (70.9%)
Blend II (73.5%)
Blend III (49.1%) Blend IV (40.5%)
Blend V (44.3%)
Online (90%)
Across different blends
All courses
Δ57.3%
Δ22.8%
Δ19.7%
Δ3.48 (1.13) *Based on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
*
Learning Preferences (All Courses)
Face-to-face format Blended format Fully online format
38% 47.7% 14.1%
Lectures
Tutorials
Discussions
41.1%
51.3%
42.9%
35.0%
23.0%
26.7%
22.1%
25.7%
30.3%
Video lectures
Online discussions
In-class tutorials
Effectiveness of Technology Use
able to find course
information easily at Moodle
Δ73%
found resources useful at Moodle
Δ67%
found technology used reliable
Δ64%
reported technology
interfered with learning
Δ19%
Online & Blends I, II (79-91%)Blends III & V (56-58%)
Online & Blends I, II (75-84%)
Blends III & V (48-53%)
Online & Blends I, II (74-94%)Blends III & V (56-58%)
Online & Blends I, III & Web (10-18%)Blends II, IV & V (23-27%)
e-Learning Experiences
• Online, 96%• Blend II, 85%• Blend I, 70%• Blend IV, 64%• Blend V, 59%• Blend III, 55%• Web-enhanced, 30%
Flexibility in personal schedule (Δ63%)
• Online, 96%• Blend II, 70%• Blend I, 65%• Blend III, 39%• Blend V, 36%• Blend IV, 31%• Web-enhanced, 16%
Travel time reduction (Δ47%)
• Blend II, 37%• Blend I, 30%• Web-enhanced, 28%• Online, 19%• Blend III, 15%• Blend IV, 14%• Blend V, 13%
Connection to other students (Δ24%)
• Online, 16%• Blend V, 18%• Web-enhanced, 30%• Blend I, 30%• Blend III, 31%• Blend II, 34%• Blend IV, 35%
Information overload (Δ31%)
• Online, 25%• Web-enhanced, 39%• Blend V, 44%• Blend II, 44%• Blend I, 45%• Blend III, 50%• Blend IV, 51%
Required extra effort (Δ45%)
Engagement
All courses
Δ31.9%
Δ32.2%
Δ35.3%
Δ2.91 (1.21)
I was more engaged in this course
Blend IV
Blend III
Web-enhanced
Blend V
Blend I
Blend II
Online
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
16%
21%
24%
24%
44%
46%
56%
Interaction
(Δ31%) (Δ27%)
Blend II
Web-enhanced
Blend IV
Blend III
Blend V
Online
Blend I
46%
38%
37%
20%
20%
21%
19%
32%
29%
30%
19%
15%
19%
36%
Learning Outcomes
Increased interest in material (Δ56%)
Improved understanding of key concepts (Δ51%)
Developed better communication skills (Δ27%)
More opportunities to reflect (Δ39%)
• 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%)• Blend V, Web (25-27%)• Blend IV (16%)
• Online, Blend II (54%)• Blend I, V (45-49%)• Web, Blend IV (26-31%)
IntroductionModels of e-Learning
ProgrammingMethodology
Major Findings Conclusions
Blends I and II – Most effective
blended models
• Blend I• Nearly a third of
scheduled course time to be spent in class was replaced with online activities
• Blend II• A blending of in-class
and online sessions is equally balanced with a split of roughly 50-50 between time face-to-face and online instructional
- High course satisfaction
- Better learning outcomes
- Easy to navigate Moodle sites
- Useful online resources
- Flexibility in personal schedule
- Travel time reduction
- Strengthen an online community of learners
- Improve engagement
- Increase online interaction with instructor
Success factors
Needs improvement
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 discussions
• 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)
- Low satisfaction
- Weak community ties
- Low level of engagement and interaction
- Less positive about learning outcomes
- Easy to navigate Moodle sites
- Somewhat positive about flexibility and reduction of travel time
Success factors
Needs improvement
Implications• Emphasize active learning
• Greater student engagement with the material and with one another
• Reach out to students of different needs and preferences• Take advantage of a diverse repertoire of online tools within
Moodle
• Improve student support on Moodle course sites• Increase on-demand, individualized assistance
• Consider the differences of reading online text • Think carefully about strategies of organizing and presenting
course information on Moodle
• 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.
Recommendations
*Contingent upon the instructors’ teaching style and/or course subject.
