Teaching and Learning Priority Fund Final Report: Blended Online Learning Design (BOLD)

Submitted by Ellen Rose Faculty of Education

May 13, 2019

Project Context, Purpose, and Objectives Recognizing the benefits for student satisfaction and learning that synchronous delivery offers, instructors in the Faculty of Education (as well as other faculties, particularly Nursing) have been increasingly attempting to integrate synchronous elements (particularly videoconferencing) into their online courses, but these efforts are severely limited by a lack of knowledge about how to go about intertwining these two modalities to best support teaching and learning. The purpose of this project was to conduct research into blended online learning in order to identify best practices for blending the two modalities, with the goal of supporting UNB instructors who wish to incorporate synchronous elements into their online courses. The specific objectives were:

to provide evidence-based best practices for how synchronous and asynchronous elements can be combined in course delivery

to increase awareness (within the Faculty of Education and potentially throughout the university) about the benefits of blended online learning design and the different ways that asynchronous and synchronous elements can be combined to promote a positive learning experience

to identify resources, including tools and technologies, that can be used to support and implement these practices

Project Activities and Accomplishments Literature review. In June 2018, I hired Education student Kendra Haines as the graduate research assistant for this project. Kendra immediately began conducting a literature review of articles on BOLD and, more generally, the combination of synchronous and asynchronous elements in online learning. While research on blended learning (combining face-to-face and online delivery) is plentiful, research on blended online learning is quite new and therefore limited. Kendra eventually located 15 relevant articles (see Appendix A: “Articles About BOLD”). At this time, she also began searching for examples of blended online learning, which proved to be even more difficult to find (see Appendix A: “BOLD Examples”). Interview. On July 17, 2018, Kendra and I held a Skyped interview with Dr. Michael Power of Laval University, who has spearheaded research on BOLD (and who in fact coined the term). Although this was a very productive discussion, Dr. Power suggested that one of our objectives, to identify best practices for the combination of synchronous and asynchronous elements, was probably not realistic, because such decisions depend greatly on the instructional context (i.e., learners, objectives, and

E. Rose TLPF Final Report 2

course content). As a result of this conversation, we determined that it was more appropriate to identify guidelines (rather than best practices) for the effective blending of synchronous and asynchronous elements. Identification of a new videoconferencing system. Several months before the start of this project, I met with Ian Allen and Nikki Whyte at CEL to voice my concerns about the videoconferencing system we were compelled to use (Skype for Business), which did not meet our needs. CEL’s work on finding an alternative, more appropriate synchronous technology took place during the summer of 2018, and eventually, through a process of selection in which I participated, CEL settled on Zoom, which was implemented in August 2018. The purchase and implementation of Zoom site licenses changed the tenor of this project, which was initially conceived with the aim, in part, of identifying free or low-cost synchronous tools and resources that we could use in lieu of Skype for Business. With this issue resolved, we were free to focus on our other objectives: identifying guidelines for BOLD and increasing faculty awareness of BOLD and BOLD options. COHERE Conference. During the meeting with Dr. Power, he advised that Kendra and I attend the forthcoming Collaboration for Online Higher Education Research (COHERE) conference, because its theme was blended online learning. Taking his advice, we submitted a proposal to the conference, which was accepted. In late October of 2018, we travelled to the COHERE conference at Laval University, where, along with Dr. Amanda Benjamin, we presented on “BOLD Moves from Three Perspectives: The UNB Faculty of Education Experience” (see Appendix B for an abstract of this presentation). The presentation was well received. In addition, the conference was an excellent opportunity for us to hear about the experiences of other universities in making the transition to BOLD, as well to benefit from the research and perspectives of experts. One message shone through loud and clear from all the presentations and discussions: a key to the success of the implementation of BOLD is the centrality of the learners and the learners’ needs in all decision making. As Drs. Jennifer Lock and Marti Cleveland-Innes said in their presentation, implementing BOLD without offering increased interaction, flexibility, and independence for learners is pointless. Dr. Power made the similar point that BOLD has no value in itself but only insofar as it is used to help particular students have a rich learning experience. I noted that many of the universities represented at this conference were implementing BOLD within contexts in which instruction had been either purely face-to-face or synchronous. In such cases, the addition of synchronous elements was seen as enhancing flexibility. UNB’s Faculty of Education is in a very different position. Because our online offerings are primarily asynchronous, the addition of synchronous elements may actually be perceived by students as a reduction in flexibility. (My interactions with students in my role as Associate Dean of Graduate Programs suggest that this is the case.) Kaleidoscope poster. By December 2018, we had amassed quite a lot of information about BOLD and, in the interests of promoting faculty awareness about it, we synthesized some of it in a poster, which was presented at the Kaleidoscope teaching showcase on December 7. The poster (see Appendix C) identified the benefits and challenges of implementing BOLD, as well as some possible future directions. We were encouraged by the interest Kaleidoscope attendees seemed to have in blended approaches to online learning. D2L and information sheets. Our final activity and accomplishment, ongoing over several months, was the synthesis of all our research into a series of information sheets (see Appendix A), which were then

E. Rose TLPF Final Report 3

uploaded into Desire-2-Learn Brightspace, with the idea that this resource would eventually be made available to UNB instructors. Lessons Learned

Blended online learning can make for a very rich learning experience, but it is not always the best solution. In making decisions about whether or not to use BOLD, and in subsequently making decisions about how to implement asynchronous and synchronous technologies within BOLD, the foremost consideration must always be the learners and their needs.

A principle challenge with respect to BOLD is knowing how best to combine and use the synchronous and asynchronous elements. Research in this area is very new, and technology is a constantly moving target, but it is possible to extrapolate some guidelines that support such decisions.

Another challenge associated with BOLD is the need for instructors to master the use of two different technologies. Synchronous communications in particular require the ability to work with not only the videoconferencing software but mics and cameras. BOLD will only be used, and used successfully, insofar as technical support for this innovation is readily available.

When synchronous elements are added to online asynchronous courses, students may tend to perceive them as causing a reduction in flexibility and convenience. Therefore, it is important to ensure that students as well as instructors are aware of the benefits of BOLD and the rationale for using it.

Moving Forward

Our exploration of how best to combine synchronous and asynchronous elements in an online course has been very productive, timely, and important, given that we can anticipate that BOLD will continue to play an increasingly central role in the delivery of graduate courses. I intend to share what I have learned with my colleagues in the Faculty of Education, and I welcome opportunities to extend the discussion to the wider university community through D2L, presentations, teaching and learning showcases, and other forums.

E. Rose TLPF Final Report 4

Appendix A: BOLD Information Sheets

What is BOLD?

BOLD Benefits and Challenges

Guidelines for Making BOLD Decisions

BOLD Examples

Getting Started with BOLD

BOLD Implementation Checklist

Articles About BOLD

E. Rose TLPF Final Report 5

What is BOLD?

Blended Online Learning Design (BOLD) is a form of purely online learning that combines asynchronous elements, such as D2L and email, with synchronous elements, such as videoconferencing and chat. Each mode has its strengths and weaknesses. Combining them within a single course leverages the strengths while overcoming the weaknesses, as shown in the table below:

Weaknesses of Asynchronous Delivery

Strengths of Synchronous Delivery

Weaknesses of Synchronous Delivery

Strengths of Asynchronous Delivery

lack of presence and community

responses and feedback are delayed

attention, motivation, and engagement diminished because of delayed response

strong sense of presence and community

immediate feedback and responses

student attention, motivation, and engagement increased because response is immediate

inflexibility – students are required to be online at the same time

students don’t have time to reflect on new information or complex issues

flexibility – students are able to log on at any time that’s convenient

students have time to reflect on new information and complex issues

BOLD is relatively new, and there is therefore little research about it. Nevertheless, early research suggests that combining asynchronous and synchronous elements within a course can have positive effects on student engagement and learning.

BOLD Benefits and Challenges

E. Rose TLPF Final Report 6

BOLD Benefits Leverages the strengths of synchronous delivery (learner engagement and

presence) and asynchronous delivery (convenience, structure, time for reflection)

Provides a flexible learning environment with a variety of learning modes and modalities

Promotes a sense of community and belonging that is essential to learning (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004) but not easily achievable in purely asynchronous courses

Lowers upfront design time when compared to asynchronous delivery (Power & Vaughan, 2010)

Leverages faculty strengths (e.g., leading discussions, stimulating reflection) rather than requiring skills (e.g., instructional design) for which they may lack training (Power & St. Jacques, 2014)

BOLD Challenges There are few clear guidelines on how to blend synchronous and

asynchronous elements because many factors come into play, including the nature of the subject matter, instructor and student openness to new teaching and learning approaches, and institutional support

Learners accustomed to purely asynchronous delivery may perceive the inclusion of a synchronous element as a reduction in flexibility

Support for instructors and students to engage in BOLD is often lacking (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004)

References Garrison, D.R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its

transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95-105.

Power, M., & St-Jacques, A. (2014). The graduate virtual classroom webinar: A collaborative and constructivist online teaching strategy. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(4), 681-695.

E. Rose TLPF Final Report 7

Power, M. & Vaughan, N. (2010). Redesigning Online Learning for International Graduate Seminar Delivery. Journal of Distance Education. 24(2), 19-38.

E. Rose TLPF Final Report 8

Guidelines for Making BOLD Design Decisions

For those turning to BOLD, the online world offers a wealth of resources. However, the overwhelming number of options can complicate blended online learning design decisions. In particular, because BOLD is so new, we still know very little about how to combine the synchronous and asynchronous elements in order to best enhance student engagement and learning. Fadde and Vu (2014) articulate the principal challenge for instructors wishing to use BOLD, which is “to decide which instructional activities are enhanced by synchronous interaction” (p. 9) and which are best conducted within the asynchronous environment of a learning management system such as D2L Brightspace. Kerres and DeWitt (2003) concur that "The major challenge is how to find the right mix for a blended learning arrangement" (p. 101). As with any instructional decisions, the primary guiding considerations are the learners and the content. Some learners need the reflective space of asynchronous discussions while others thrive in more rapid-fire synchronous interchanges—and one advantage of BOLD is that instructors can meet the needs of both of these groups by giving them options in how they communicate. By the same token, some content areas lend themselves more readily to dynamic synchronous discussions, while research suggests that asynchronous delivery of new, complex content is most appropriate because it increases the learners’ ability to process the new information (Robert & Dennis, 2005). In fact, Robert and Dennis suggest that the higher degree of social presence in synchronous media “may aid in the communication of simple ideas but hinder the communication of complex ideas” (p. 10). However, while asynchronous messages can be easily ignored, synchronous communications with high social presence (e.g., videoconferencing) require high levels of attention and motivation by the learners, making this mode of communication more

E. Rose TLPF Final Report 9

appropriate for communicating information that is urgent or requires a response from the learners. The result, say Robert and Dennis, is a “paradox of richness”: the media that allow learners the opportunity to process information are not best at garnering their attention and motivation. The solution they propose is switching strategically between asynchronous and synchronous modes of delivery. For example, new ideas could be first presented in synchronous media, to garner attention and motivation, and then further explored within asynchronous contexts, to support reflection and comprehension. Hrastinski (2008) reaches a similar conclusion, suggesting that the two modes complement each other, and combinations should be made strategically, recognizing that “synchronous e-learning better supports personal participation and asynchronous e-learning better supports cognitive participation” (p. 55). Kerres and DeWitt (2003) offer the 3C model to help guide BOLD decisions. The three Cs stand for content, communication (between learners and instructors), and constructive component (involving individual and cooperative learning activities). They emphasize that asynchronous media are most appropriate for sharing content, but like Robert and Dennis and Hrastinski, they suggest that communication and construction are best served by shifting between asynchronous and synchronous media. For example:

In a typical blended learning scenario learners…shift from asynchronous group work on an assignment to synchronous communication, when they have finished their individual tasks, and when they need more input or feedback from other group members or tutors. In a synchronous setting, group members can update their common understanding, and reach shared meanings and interpretations. (p. 107)

In short, while there are no research-proven guidelines for how to use BOLD in every situation, we can say that there are particular uses for which synchronous and asynchronous elements are, by nature, best suited, as summarized in the following table:

Use synchronous delivery for: Use asynchronous delivery for:

E. Rose TLPF Final Report 10

Getting to know each other and stimulating social interaction at the beginning of the course

Creating a “community of inquiry”

Starting each week or session with a “social component” (Power & St-Jacques, p. 687)

Discussing issues that are familiar or not complex

Delivering content that “inspires natural debate or passion” (Schwier & Balbar, 2002, p. 6)

Discussions related to the logistics of group collaborations and projects

Debates

Role plays

“Group activities requiring peer and faculty support, just-in-time feedback and learner community presence” (Power & St-Jacques, 2014, p. 685)

Virtual office hours (Power & Vaughan, 2010)

Giving and receiving immediate feedback (e.g., polling)

Delivering complex or dry content that requires time for processing and reflection (Hrastinski, 2008; Schwier & Balbar, 2002)

Providing students with assigned content (readings, videos, etc.) which they are expected to read or view prior to discussions

Providing self-paced individual learning activities “that require pressure-free, reflective thinking” (Power & St-Jacques, 2014, p. 685)

Group project collaborations

In-depth discussion requiring reflection and higher-order processing

Providing reminders

Monitoring student progress

Organizing peer assessments

Formative assessment activities (quizzes, questionnaires, presentations of projects)

BOLD is new, so there is little research on how best to combine synchronous and asynchronous technologies (Oztoc, Zingaro, Brett, & Hewitt, 2013). Given that decisions about such combinations are highly context-dependent, “it remains difficult to formulate general guidelines for the specification of blended learning arrangements” (Kerres & Dewitt, 2003, p. 111). The lack of clear guidelines may dissuade some from using BOLD; however, others may see it as an opportunity to explore and forge trails in a new instructional frontier. References Fadde, P.J., & Vu, P. (2014). Blended online learning: Misconceptions, benefits,

and challenges. In P.R. Lowenthal et al. (Eds.), Online learning: Common misconceptions, benefits, and challenges (pp. 33-48). Hauppauga, NY: Nova Science Publishing.

E. Rose TLPF Final Report 11

Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. Educause Quarterly, 31(4), 51-55.

Kerres, M., & De Witt, C. (2003). A didactical framework for the design of blended learning arrangements. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 101-113.

Oztok, M., Zingaro, D., Brett, C., & Hewitt, J. (2013). Exploring asynchronous and synchronous tool use in online courses. Computers & Education, 60(1), 87-94.

Robert, L.P., & Dennis, A.R. (2005). Paradox of richness: A cognitive model of media choice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(1), 10–21.

Schwier, R., & Balbar, S. (2002). The interplay of content and community in synchronous and asynchronous communication: Virtual communication in a graduate seminar. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 28(2), 1-9.

BOLD Examples

McGee and Reis (2012) note that "One persistent omission in the literature is examples of blended courses. While some institutions provide access to a blended course, it is still difficult to capture and express how a blended course looks and feels. Part of the challenge of illustrating what a blended course looks is due to the variation of how a blended course may be designed and offered through various technologies.” However, they add that seeing examples is important to “inform, model, and clarify how blended courses differ from other delivery designs" (p. 18). The same is true of blended online courses: examples are not easy to come by. However, recognizing how important they are to those considering BOLD, we’ve done our best to track some down.

E. Rose TLPF Final Report 12

Below, are links to some examples that may help to offer insight into the different ways that synchronous and asynchronous elements can be blended in an online course: Vanderbilt University’s BOLD Gallery UBC’s Berger Inquiry Project

The Fully Online Learning Community (FOLC) Model Reference: McGee, P., & Reis, A. (2012). Blended course design: A synthesis of best

practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 7-22.

Getting Started with BOLD

There is no single best way to approach designing a blended online course because much depends on its content and context (e.g., undergraduate, graduate, student-centred, lecture, seminar). However, whether you are starting from a face-to-face course or an online course that is purely asynchronous or synchronous, the following design tips will help you make the transition to blended online learning:

Begin not with the technology but with the course goals and objectives. Carefully consider how each can be best achieved. (See the Guidelines for Making BOLD Design Decisions link for suggestions about which kinds of objectives are best supported by synchronous and which by asynchronous interactions.)

Consider new learning opportunities. BOLD is not just a matter of transferring your existing course to a new format. It involves rethinking what you have always done. For example, rather than replacing face-to-face lectures with videoconferenced lectures, consider using other

E. Rose TLPF Final Report 13

instructional strategies that might better help learners achieve the objectives.

Align objectives with learning activities and assessments. A good way to do this is to create a table, clearly indicating what synchronous and/or asynchronous learning activities will be used in achieving each objective.

Focus on integrating the asynchronous and synchronous elements, so that they feed back into and support each other, rather than creating two separate components.

Keep it simple. Begin with simple asynchronous and synchronous technologies that allow you to achieve your objectives without requiring lots of technical knowledge, and use technologies for which technical support is readily available. At UNB, technical support is available for Desire2Learn Brightspace (asynchronous) and ZOOM (synchronous).

E. Rose TLPF Final Report 14

BOLD Implementation Checklist (Adapted from the Blended Learning Toolkit prepared by the University of Central

Florida and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities)

Before the Course Starts: Ensure you’ve received technical training for both the asynchronous and

synchronous technologies you’ll be using in your course. Identify the technical support available for synchronous components of

your course (this might include colleagues or students who can assist you). Set up the asynchronous component of your course in Desire2Learn

Brightspace. This includes uploading the course outline, creating modules, etc.

Test all links in the D2L module. Test ZOOM or whatever synchronous system you’re using. Ask a trusted colleague (preferably one with BOLD experience) to preview

your course. Communicate with students and make sure they know they are enrolled in

a blended online learning course with both asynchronous and synchronous components. Make sure they know exactly what technology they’ll need to participate (e.g., microphone, camera) and when they’ll be expected to connect for the synchronous components.

During the Course: Orient students to the synchronous and asynchronous components of the

course and clarify for them how the two components will be integrated. Make sure students know who to contact for technical support (other than

you). It might be helpful to set up a “Technical Help” discussion area in D2L, in which students can assist each other with technical issues.

Make sure students know how they should communicate with you. Will you hold synchronous office hours?

Make an effort to be present in both the synchronous and asynchronous components of the course, using both tools to communicate with students.

E. Rose TLPF Final Report 15

Establish protocols for both synchronous and asynchronous communications and model them in your own communications.

Periodically solicit feedback from students, through synchronous means (e.g., polls) or asynchronous means (e.g., anonymous online surveys).

Keep a record of what is working well and what you would do differently next time.

After the Course: Review all student feedback. Create a prioritized list of necessary course changes while the experience is

fresh, and make the changes before teaching the course again.

E. Rose TLPF Final Report 16

Articles About BOLD

Blayone, T.J.B., vanOostveen, R., Barber, W., DiGiuseppe, M., & Childs, E. (2017). Democratizing digital learning: Theorizing the fully online learning community model. Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(13). Available online: http://educationaltechnologyjournal.springeropen.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s41239-017-0051-4

Fadde, P.J., & Vu, P. (2014). Blended online learning: Misconceptions, benefits, and challenges. In P.R. Lowenthal et al. (Eds.), Online learning: Common misconceptions, benefits, and challenges (pp. 33-48). Hauppauga, NY: Nova Science Publishing. Available online: http://peterfadde.com/Research/blendedonline13.pdf

Garrison, D.R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95-105. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222863721_Blended_Learning_Uncovering_Its_Transformative_Potential_in_Higher_Education

Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., & Gijselaers, W. (2014). A dynamic analysis of the interplay between asynchronous and synchronous communication in online learning: The impact of motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 30-50. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239146620_A_dynamic_analysis_of_the_interplay_between_asynchronous_and_synchronous_communication_in_online_learning_The_impact_of_motivation

Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. Educause Quarterly, 31(4), 51-55. Available online: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2008/11/asynchronous-and-synchronous-elearning

E. Rose TLPF Final Report 17

Kerres, M., & De Witt, C. (2003). A didactical framework for the design of blended learning arrangements. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 101-113. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254302653_A_Didactical_Framework_for_the_Design_of_Blended_Learning_Arrangements

McGee, P., & Reis, A. (2012). Blended course design: A synthesis of best practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 7-22. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ982678

Oztok, M., Zingaro, D., Brett, C., & Hewitt, J. (2013). Exploring asynchronous and synchronous tool use in online courses. Computers & Education, 60(1), 87-94. Available online: https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/43787

Power, M. (2008). The emergence of a blended online learning environment. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(4), 503-514.

Power, M., & Gould-Morven, A. (2011). Head of gold, feet of clay: The online learning paradox. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 19-38. Available online: http://jolt.merlot.org/Vol4_No4.htm

Power, M., & St-Jacques, A. (2014). The graduate virtual classroom webinar: A collaborative and constructivist online teaching strategy. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(4), 681-695. Available online: http://jolt.merlot.org/Vol10_No4.html

Power, M. & Vaughan, N. (2010). Redesigning Online Learning for International Graduate Seminar Delivery. Journal of Distance Education. 24(2), 19-38. Available online: http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/649/1103

Robert, L.P., & Dennis, A.R. (2005). Paradox of richness: A cognitive model of media choice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(1), 10–21. Available online: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/116285

Schwier, R., & Balbar, S. (2002). The interplay of content and community in synchronous and asynchronous communication: Virtual communication in a graduate seminar. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 28(2), 1-9. Available online: https://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/26578/19760

Yamagata-Lynch, L.C. (2014). Blending online asynchronous and synchronous learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed

E. Rose TLPF Final Report 18

Learning, 15(2), 189-212. Available online: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1778/2837

E. Rose TLPF Final Report 19

Appendix B: Abstract of COHERE Presentation

BOLD Moves from Three Perspectives: The UNB Faculty of Education Experience

Presented by Ellen Rose, Kendra Haines, and Amanda Benjamin As universities encourage faculties to explore non-traditional delivery models, the University of New Brunswick’s (UNB) Faculty of Education is leading the way. The movement to technologically mediated learning began several decades ago with the teleconferencing of Adult Education courses, and today more than half of our graduate courses are delivered online, asynchronously, via Desire2Learn Brightspace. Increasingly, however, research suggests the limitations of purely asynchronous delivery: delayed feedback and a lack of presence and community contribute to isolating learning experiences that are linked to high rates of withdrawal and drop out (Berge & Huang, 2004; Garrison & Archer, 2007; Schullo et al., 2005; Vonderwell, 2003). Recognizing the limitations of asynchronous technology when it comes to building community, some instructors in UNB’s Faculty of Education have been attempting to integrate synchronous elements into their online courses. The combination of synchronous and asynchronous elements to realize the power of both has been called Blended Online Learning Design (BOLD) (Power, 2008a, 2008b, 2009). As Power and Morven-Gould (2011) explain, BOLD is a “hybrid learning environment that allows users access to a community learning experience as well as 24/3-accessible resources” (n.p.). While BOLD is relatively new, research results so far have been positive, showing significant gains in student participation and engagement with course content (e.g., Power & Morven-Gould, 2011; Saint-Jacques, 2013).

E. Rose TLPF Final Report 20

Appendix C: Kaleidoscope Poster