5. 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

6. 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

7. 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 favoring online (p < .01)
blended instruction had a larger advantage relative to F2F instruction, with an average effect of favoring blended (p < .001)
effectiveness of online & blended instruction quite broad across variations in students, implementations, & content areas

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

9. “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

10. 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

11. B L E N D E D
fully f2f
fully
online

12. technology infused
B L E N D E D
minimal technology

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

14. 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

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

16. 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

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

18. 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

19. 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

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

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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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)

25. 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

26. 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.

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

28. 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

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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

32. 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?

33. 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

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

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

36. Open Educational Resources
MERLOT
Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching
TED Talks
OER COMMONS
Open Educational Resources
CCCOER
Community College Consortium for Open Educational Resources

38. EdX, Harvard, MIT & Berkley
OLI, Carnegie Mellon Open Learning Initiative
UDacity
Coursera
EdX, Harvard, MIT & Berkley
Saylor Foundation
Peer2Peer University
Massively Open Online Courses
Carnegie Mellon Open Learning Initiative highly interactive self-learning courses in a variety of subject areas, research demonstrated effectiveness
Udacity -- courses mostly in STEM areas include lectures, materials and activities, discussion, and optional exams
Coursera -- reasonably traditional courses from traditional university professors consisting of lectures, activities & discussion
EdX -- similar to Coursera with professors from Harvard, MIT and Berkley
Saylor Foundation -- collections of OER materials in a variety of subject areas developed by professors contracted for that purpose + final exams
Peer 2 Peer University supports many somewhat open-ended learning communities which you can join

39. Kathy Schrock’s Bloomin’ Apps
Learning While Mobile
Kathy Schrock’s Bloomin’ Apps

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

41. 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

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