1

Click to edit Master text stylesSecond level

Third levelFourth level

Fifth level

The Development of a Sustainable, Quality, e-Learning Program in the Faculties of Health and Liberal Arts & Professional StudiesSusan Murtha, Avi Cohen, Gary Spraakman, Ron Owston, and Dennis York

October 18, 2012 COHERE / CSSHE Blended Learning Conference

2

Overview• Why do the project?

• What did we do?

• What methodology did we use?

• What did we find?

• What have we learned?

• How should we move forward?

3

Why do it?

“Building a More Engaged University: Strategic Directions 2010-2020” (White paper, 2010)

• Enhance student engagement and learning through a broader, coordinated, approach by using information and communications technology.• Introduce more blended courses that promote students actively participating in

learning (engage).• Provide online course related activities to supplement teaching and learning in a

cost-effective way (sustainable).• Use technology as a tool to increase opportunities for students to engage with

professors, TA’s, peer mentors.• Increase accessibility for all students

4

Why do it?

Enrollment pressure (sustainable)

Student body, i.e., commuter students (flexible, accessible)

5

Why do it?Increase recruitment, retention, satisfaction

Engage students Improve student learning

Engagement + accessibility + flexibility = satisfaction & success

6

Why do it?E-learning objectives Face-to-face with web

enhancement Blended Fully online

Enrollment pressure

• Limited scalability, growth requires more space

• Development costs for web-enhancement portion

• Potential greater use of physical space available

• Development costs• Infrastructure costs

• Maximum scalability• Development costs• Infrastructure costs

Experience for commuter students

• Maximum commuting• Minimum flexibility

• Commuting savings depends on proportion of face-to-face time

• Enhanced flexibility

• No commuting time• Maximum time flexibility

Engagement• Maximum in-person

connections• Minimum online engagement

• Enhanced online community and in-person connections

• Student preference

• No in-person connections• Limited to online discussion

Student learning

• Minimum accommodation to different learning styles

• Good for student w/o time management skills/maturity

• Multiple formats accommodate many different learning styles

• Limited flexibility to student learning styles

• Success requires maturity and time management skills

Best case scenario!

7

What did we do?

• E-learning = Electronic delivery of course content and instruction

• Blended learning = Re-imagining of how to deliver the content such that between 30-70% of the in-class time is replaced by online activities in order to achieve learning objectives.

Developed a common language:

8

What did we do?

• (a) Showcase best practices• (b) Educate faculty about blended learning

Attempted to obtain “buy in” from faculty members to adapt course to blended format

Attempted to define two models of blended learning to pilot and evaluate in courses

9

What did we do?

(a) Shared experiences event• Three faculty members (law, nursing, social work) shared experiences about using

blended approach• Responses to the Q “How do we get faculty involved?”

• Cash incentives• Access to professional development• Create a website providing best practice instances, various tools, and resources• Face-to-face consultants• Reward and recognition

10

What did we do?

(b) Blended learning information session and workshop

• Presenter: Norman Vaughan, co-author of “Blended Learning in Higher Education”

• 45 faculty & IT staff attended morning information session (video streamed)

• Topics covered: Unpacking blended learning, inquiry through blended learning, student engagement

• Discussed opportunities and challenges

11

What did we do?

Workgroup session• 28 faculty and technology staff attended afternoon

workgroup session• Discussed five questions related to blended learning• Proposed models/prototypes of blended learning

12

What did we do?Outcomes (top 3 to 4) to 5 specific questions addressed to workgroup:

What factors would influence you to change your course from your current delivery model to 30-70% online?

• Beneficial for the students (demand, suitability for content, demographic of learner)• Course development support (design and tech)• Instructor time commitment & incentives• Class size, type of room, scheduling of course

13

What did we do?

What are the benefits of blended learning for the course instructors and the students?

• Increase sharing of knowledge amongst course directors and students• Flexibility (hours and physical space)• More opportunities for collaboration with other universities and geographically

14

What did we do?

What challenges do you foresee if you try to achieve your learning objectives by moving some content and activities online or continuing as you have in the

classroom?

• Lack of resources (untrained TAs, infrastructure, e.g., bandwidth, keeping up with workload)

• Size of class (familiarity with being online)• Lack of connections/resources sharing with colleagues

15

What did we do?

How would you change your engagement with the students if you moved to a blended learning model?

• More flexible times for contact • Shared workload• Reaches greater number of students• Greater transparency for students

16

What did we do?

17

What did we do?

What models of blended learning do you see yourself adopting?

• Smorgasbord model offered

18

What did we do?

• Instructors met as a group 3x in fall term to discuss any concerns or issues• Instructors consulted with Information Technology

8 courses (7 instructors) in 2011/2012 adapted course from face-to-face (f2f) to blended (Bl) format

19

What did we do?

• What assessment methods do you currently use?• What is your current method of delivery? • What do you expect the students to be able to do by the end of the

course? • What activities do you currently engage in to achieve your objectives? • What activities are you hoping to engage in to achieve your objectives? • What will be the ratio of face-to-face to online classes?• What will be the face-to-face content?• What will be the online content?

Asked instructors to reflect on course design

Received feedback on course design from educational consultant

20

What methodology did we use?

• Quality Online Course Initiative Rubric by Illinois Online Network• Quality Matters Rubric Standards• Rubric for Online Instruction by CSU, Chico

Modified existing evaluation rubrics

• Organization & layout design• Instructional design & delivery• Communication, interaction, & collaboration• Learner support & resources

Evaluated Moodle Websites (major criteria)

21

What methodology did we use?

• Classroom Survey of Student Engagement (CLASSE)• Blended Course Student Survey | Blended Learning Toolkit

Modified existing surveys

• 221 students & 7 instructors participated• 31 questions framed to address sustainability, flexibility, accessibility, and

engagement

Survey administration

22

What methodology did we use?

• 5-point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree)

• e.g., of enrollment pressure questions to students“How much you agree or disagree with the following statements:”• Overall, I am satisfied with this course.• Given the opportunity I would take another course in the future

that has both online and face-to-face components.

Student survey questions

23

What methodology did we use?

• 5-point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree)

• e.g., of survey questions to instructors addressing student engagement“Compared to typical face-to-face courses I have taught…• …teaching a blended course is a time-consuming experience• …students are more engaged in the blended course• …I feel that the quality of student-to-instructor interaction

increased.”

Faculty survey questions

24

What did we find?

Most course websites were easy to navigate.

A few had minor functional and visual inconsistencies.

3/8 course websites provided a definition of blended learning but the definition varied between courses.

0/8 course websites had information about what it meant to be a learner in a blended course (such as possible challenges, suggested tips).

5/8 courses had a good agreement between proportion of online time and proportion of grading for online activities.

Course Websites: Main Results

25

What did we find?Student survey: Main results

Blended format increased Accessibility/Flexibility

agreed/strongly agreed

disagreed/neutral

• Provided a convenience of not having to come to class every week (79%)

• Reduced commuting costs (72%)• Better access to content (66%)

Blended format in-creased engagement

agreed/strongly agreed

disagreed/neutral

• Satisfied with blended (73%)• Would take another blended course (70%)• Did not feel isolated with online component

(66%)

26

What did we find?

Did the Bl format improve student learning?

• Median GPA of students was B/B+• 56% agreed/strongly agreed they improved their understanding of key concepts in

their Bl course better than a f2f course

27

What did we find?

Typical positive comments

• “I really like how this course is both online and in class as it addresses different methods of learning. Coming to class just helps me maintain a routine and I like interaction in person. Also it isn’t super long so I don’t get bored or stop paying attention.”

• “I liked the course overall. The connection of online and in-class activities was successful and helped my grades balance out.”

28

What did we find?

Typical negative comments

• “Online discussion is more of an obligation. It seems obvious that many students feel this way too.”• “I don’t appreciate the blended course because I am being pulled in too many directions. I am not

always on my laptop.”

29

What did we find?

6/7 agreed/strongly agreed that working with this format provided an opportunity to experiment with new teaching methodologies.

5/6 agreed/strongly agreed that the quality of the Student-Student interaction improved.

5/6 agreed/strongly agreed that students’ overall performance was better.

5/7 disagreed that preparation takes the same time as for a f2f course.

Faculty survey: Main results

30

What have we learned?

• For our commuter students (>2/3 are working part-time), Bl format addresses the need for > flexibility in course offering & < cost/time associated with commuting

• Adapting to Bl format provides an opportunity for instructors to learn new teaching methodologies

• Students tended to perform better and interact with each other better overall

Positive outcomes

31

What have we learned?

• Online activities must be meaningful and appropriately graded/weighted to engage students in the content.

• Effort needs to be made to refrain from creating a “course and a half.”

• Blended format does not necessarily meet the learning preferences of all students.

Lessons learned:

32

• Ensure students are properly informed about courses offered in the Bl format (communication).

• Ensure students are aware of learning outcomes (online vs. in class requirements) (communication).

• Encourage instructor presence in online environment (engagement)

• Avoid course-and-a-half syndrome (communication).

• Ensure instructors learn how to prepare and measure appropriate online activities to address course objectives (professional development).

How should we move forward?

33

Questions?

For more information…

Susan MurthaProject Co-leadAcademic Innovation Funded Project (2010-2013)smurtha@yorku.ca

Technical Report No 2012-3http://irlt.yorku.ca/reports.html