Seeking Evidence of Impact in Blended Learning: New Models, Designs, and Results! Anthony (Tony) Picciano – City University of New York Charles (Chuck) Dziuban – University of Central Florida Charles Graham – Brigham Young University

Presentation outline Introduction Background Key report findings Issues and the future

The beginning Nov. 2002 – “Blended Learning” discussed at Sloan-C Conference April 2003 – First Sloan-C Workshop on Blended Learning March 2007 – Blended Learning Research Perspectives published “If you are an administrator or faculty member who wants to do blended learning well, this is an important resource that integrates theory, research and experience.” - Diana Oblinger (2007)

The beginning continued… April 2012 – 10th Sloan-C Workshop on Blended Learning Nov. 2013 – Blended Learning Research Perspectives (Vol. II) “The research explored in this volume, spawning engagement, pedagogical practice, and learning outcomes, will ensure that blended learning is well understood and of high quality.” - Diana Oblinger (2013)

Authors and contributors Over 100 authors and researchers willing to contribute 57 individuals were selected to contribute (23 faculty, 16 administrators, 6 research assistants, 6 instructional designers/developers, 3 consultants, and 3 students) Represent a variety of educational institutions (public & private, small & large, national & international, as well as K-12 schools) One shortcoming: No researcher from a community college.

Scope of the book 21 chapters, 376 pages 6 chapters provide insights into issues (models, methods) related to blended learning research. 15 chapters provide results of empirical studies. 578 citations 105 tables and figures

Organization Introduction Blending learning models & scale Evaluations Faculty issues Studying non-traditional learners International perspectives Blended learning in K-12 Conclusion

Research methodologies Quantitative, qualitative and mixed research methodologies: Quasi-Experimental Course, Program, and Multi-institutional Evaluations Discourse Analysis Case Study Survey Extensive Focus Group Responses/Observation PAR (Participatory Action Research) Data Mining of Institutional Databases Phenomenography

Some findings

Models and teacher roles Hoxie, Stillman, & Chesal – NYC DOE Blended Learning in New York City Flex vs Rotation Models Faculty more satisfied with rotation than flex approaches Creator vs Utilizer Teachers Faculty creators of online content were more positive about blended learning and its impact than those who were only utilizers of online content

Scaling blended learning Moskal & Cavanagh – UCF Scaling blended learning evaluation beyond the university NGLC grant to scale PD to 20 AASCU institutions. 20 campuses 79 unique courses (217 total sections) 131 faculty 5798 students Study examined Student satisfaction of BL instruction Faculty evaluation of BL instruction Student completion (93%) and success (64%) rates Challenges with scaling BL in a short time-frame

Workload Ryan, Tynan, & Lamont-Mills – Australian universities; Out of hours: Online and blended learning workload in Australian universities Exploration of 4 work allocation models (WAMs) interviews with 25 faculty and staff 4 universities represented Reporting Workload policies for blended learning Perceptions of workload models Management of e-teaching workloads Future implications

Informal blending Bloemer & Swan Investigating informal blending at the University of Illinois Springfield 2004-05 On-ground only Online only Informal blending 2011-12 On-ground only Online only Informal blending

Informal blending Average course loads Withdrawal rates Undergraduate On-ground only 12.8 10.0 Informal blending 13.1 11.1 Online only 9.9 8.7 Withdrawal rates Withdrawal rates in %

Faculty development Ginsberg & Ciabocchi A review of current faculty development practices in traditional, not-for-profit higher education institutions Survey of faculty from 109 institutions Faculty Development trends Popular types Delivery modes Incentives Successful elements Recommendations

Faculty development Percentages Data from study: Range of incentives used for faculty development

Issues and the future

Blended Learning: The ideal instructional model Join us for a learning circle Oak Alley 3:45 – 4:30 pm A Second Generation Agenda Evidence of Impact

A prototype blended learning model – or is there? Which is the best example of the category bird? Penguin Robin Ostrich

Blended learning as a boundary object Evaluators Journalists Provosts Faculty Blended Learning Librarians Students Deans

Psychological contracts The important stuff may be what you can’t see

Features of psychological contracts Voluntary choice Belief in mutual agreement Incompleteness

Psychological contracts An individual’s beliefs regarding reciprocal obligations Then this is what I’ll get If I do this… Non-ambivalent = Simple Ambivalent = Complex

For more information contact: Dr. Tony Picciano apicciano@gc.cuny.edu Dr. Chuck Dziuban Charles.Dziuban@ucf.edu Dr. Charles Graham Charles.Graham@byu.edu