1. Dr. Bill Bailey, Dr. Gregory L. Wiles & Professor Thomas R. Ball Kennesaw State State University Marietta, GA The Converged Classroom

2. Definitions Traditional – Live face to face class room meeting, usually meets 2-3 times per week Hybrid – some combination of online and classroom. In our case, half of the material is online, usually as pre-recorded lectures, and the other half is delivered in a live face to face class room meeting once a week. Asynchronous Online – In an asynchronous online course, all of the material is available online, and students generally work independently at their convenience. Synchronous Online – In a synchronous online course, there is at least one live online session each week where students can interact with each other and with faculty.

3. The Converged Classroom Delivery types: 1. Hybrid 50% online; pre-recorded lectures, materials & etc. 50% on campus 2. Online - Synchronous 50% online; pre-recorded lectures, materials & etc. 50% live online

4. The Converged Classroom So What’s the Converged Classroom? Offering hybrid and online course sections concurrently with the same course material and structure, same learning outcomes, same assessments, same instructor and all at the same time.

5. The Converged Classroom HybridOnline SameCourse InstructorSame Course materialSame Course AssignmentsSame Course ActivitiesSame Course AssessmentSame Course ScheduleSame Class Meeting TimeSame Traditional Classroom Face to Face Class Meeting Delivery Method Synchronous Online

6. The Converged Classroom Each Course is Cross-Listed Hybrid sections have -850 designation Online sections have -900 designation Cross listed for same time, same instructor Taught as one course.

7. The Converged Classroom Why the need for Converged Courses? 1.Growing need to accommodate non-traditional students 2.Work related FT & PT 3.Family-marriage & children 4.Need for more flexibility in seeking academic goals 5.More consistency of course learning material

8. The Converged Classroom Anecdotes: 1.Several traditional students who moved from the area have completed their education via online 2.Due to pre-recorded lectures and archived live sessions, students who received grades of “incomplete” were given access to the materials to successfully complete the course.

9. The Converged Classroom Technology needed 1.Course Management System (D2L, Vista, Moodle, etc. ) 2.Live interface (Collaborate, Wimba or GoToMeeting) 3.Software to create Mp4 recordings (Echo 360, Panopto) 4.Classrooms equipped with ceiling microphones, speakers, overhead projection and software/hardware which permits writing on the screen (Sympodium, Smart podium) 5.Estimated Cost: Smart Podium $4k - $5K, Total $10k - $15k

11. The Converged Classroom Disadvantages: 1.Increase front end workload for the instructor 2.Technical issues 3.Some computer savvy for the instructor 4.Working in two environments simultaneously 5.Self-discipline for students

12. The Converged Classroom Benefits for Students Increased flexibility. Students can self select the delivery method that fits them best. Recorded learning materials can be reviewed as needed. Live class meetings are archived for review, or in case a student is unable to attend. The live sessions promote student interaction for online students.

13. The Converged Classroom Benefits for Students Provides an increase in collegiality for the online students Classroom students can, when necessary, attend a class online instead of missing. Interaction with faculty and peers in real-time for online students. A number of students who have experienced significant life events (medical problems, family relocation, military deployment, etc.) have been able to continue their education without interruption.

14. The Converged Classroom Benefits for the Institution Combining traditional and online sections results in larger more viable class sizes, lessening the chance of course cancellations. Consistency in content and delivery between traditional and online offerings. Better utilization of faculty workload. Better utilization of classroom space. Aids in starting new programs or dealing with low enrollment programs Reach a much larger student target market

15. The Converged Classroom Future Actions 1.Work with future technology capabilities (i.e. capture instructor likeness too) 2.Work with administration on having one course section rather than two. 3.Work with administration on a revised tuition structure to accommodate the converged classroom. 4.Possibility of remote instructors 5.Continue analysis and improvement

16. Changes to Course Offerings Ramp up Full Implementation

17. Initial Analysis Our measurement was success rate: The percentage of students who earned a C or better. Grade analysis indicates less than 4% difference between hybrid & online over 80 converged courses offered in the first two years of full implementation (2010-2011 & 2011-2012).

18. Initial Analysis

19. Ongoing Analysis Fall 2012 – Spring 2015 – Success Rate – GPA – Graduation and Retention

20. Success Rate

22. Conclusions – The 3% success rate difference between hybrid and online courses is statistically significant – What is the practical significance?

23. GPA

24. GPA Fall 2012 – Spring 2015

25. GPA Conclusions – There is no statistically significant difference in the average GPA for hybrid and online courses. – But the distributions look different.

26. GPA

27. Grade Distribution

28. GPA Conclusions – There is more variation in the GPA in online courses compared to hybrid courses – This difference is statistically significant – Although the difference in grade distributions is small (2% for As and Fs) it is statistically significant – Practical significance? Mean – 3.3172 vs 3.2306

29. Graduation – No graduates yet from 2012 cohort YearCohort 3 Year Graduation4 Year Graduation6 Year Graduation8 Year Graduation CountPercentCountPercentCountPercentCountPercent 20141400%0 0 0 20131700%0 0 0 20122300%0 0 0 20111900%316%3 3 20102400%313%521%5 20091800%16%528%5 20082300%313%1043%1252% 20073000%27%1240%1653% 20061600%0 956%1063% 20051400%214%321%429% 20041300%0 538%754% 20031000%110%440%550% 20021100%0 327%3 2001900%0 667%889% Total24100%156%6527%6527%

30. Retention YearCohort 1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5 Year6 year CountPct.CountPct.CountPct.CountPct.CountPct.CountPct. 20141400%0 0 0 0 0 2013171271%00%0 0 0 0 2012221882%1673%00%0 0 0 2011181689%1478%1478%00%0 0 2010242083%2083%1979%1354%00%0 2009181689%1372%1161%1056%422%00% 2008231983%1774%1565%1252%626%29% 2007302687%2170%2170%1653%1137%620% 2006161594%1275%1275%1169%531%16% 2005141179%750%429%321%214%17% 200413 100%1292%1292%1077%754%646% 200310770%660%6 550%440%330% 2002111091%873%436%4 19%1 200199100%9 889%8 111%00%

31. Graduation and Retention Notes – Graduation and Retention rates only include first time, full time students who do not change majors – Does not reflect non-traditional students, transfers, or major changes

32. Future Analysis Continue to look at Graduation and Retention Course by Course analysis Success rates on Course Objectives End of course evaluations Root cause analysis

33. Thank you