The Blended Learning Toolkit: A DIY Platform for Blended Learning Faculty Development

The Blended Learning Toolkit: A DIY Platform for Blended Learning Faculty Development

Kelvin Thompson, Ed.D.University of Central Florida

#slnsolsummit #blendkit

@kthompso

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

http://bit.ly/suny12_thompson

Caveats• No widely accepted definition of blended learning• Blended = “best/worst of both worlds”• Blended learning best conceptualized as f2f-enhanced web

course• Integration of f2f and online is perhaps the most elusive of

concepts for blended instructors• Materials shared here are targeted at those transitioning

from f2f-only experience but may be applicable to those with prior online or blended experience

• No one-size-fits-all answers• Goal: Provide resources you can include in faculty

development for blended learning

3

Caveats

• Please follow along! (short urls throughout)• Polls interspersed throughout

– Text messaging (send to 37607)– Twitter (tweet to @poll)– Web site (go to http://PollEv.com/blendkit)

• Specific codes to use for each response option on each poll

• A LOT to introduce, so please jot down thoughts for the end

4

BLENDED LEARNING @ UCFAn Institutional Profile

Blended Learning at UCF

Fully Online CoursesBlended Learning Courses

n n

500% growth in blended courses

UCF Fall 2008 Headcount

33,08765.8% 7,127

14.2%2,8475.7%

3630.7% 923

1.8%1,436 2.9% 2,046

4.1%

1,3012.6%

1370.3%

8651.7%

1110.2%

“Live” Main Campus Students43,466

“Live” Rosen Campus Students2,446

Web Students11,514

“Live” Regional Students4,800

UCF Fall 2009 Headcount

“Live” Regional Students4,809

Web Students14,543

“Live” Main Campus Students45,988

33,98863.5% 8,593

16.1%3,6376.8%

3750.7% 1,030

1.9%1,497 2.8%

1,8863.6%

8271.6%

6971.3%

7821.5%

2040.4%

“Live” Rosen Campus Students2,531

34,05960.6% 10,363

18.4%4,1137.3%

4780.9%

1,2132.1%

1,490 2.7%

2,0493.6%

7581.4%

7641.4%

6951.2%

2340.4%

UCF Fall 2010 Headcount

Web Students17,172

“Live” Regional Students5,251

“Live” Rosen Campus Students2,472

“Live” Main Campus Students47,926

Blended Learning at UCF

Blended Learning 2009-2010 Academic Year

Totals since 2002

Sections 681 5,031Registrations 24,241 160,860Student Credit Hours (SCH) 70,438 476,823

Course Evaluation Ratings

Course Modality % Overall “Excellent”

Blended 51.2%

Fully Online 48.3%

Face to Face 48.2%

Lecture Capture (with classroom) 43.4%

Lecture Capture (no classroom) 41.6%

N = 672,185

Student Success Rates by Modality

Series10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10087

9187 88 9188

9591 91 94

88 88 86 88 88

Pe

rce

nt

Spring 09 Summer 09 Fall 09 Spring 10 Summer 10

F2F (n=618,899)

Blended (n=39,021)

Fully Online (n=109,421)

Withdrawal Rates by Modality

Series10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

4 3 3 3 24 2 3 3 15 4 4 5 4

Perc

ent

Spring 09

Summer09

Fall 09

Spring 10

Summer 10

F2F (n=551,065) Blended (n=39,769) Fully Online (n=109,495)

Student Satisfaction in Fully Online and Blended Courses

39%

Fully online (N = 1,526)Blended (N = 485)

41%

11% 9%

Very SatisfiedUnsatisfiedSatisfied

Neutral

38%44%

9%

Very Unsatisfied

3%5%

1%

Per

cent

Faculty Willingness to Teach Web/Blended Courses in the Future

Positive

Neutralor

negativeOnlinen=71

BlendedN=53

Modality

81%

16%

2%

69%

13%

10%6% 4%

DefinitelyProbablyProbably notDefinitely not

OVERVIEWThe Blended Learning Toolkit

16

UCF/AASCU NGLC Project Overview

• Scale the proven UCF Blended Learning model via the national AASCU network of more than 420 institutions and systems

• Starting with 20 targeted schools selected for their alignment with NGLC objectives (under 26, low income)

17

Scale UCF Model of Blended Learning

• Across 20 AASCU institutions and 11 states

18

PartnersIndividual Institutions State Coordinating Institutions State Participating Institutions

Columbus State University Missouri Harris-Stowe State University

Fayetteville State University

Southeast Missouri State University

Lincoln University of Missouri

Grambling State University Missouri Southern State University

Northwestern State University (LA) Missouri State University

Indiana University Kokomo University of Missouri-St. Louis

Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi Alabama University of North Alabama

The College at Brockport, State University of New York

Troy University University of South Alabama

Thomas Edison State College Minnesota St. Cloud State University

University of Maine at Fort Kent Winona State University

19

20

Project Overview• An open educational resource (OER) Blended

Learning Toolkit containing:– Best practices, strategies, models, and course

design principles.– Two OER prototype courses in Composition and

Algebra. – Faculty development resources– Assessment and data collection protocols, including

survey instruments and standards.

21

Goals for BlendKit Course

• Design and develop your blended learning course

• Consideration of key issues related to blended learning and practical guidance in helping you produce actual materials for your blended course (i.e., from design documents through creating content pages to peer review feedback at your own institutions).

22

BlendKit Course Materials

• Instructional modules• BlendKit Reader• Do-It-Yourself design tasks• Recordings of interdisciplinary faculty interviews• Recordings of online webinar discussions with

faculty group

http://bit.ly/blendkit 25

GUIDED TOURBlendKit Course Materials

26

BlendKit Reader

• Designed to stimulate scholarly reflection/discussion

• “Questions to Ponder” for each chapter• Drawn from Creative Commons licensed material

(except as noted) plus original content• Five chapters (7-14 pages each)• Available in html, pdf, and ebook (mobi & epub)

http://bit.ly/blendkit_reader 27

Recordings

• Interdisciplinary faculty from three institutions:– Instructor audio interviews [10 minutes each]– Webinar sessions with Q&A [30 minutes each]

• Understanding Blended Learning• Blended Interactions• Blended Assessments of Learning• Blended Content & Assignments• Quality Assurance

http://bit.ly/blendkit_recordings 33

DIY Tasks

• Step-by-step guides for many common development tasks– Explanations– Templates– Examples

• Five broad tasks with at least 2 sub-tasks each• Substantive in specificity!

http://bit.ly/blendkit_diy 38

DIY Tasks

Task 01: Conceptualize Your Blended Learning CourseTask 02: Design for Interaction in Your Blended Learning CourseTask 03: Decide Upon Assessments of Learning in Your Blended Learning CourseTask 04: Develop Content/Assignment Pages for Your Blended Learning CourseTask 05: Assure Quality in Your Blended Learning Course

http://bit.ly/blendkit_diy

39

COURSE BLUEPRINTTask 01: Conceptualize Your Blended Course

40

41

42

43

44

45

Course Blueprint

• Easily by-passed, but don’t!• High level overview mapping course goals to

assignments• Use electronic version or just do it on a piece of paper

– Word template looks cool but doc versions may cause problems

• May be “in your head,” but get it out on paper• Ignore delivery mode (f2f v. online) initially

– Focus on identifying the best activities to achieve the course goals

46

MIX MAPTask 01: Conceptualize Your Blended Course

47

48

49

50

Mix Map• Identify a mode (f2f, online, both) for all components• Suggested approach – online course with face-to-face

enhancements• How to decide on delivery mode:

– Start with your absolutes - What has to be delivered face-to-face or online? What works best in one environment v. the other?

– Next – What will work in either environment?– Note: You may need to modify an existing activity to fit a new

delivery mode. (See Task 3)

• Map out your overall strategy paying particular attention to how the two environments integrate– Integration is the single most challenging issue in blended learning!

51

CREATE COURSE DOCUMENT DRAFTS

Task 02: Design for Interaction

52

53

54

55

56

Create Course Documents

• Emphasis on single-purpose online documents (Neidorf, 2006)

• Making the formerly implicit (f2f) explicit (online)

• Clear articulation of student expectations• Some people prefer “print-friendly”

versions (e.g., pdf) over HTML – TIP: See accessibility guidelines!

57

USING ZAPTTask 02: Design for Interaction

58

59

60

61

62

Using Zapt

• HTML is truly cross-platform (all can view)• Accessible HTML avoids weird code• Zapt tool is very easy if initial set-up doesn’t

scare you away!• Note: Formatting instructions (CSS files) are

housed on UCF servers– Pro: Immediate set-up– Con: Must upload to preview

Trusting that we’ll keep them online63

MODULE INTERACTION WORKSHEET

Task 02: Design for Interaction

64

65

66

67

68

Module Interaction Worksheet

• Builds upon Blueprint and Mix Map tasks• Sets the stage for Creating Module Pages• Assumes that one will be developing

online modules– Several questions useful for designing

interaction independent of module– Possibly think “weeks” instead of modules

• Another opportunity to consider integration of f2f and online

69

ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONSTask 03: Decide Upon Assessments of Learning

70

71

72

73

Assignment Instructions• Remember to revise Blueprint and Course Docs as ideas evolve!

• Goal: Standalone documents with perfect clarity of expectations• The clearer the written communication, the more time is freed for f2f activities.

• Goal: Make the formerly implicit explicit– However, written instructions could be distributed f2f or online.

• Make sure students understand how each assignment links online and f2f • Do not duplicate assignments or content between f2f and online

– Ex: Reading assignments as homework and then cover content in class. Make sure class discussion covers items subject to confusion and expands on reading through examples, case studies, etc.

– If online assignment is an extension of f2f discussion/activity, ensure students understand what needs to be added or expanded in the online assignment.

74

CONFIGURE ONLINE QUIZ SETTINGSTask 03: Decide Upon Assessments of Learning

75

76

77

Configure Online Quiz Settings

• A primer for online assessment– Minimize motivation for cheating– Examine biases for assessment in one mode

over another– Make assumptions explicit (e.g., collaboration,

etc.)– Opportunity to review cognitive level of existing

assessments

• Specifics will be determined by your CMS/testing software

78

CREATE MODULE PAGESTask 04: Develop Content/Assignment Pages

79

80

81

82

83

Create Module Pages

• A possible extension of earlier Assignment Instructions and Module Interaction tasks

• Goal: Standalone documents with perfect clarity of expectations

• The clearer the written communication, the more time is freed for f2f activities.

• One cohesive whole from which students may access assignment instructions, course content, etc.

84

MODULE TEMPLATETask 04: Develop Content/Assignment Pages

85

86

87

Module Template

• Use as a starting point• Decide upon all elements to include in your

modules (e.g, objectives, content, references)• Use Word style sheet (e.g., “Heading 1,” etc.)• Review Assignment Instructions for possible

module headings/sub-headings• Maintain consistency from one module to next• Use Zapt to generate accessible HTML if you

wish

88

BLENDED COURSEIMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST

Task 05: Assure Quality

89

90

91

Implementation Checklist

• Very generic steps!• Incorporate your institution’s requirements• Structured approach is reminiscent of managing

an online course (may feel unusual for f2f)• Note numerous cues for fostering integration of

f2f/online• Note emphasis on iterative design (e.g., simple

design feedback collection punch list for next version)

92

BLENDED COURSE SELF-ASSESSMENT/PEER REVIEW FORM

Task 05: Assure Quality

93

94

95

96

97

Self-Assessment/Peer Review Form

• Many elements are common to courses in all modes

• Blended-specific sections– First (“Course Expectations”)– Last (“Implementation of Blended”)

• Evaluate it yourself, but there’s no substitute for a new set of eyes!

• Identify a trusted colleague • Note evaluation of design vs. implementation

98

Instructional Modules

• Pulls together all BlendKit Course materials (readings, tasks, etc.)

• Each module anchored to– one focus question– 3-4 learning objectives

http://bit.ly/blendkit_activities 100

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT LESSONS LEARNED

107

BlendKit2011

• Open online course focused on blended learning– Publicly accessible readings, document templates, and

how-to instructions

+– Five weeks of facilitation:

• Weekly encouraging messages• Weekly 30 min. webinars featuring guest blended learning

instructors & discussion with others• Weekly reading/activity reflection prompts for blogging (more

interaction with others).• Social networking opportunities for more interaction

108

Why an Open Online Course?

• Open materials may be used at any time for self-study well beyond the NGLC grant period

• No differences in course management systems to get in the way of the course

• Easier for participants to self-select course components with which to engage

• More diverse group, larger number of participants with whom to interact

109

= NGLC Institution= Non-NGLC Institution

110

Lessons Learned

• Many participants would’ve preferred more structure

• Next time: Use CMS as home base• Consider more traditional participation

roles– Successful completion = submitting required

assignments– Auditing = all other participation

• Consider implementing open badges111

BlendKit2012?

• Possibly offering another cohort option in summer 2012

• Get on the mailing list: http://bit.ly/blendkit_mailinglist

Ideas for Adaptation

• Use the BlendKit Reader for discussion group• Link to specific components as you wish• All materials are licensed for reuse/remixing

– Download, edit, and upload to your own web site– Modify materials and send copies to us for

uploading

• Other ideas?• Contact us for brainstorming!

113

Blended Teaching Strategies

Teaching Online Pedagogical Repositoryhttp://topr.online.ucf.edu

What Is It?

a resource to support the curation of effective pedagogical practices in online and blended courses

individual entries include:• strategy description drawn from the pedagogical

practice of online/blended teaching faculty • artifacts depicting the strategy from actual courses• alignment with cited findings from research or

professional practice literature

All released for reuse/remix under Creative Commons

• 30+ published strategies relevant to online and blended courses

• New strategies added/updated regularly• Categorized by Content, Interaction, or Assessment• Get ideas for your blended course design!

QUESTIONS?COMMENTS?DISCUSSION?

118

Thanks!

Kelvin Thompson, Ed.D.kelvin@ucf.edu (connect to faculty dev. group)http://twitter.com/kthompsohttps://profiles.google.com/drkelvinthompson

Slides: http://bit.ly/suny12_thompson

http://bit.ly/blendkit