1. Exploring Blended Learning as a High-Impact Pedagogy Option
Steve Klien
Department of Communication Studies
Tuesday, August 17, 2010

2. The breakout session: Intro to “blended learning”
Descriptions of BLI pilots in Biology, Math, Business, Comm Studies, and Library
A student perspective
Q&A, discussion

3. What is the BLI?
Blended Learning Initiative: faculty working with ACTL to explore blended learning pedagogy and share findings with the Augustana faculty
Pilot projects in
Leading subsequent professional development efforts for the faculty

4. What we’re not doing… Advocating online courses
Turning into the University of Phoenix
Jumping on a faddish technological bandwagon
…anything but what any of us normally do: exploring innovative pedagogical approaches to enhance student engagement and learning

5. For your consideration:
What is “blended learning?”
Rationale(s) for adopting?
Impacts on student learning?
Satisfaction of students, faculty?
What do we need to adopt?

6. What is “blended learning?”
The Sloan Consortium’s definition: 1. Courses that integrate online with traditional face-to-face class activities in a planned, pedagogically valuable manner; and 2. Where a portion (institutionally defined) of face-to-face time is replaced by online activity. (Laster, Otte, Picciano, and Sorg, 2005; qtd. in Picciano, 2007, p. 9).

7. What is “blended learning?”
Possible blended learning technological media:
Asynchronous learning networks (ALN)
Course management systems (CMS)
Lecture podcasts / vodcasts
Community discussion (e.g., blogs, forums) and collaborative projects (e.g., wikis)
Synchronous learning networks (SLN)
Real-time conversation (e.g., chat, Skype)

8. What is “blended learning?”
Babson Survey Research Group’s types (Allen and Seaman, 2007, p. 67):
Traditional – 0% use of online technology
Web Facilitated – 1 to 29% (essentially face to face; e.g., use of a CMS to post course documents)
Blended/Hybrid – 30 to 79% (“Substantial proportion of the content is delivered online, typically uses online discussions, and typically has some face-to-face meetings.”)
Online – 80+% (“Typically have no face-to-face meetings.”)

9. Rationale(s) for adopting?
Primary benefits & nature of the blend (Graham and Robison, 2007, pp ):
Goal = “take advantage of the strengths of the computer-mediated environment as well as the strengths of the face-to-face environment” (p. 89)
Enabling: increased access or convenience
Enhancing: increasing teacher, student productivity
Transforming: moving from transmission-focused pedagogy to a more active learning pedagogy

10. Impacts on student learning?
US Department of Education meta-analysis:
“Students who took all or part of their class online performed better, on average, than those taking the same course through traditional face-to-face instruction. ” (USDE xvii)
“Instruction combining online and face-to-face elements had a larger advantage relative to purely face-to-face instruction than did purely online instruction” (USDE xv, emphasis in original).

11. Satisfaction of students?
To what do students respond favorably?
Convenient access
Learning in different ways
“connectedness”, “social presence”
exercise independent agency in learning
Limitations to student responsiveness?
Need guidance on tech and online tasks
Less experienced learners don’t trust “community”
Need to see relevance of online work in an integrated way

12. Satisfaction of faculty?
To what do faculty respond favorably?
More productivity in administrative tasks
Flexible in-class time
Opportunity to reflect on course objectives
Evidence of gains in student performance
Limitations to faculty responsiveness?
Need guidance on tech and online tasks
Rethinking of faculty roles
More preparation up front and admin/feedback work
Need to avoid “course-and-a-half syndrome”

13. What do we need to adopt?
Learn about the evidence of learning benefits
Faculty development – not just tech tools, but course re-design and pedagogical approaches
Opportunities to interact with experienced, successful blended learning adopters
Time and resources to reflect on, conceptualize, and develop blended courses
Institutional commitment to the above

14. Pilot projects, 2010-2011 Bob Tallitsch, BIOL 358
Vodcast lectures and Problem Based Learning outcomes
using online lectures to deliver content and meet lower-order Bloom’s taxonomy learning levels to free up class time for collaborative work on higher-order objectives

15. Pilot projects, 2010-2011 Jon Clauss, MATH 340
vodcast lectures and instruction in mathematical problem-solving
using online lectures to deliver content and meet lower-order Bloom’s taxonomy learning levels to free up class time for collaborative work on higher-order objectives

16. Pilot projects, 2010-2011 Dan Conway, BUSN 474
synchronous online communication pedagogy in a simulation course
tapping the potential of real-time online communication and collaboration technologies to enhance the student engagement experience

17. Pilot projects, 2010-2011 Steve Klien, COMM/MJMC 211
integrating vodcast and online quiz activity with in-class collaborative analysis activities
effects of using online course content in combination with interactive face-to-face collaborative inquiry on social presence and teacher immediacy?

18. Pilot projects, 2010-2011 Amanda Makula, Tredway Library
online information literacy instruction via vodcast
providing flexible resources for library and research/information instruction that can be tailored to and coordinated with discipline-specific and cross-disciplinary learning

19. What might students think?
Melissa Shore ´11, Comm Studies
research assistant for Klien pilot
how might a student react to the promises and challenges of blended learning?
reactions to a sample vodcast?

20. What do you think?
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Ideas or Suggestions?

21. Sooo… to conclude:
BLI faculty will share results of pilot projects and serve as resources for faculty development
Currently available resources:
Adventures in Blended Learning blog
ACTL Moodle site
It’s not about changing who we are… it’s about doing what we do well, better