Background Alternatives to blending Assessment of the alternatives Policy implications Conclusion

Alternative 1. Status quo – Primarily focus on addressing issues of access and convenience – based on individual faculty, unit initiatives

Alternative 2. Enhancing blends – adds on – for example continue to teach as in alternative one above but add an optional discussion board

Alternative 3. Transformative blends – a transformative process directed toward improving the quality of the educational experience – overall institutional initiative – capitalize on the potential of BL for engagement

Criteria used – economic criteria – equity criteria – Administrative criteria – Political criteria Measure 0= not satisfied, 1= satisfied

Measure Yes = 1, no = 0 Alternatives 123 Will the alternative increase accessibility 111 Offer equal opportunity to benefit? 00 1 Increase flexibility? 0 01

Measure Yes = 1, no = 0 Alternatives 123 Acceptability101 Responsiveness00 1 Appropriate001 Ethical Issues1 11

Measure Yes = 1, no = 0 Alternative 123 Clarity of goal101 Commitment to serve11 1 Capacity to implement1 10

1=yes, 0=no Political criteria Equity criteria Admin criteria Total points Alternative 1 213*60% Alternative 2 212*50% Alternative 3 432*90%

Administrators – How to determine the fit of blended learning within the stated goals and priorities of the institution. – How to set time lines, and accountabilities for implementation. – How to establish appropriate ownership of intellectual property in a blended learning environment.

How about tuition and fee structure for a blended leaning course How to collaborate with other departments, units Finally, how to establish guidelines for approval of a blended learning course.

Faculty – Compensation and workload issues – BL development incentive – Faculty development and training

Student – Learners support would be needed for the online component – How do we orientate, and support learners in using technology in blended courses. – Particular attention to international, and First Nations communities

It is cost effective (Means, 2010) satisfied all our criteria and has the potential to transform the teaching and learning experience of the University (Garrison and Vaughan, 2010).