in 2009, questions about the types of technologies commonly used to support teaching & learning were administered to 31,000 students attending 58 institutions,. even after controlling for age, gender, major, Carnegie classification & # of fully online courses taken, technology use was positively related to to all three categories of engagement – NSSE benchmarks, deep approaches to learning, & self-reported learning outcomes

Course Managmnt . Interactive Tech. Hi-Tech Commun. F S F S F S Academic Challenge Active & Col. Learning Stu./Fac. Interaction Supportive Campus Env. Higher Order Thinking Integrative Learning Reflective Learning Practical Competence Pers. & Soc. Development General Ed. SELF GAINS NSSE BENCHMARKS DEEP LEARNING

meta-analysis & review of online learning studies 51 studies comparing student outcomes in online, blended &/or face-to-face environments students who took all or part of their class online performed better, with an average effect size of +0.24 favoring online (p < .01) blended instruction had a larger advantage relative to F2F instruction, with an average effect of +0.35 favoring blended (p < .001) effectiveness of online & blended instruction quite broad across variations in students, implementations, & content areas

fully online vs. face-to-face course comparisons blended vs. face-to-face course comparisons -2 -1 0 +1 +2 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 effect sizes & confidence intervals for studies in meta-analysis -2 -1 0 +1 +2

“Schools are very likely the last line of defense in the global trivialization of knowledge -- yet it appears that they have not yet learned enough about the new technologies and media to make the important distinctions between formal but meaningless activities with computers and networks, and the fluencies needed for real 21st century thinking.” -- Alan Kay

Integrating On-Ground and Online Learning BLENDING with PURPOSE Integrating On-Ground and Online Learning In a Pedagogically Sound Manner Karen Swan Center for Online Learning, Research & Service (COLRS) University of Illinois Springfield 10

B L E N D E D fully f2f fully online

technology infused B L E N D E D minimal technology

technology infused fully f2f fully online minimal technology structural model: Picciano & Dziuban, 2007 minimal technology

blended learning the integration of face-to-face & online learning in a planned & pedagogically sound manner, and in which some face-to-face time is replaced with online learning the integration of face-to-face & online learning in a planned & pedagogically sound manner, and in which some face-to-face time is replaced with online learning Chuck Dziuban sees blended learning as a boundary object – a concept used differently by different communities – weakly structured in common use; strongly structured locally

blended online learning ON-CAMPUS ONLINE blended online learning ASYNCHRONOUS online learning blended learning traditional f2f learning SYNCHRONOUS structural model: Power, 2008; Vaughan, 2009

supplemental model – uses technology to enhance instruction but does not change basic structure replacement model – replaces some f2f “seat-time” w/ fully integrated interactive online activities resulting in fundamental changes to the course emporium model – eliminates all class meetings & replaces them w/ learning resource center (typically large computer lab) offering access to online course materials AND live assistance & guidance net neutral / hyflex model – students chose whether to participate f2f or online from activity to activity structural model: Penn State University, 2009; COLRS, UIS, 2010

enhancing blends enabling blends transforming blends access incremental pedagogy paradigm shift value-added model: Graham, 2006

Dialectic/Questioning Synthesis/ Evaluation (Papers, Quizzes, Tests, Simulations, Presentations, Projects, E- Portfolios) Reflection (Blog, Journal, Reader Response, Discussion Board, F2F Discussion) Content (LMS, Media, MUVE, Text, YouTube, Lecture, Student Generated) BLENDING with PURPOSE Dialectic/Questioning (F2F Discussion, Discussion Board, Blog, Debate, Written Responses) Social/Emotional (F2F Interaction, F2F & Online Discussion, Video, Online Journal) Collaboration (Wiki, Twitter, Web 2.0 Tools, F2F & Online Group Work) Picciano, 2008 18

boot camp model– cohort of students meet for one week in summer, then work fully online bookend model – face-to-face meetings at beginning and end (sometimes in the middle) of the course with online activities the rest of the time rotation model – blended program, students mix face-to- face and online classes flipped classroom– lectures are put online and class time is used for interaction -- group work, debates, labs, practice exercises PFL (Preparation for Future Learning) – students explore problems online before being introduced to central concepts in class then practice online with supports Structural models, COLRS, UIS, 2012

INTEGRATION f2f learning experiences online learning experiences pedagogical model: Vaughan, 2010

COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY FRAMEWORK social presence cognitive presence teaching presence COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY FRAMEWORK

affective expression; open communication; group cohesion social presence the ability of participants to project themselves socially and emotionally -- as ‘real’ people affective expression; open communication; group cohesion

triggering event; exploration; integration; resolution cognitive presence the extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse triggering event; exploration; integration; resolution

practical inquiry model (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2001) Deliberation (Applicability) EXPLORATION INTEGRATION Perception (Awareness) Conception (Ideas) EXPERIENCE TRIGGERING EVENT RESOLUTION Action (Practice) practical inquiry model (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2001)

design & organization; facilitation of discourse/learning; direct instruction the design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning teaching presence

design & organization PLAN for social and cognitive presence SP Principle: plan to establish a climate that will encourage open communication and trust CP Principle: plan for critical reflection, discourse and tasks that will support systematic inquiry.

backwards design (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998 1. identify desired results 2. determine acceptable evidence 3. plan learning experiences

21 (3 point) criteria must be met Quality Matters Rubric an input model of learning in online and blended educational environments grounded in an instructional design perspective assumes effective learning in higher education flows from well-specified outcomes/objectives/assessments 41 criteria in 8 categories (course overview, learning objectives, assessment, materials, interactivity, technology learner support, accessibility) that are either met or not 21 (3 point) criteria must be met

facilitation ESTABLISH social and cognitive presence SP Principle: establish community by shifting to purposeful, collaborative communication. CP Principle: encourage and support the progression of inquiry through to resolution.

direct instruction SUSTAIN progressive development of social and cognitive presence SP Principle: manage collaborative relationships to support students in assuming increasing responsibility for their learning. CP Principle: ensure that inquiry moves to resolution and that meta-cognitive awareness develops.

Community of Inquiry Survey 34 items – 13 teaching presence (TP), 9 social presence (SP) & 12 cognitive presence (CP) statements for which students indicate agreement/ disagreement on a five point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) at least 3 items for each element of each presence

design experiment Can course redesign based on QM revisions result in improved student learning outcomes? Can changes in implementation targeted to enhance particular CoI survey scores (CoI revisions) lead to both increased CoI scores & improved learning outcomes? What is the effect of the two-phased combination of QM revisions & CoI revisions on student learning outcomes?

methodology subjects – graduate students enrolled in EDL core courses (n=193/258=75% response rate) instruments – QM review & CoI survey outcome measures – standardized scores (percent correct) on major course assignments and overall course grades

Results: CoI Survey (n=193/258=75%)

Results: Outcomes (n=193/258=75%)

Open Educational Resources MERLOT Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching http://www.merlot.org/ TED Talks http://www.ted.com/talks OER COMMONS Open Educational Resources http://www.oercommons.org/ CCCOER Community College Consortium for Open Educational Resources http://oerconsortium.org/

http://www.khanacademy.org/ http://www.khanacademy.org/toolkit/ http://www.khanacademy.org/toolkit/ka-classrooms

EdX, Harvard, MIT & Berkley OLI, Carnegie Mellon Open Learning Initiative http://oli.web.cmu.edu/openlearning/ UDacity http://www.udacity.com/ Coursera https://www.coursera.org/ EdX, Harvard, MIT & Berkley https://www.edx.org/ Saylor Foundation http://www.saylor.org Peer2Peer University https://p2pu.org/en/ Massively Open Online Courses Carnegie Mellon Open Learning Initiative -- http://oli.cmu.edu/: 11 highly interactive self-learning courses in a variety of subject areas, research demonstrated effectiveness Udacity -- http://www.udacity.com/; courses mostly in STEM areas include lectures, materials and activities, discussion, and optional exams Coursera -- https://www.coursera.org/; reasonably traditional courses from traditional university professors consisting of lectures, activities & discussion EdX -- https://www.edx.org/; similar to Coursera with professors from Harvard, MIT and Berkley Saylor Foundation -- http://www.saylor.org/; collections of OER materials in a variety of subject areas developed by professors contracted for that purpose + final exams Peer 2 Peer University -- https://p2pu.org/en/; supports many somewhat open-ended learning communities which you can join

Kathy Schrock’s Bloomin’ Apps Learning While Mobile Kathy Schrock’s Bloomin’ Apps http://www.schrockguide.net/bloomin-apps.html

Web 2. 0 Tools http://www. go2web20 Web 2.0 Tools http://www.go2web20.net/ Student-Generated Content Peer Review

Dialectic/Questioning Synthesis/ Evaluation (Papers, Quizzes, Tests, Simulations, Presentations, Projects, E- Portfolios) Reflection (Blog, Journal, Reader Response, Discussion Board, F2F Discussion) Content (LMS, Media, MUVE, Text, YouTube, Lecture, Student Generated) BLENDING with PURPOSE Dialectic/Questioning (F2F Discussion, Discussion Board, Blog, Debate, Written Responses) Social/Emotional (F2F Interaction, F2F & Online Discussion, Video, Online Journal) Collaboration (Wiki, Twitter, Web 2.0 Tools, F2F & Online Group Work) Picciano, 2008 41

Center for Online Learning, Research & Service Karen Swan Center for Online Learning, Research & Service University of Illinois Springfield kswan4@uis.edu 42