Going Blended: Training • Development • Assessment

Sloan-C International Conference for Online Learning

November 10, 2011

Presenters

Jeannette E. RileyProfessor, English & Women's Studies Academic Director of Online Education

Tracey RussoInstructional Technology Manager

CITS – Instructional Development

Damon N. GatenbyInstructional Technologist

CITS – Instructional Development

Based on a grant funded project, this session discusses the methodology for faculty blended learning training and course (re)design and showcases representative courses.

Presenters share assessment program and peer mentor program designed to engage faculty in developing effective blended learning experiences.

Overview

Implementation of Blended Learning for the Improvement of Student Learning (IBIS)

• 3-year project began in Summer 2010• Davis Educational Foundation Grant• Goals:– engage faculty in the development of effective

blended courses– assist faculty in developing effective tools and

methods to incorporate a culture of assessment and scholarly teaching into their practices

Project Plan• Faculty training program

• Faculty program to develop faculty understanding of best practices in assessment

• Faculty peer mentorship program to facilitate culture of collaboration and reflection

• Dissemination of faculty experiences (“Blended Learning Impacting Student Learning;” Friday, Nov. 11th, 2:25pm; Asia 5)

Engaging the Faculty in Blended Course Design

How the Training Works

• Kick off meeting-f2f• Online training- 2 weeks• Required consultation w/ ID team• Optional f2f sessions• Develop draft• Course plan presentations-f2f• Refine plan• Final plan

Blended Training

• Review -- Online Teaching and Learning Strategies

• Blended Learning Module • Assessment Module • Developing Your Course Plan

Blended Learning Module

• Defining blended learning• Strategies for finding the mix• Challenges of blended learning

Assessing Blend learning

• Mentors intro• How do we measuring student learning• Backward design • SLO• Alignment

Developing Course Plan

• Mini-assessment plan for presentation– Select a central learning objective– Develop assignment(s)– Draft out assessment plan

• Final course design and assessment plan• Blended learning rubric

Blended Learning Rubric

How are faculty blending?

• Discussion forums based on readings and short online activities were incorporated into the blended course and were designed to replace some f2f class discussions.

• Online Essay Peer feedbacks within group discussion board.

How are faculty blending?

• Before-class online quizzes were completed after viewing the posted PowerPoint slides and textbook readings in preparation for f2f class.

• A course research project was facilitated via an online module with steps to follow throughout several weeks of the semester.

How are faculty blending?

• Students utilized a wiki used to post concepts and terminology from class.

• Students created individual wiki pages to create their semester project (writings, embedded images, and reflections) and allowed students to review and comment on each other’s work.

Training Best Practices

• Model blended learning• Pedagogy first• Faculty/mentor participation key!• Incentives motivate• Utilize tools via LMS • Familiarity with instructional tools

Keys to Faculty Success

• Start small and keeping it simple• Review of the training • Rethinking teaching strategies• Discussion/encouragement of colleagues• Better understanding of technologies• Having an experienced mentor

Lessons Learned

• Limiting to one SLO • 1-2 technologies • Required meeting with instructional staff• Better understanding of blended learning for

student• Start early• Instructional support staff... be nosey! • Student support/training

Questions?

Technology used in the Blend

Instructional Technology Employed

• LMS (Blackboard Vista)– Quizzing– Discussion boards

• Wikis (Wikispaces)• Blogs (Wordpress)• Wimba Classroom• Wimba Voice Tools• Personal Response Systems (iClicker)• Streaming Audio & Video• Learning Objects• Lecture Capture (Currently piloting)

Choosing the Right Tools

• Faculty has objective to be facilitated through technology.

• Instructional Development recommends a technology solution– Low barrier for student use.– Leverage existing, industry standard and best-in-

class tools.– Provide support for faculty and students.

Using Synchronous Tools in a Blended Format

Benefits• Recreate classroom

discussion experience.• Collaboratively work on

graphs, documents and presentations.

Pitfalls• Expecting students to attend

live sessions at same time as the f2f class.

• Does not replace well structured asynchronous assignments.

• Requires somewhat tech-savvy students or a robust support system.

• Using the tool for lecture capture only.

Using Asynchronous Tools in a Blended Format

Benefits• Enables flexible group

communication.– Textual or audio

• Allows learner to participate on their own time.

Pitfalls• Using asynchronous tools to

facilitate synchronous interaction.– Use the right tool

• Not providing enough guidance for students to work independently.

Faculty Support

• Workshops– Webinars

• 1 on 1 sessions– Drop-ins

• Technology Demos– Live– Video Tutorial

• Teaching and Technology Conference

Questions?

Does it Work: Implementing Assessment Practices

Close Up: The Assessment Module

Assessment

• Module designed to engage faculty in assessment practices

– Discussion based

– Collaborative exercises

Assessment

• Broad definition of “learning”– Evidence of student improvement in

understanding content– Evidence of student improvement in applying

content knowledge and skills– Evidence of changes in student behavior (e.g.

improved writing processes; more time spent on readings; increased class participation)

Updating Bloom’s TaxonomyCreateGenerate, Plan, Synthesize, Produce the

new

EvaluateCritique or judge based on explicit standards/criteria

AnalyzeBreak down, Relate parts and whole, Organize

ApplyFollow procedures to solve problems or carry out tasks

UnderstandConnect new learning to prior knowledge by interpreting, classifying, comparing, summarizing, etc.

RememberElaborate, Encode, and Retrieve information form long-term memory

(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

Thinking S

kill P

rogressi

on

Developing Assessment Skills

• Focused on student learning objectives– Discussions to evaluate sample SLO– Presentation of targeted SLO

• Backward Design

Defining Terms

• Assessment = for example, a quiz or a composition that measures student accomplishment of one or more of your SLOs.

• Learning activity = an activity that facilitates student achievement of one or more of your SLOs by actively engaging the students with course content.

Suggested Strategies

• Compare test results of a face-to-face class with a blended class of the same course

• Compare writing results - using the same rubric of a face-to-face class with a blended class of the same course

More Suggested Strategies

• Pre/post testing of knowledge. Have students respond to a test of knowledge at the beginning of the semester and then have them answer same test at the end.

• Do a pre/post survey of student behavior patterns (e.g. ask students to self-assess their writing strategies and then re-assess at the end of the course)

Develop a Plan

• Development of Assessment Plan– Review and feedback from cohort and external

reviewers– Mentor reviews course site and course plan using

campus developed Blended Learning Quality Rubric

• Plans revised and resubmitted – Plans used for IRB approval

Post-Course

• Final project report from individual faculty– Provides overview of course and what you

redesigned for the IBIS project– Explains data collected– Provides data analysis and conclusions about the

course experience– Provides section outlining peer mentor experience

Peer Mentor Program• Mentoring Goal: to develop a culture of collaborative

exchange and open discussion about teaching practices

• There are four guiding points:– PEER mentoring. Mentor will not necessarily have more

knowledge or experience than the mentee.– Focus is on student learning not instructor evaluation.– It is the responsibility of both parties to start and maintain

the interaction.– Both the mentor and mentee will do a final report.

Mentoring Process

Mentor• Determine whether the

online tool being employed meets stated objective.

• Determine if the specific online tool(s) being employed are the primary means of achieving the intended goal. – Alternatives offered

Mentee• ID primary learning

objective enhanced through online process.

• Explain how online tool will meet learning objective (and enhance objective)– Why online at all?– Why specific online ‘tool’

chosen?

Implementation• Mentee determines learning module to apply online

tools– Includes both live (f2f) and online sessions

• Mentor appears at both live and online sessions• Mentor assess interactions (experience)– ‘Should work’

• Mentor measures personal assessment with student interviews– Self-assessment of learning experience with use of online

tool.• ‘Perception it worked’

Peer Mentor Program

• Faculty mentors:– Commit to two f2f class observations and two

observations of course site/online sessions– Serve as sounding board for faculty engaged in

blended course implementation

• Faculty mentees:– Write final report on course experience including

comments on mentor-mentee experience

Mentor Final Report

• Provides an overview of the mentoring process you enacted with your mentee.

• Includes course observation notes (face to face and online)

• Analyzes the mentor-mentee experience. What worked well? What didn't work well?

Resources

UMassD Blended Learning Initiativehttp://www.umassd.edu/ofd/blendedlearninginitiative/

Blended Learning Resourceshttp://instructionaldev.umassd.wikispaces.net/Blended+Learning

CITS/Instructional Development Teamidteam@umassd.edu

Office of Faculty Developmenthttp://www.umassd.edu/ofd/

Questions?