1. 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

2. Presentation outline Introduction Background Key report findings
Issues and the future

3. The beginning
Nov – “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)

4. The beginning continued…
April – 10th Sloan-C Workshop on Blended Learning
Nov – 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)

5. 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.

6. 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

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

8. 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

9. Some findings

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. Informal blending Bloemer & Swan Investigating informal blending at the University of Illinois Springfield
On-ground only
Online only
Informal blending
On-ground only
Online only
Informal blending

14. 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 %

15. 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

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

17. Issues and the future

18. 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

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

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

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

22. Features of psychological contracts
Voluntary choice
Belief in mutual agreement
Incompleteness

23. 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

24. For more information contact:
Dr. Tony Picciano
Dr. Chuck Dziuban
Dr. Charles Graham