Presented by:
Joel Hartman – Vice Provost for Information Technologies & Resources – University of Central Florida
(I’ll update this with a link to his presentation slides as soon as it’s posted)
Joel began by reminding us that chalk, paper, books were all technology. Plato warned us we might lose our memories to technology. Joel then reminded us of the promises of the 80s and how education would be revolutionized, but those predictions didn’t pan out.
If the technology from the 80s didn’t change everything, then why do we think blended learning will?
Joel’s answer is that it’s not just the technology itself, but the way in which we practice blended learning that could be revolutionary. The way institutions are collaborating, the way faculty development is more center-stage, the way assessment is being taken more seriously: all of these things point towards revolutionary potential.
How do we define Blended Learning?
BL courses combine online and classroom learning activities and resources in an optimal way to improve student learning outcomes and to address important institutional issues. In many institutions, online learning is a continuum. Blended lives in the area between traditional and online classes.
Institutional promise of blended learning:
- Improve teaching and learning (e.g. implement learner-centered pedagogies)
- Move form an ad-hoc, “bottom up” approach to an institutional scale initiative
- Increase efficiency of classroom utilization (e.g. manage growth)
Other ways of blending
Joel summarized a number of different ways to blend courses. Dividing a large class into multiple online sections, aggregating several classes into one larger group, mixing F2F and online sections of the course.
Faculty promise of blended learning:
- First step into online learning
- An opportunity for meaningful faculty development
- A way to meet Net Gen student expectations
- Build information literacy skills
- Possibly “the best of both worlds” (though this is not a guarantee)
Pedagogical promise of blended learning:
- An environment of pedagogical diversity and experimentation
- A platform for integrating other technologies
- More assessment options
- A constructivist environment (more authentic, more contextual assessments)
- Impacts teaching practice in and out of the classroom
Student promise of blended learning
- Student expectations do not align well with traditional F2F classes
- Blended learning is a good match for Net Gen’s visual, exploratory, participative, technology-rich learning preferences
- Student success rates are high and withdrawal rates low
Ten Keys to Success with Blended Learning
- Institutional strategy for blended learning
- Systemic approach
- Faculty development
- Course design and development support
- Online student support
- Online academic services
- Robust and reliable infrastucture
- Effective organizational model
- Pro-active policy development
- Data collection and assessment
Joel noted that the skills required to support blended learning is a set that doesn’t typically exist in any particular department on a campus. Organizations need to change, he says.
Sloan-C Pillars (the holy grail; the goals)
- Access
- Learning effectiveness
- Student satisfaction
- Faculty satisfaction
- Cost-effectiveness
Joel noted that blended learning improves access to learning by removing barriers of time and location (fully online learning obviously completely removes these barriers).
Surveys about why students enroll in BL courses reveal its overwhelmingly because of schedules and flexibility. Students also reported enthusiasm about the quality and benefits.
Predictions for Blended Success and Withdrawal
The significant predictor for success in blended learning is GPA — not ethnicity or placement testing. It resembles the predictors for F2F success.
In other words…
- Blended learning is NOT a treatment
- Modality, per se, does not produce increased student success
- What does is rich, engaging learning experiences facilitated by well-trained and motivated teachers.
Students in blended courses benefit from reduced ambivalence, reduced ambiguity, improved interaction, responsive environment, increased value, latitude (freedom), increased engagement and sustained conversation.
Faculty benefit from convenience, personal satisfaction, learn technology, increased student engagement. Faculty satisfaction is less about teaching format than it is about a variety of other, such as: things-recognition, culture, risk.
Money
Joel mentioned that “making money” is not a good reason to engage in blended learning. However, he says good implementations are generally sustainable and may even be profitable. Of those that failed, he noted that often they underestimated costs and overestimated enrollment.
At his institution:
- Support costs are centrally funded
- Tuition and state support ($29.1M) distributed to the colleges ($69.7M for fully online + blended)
- Increased capacity = $27M in construction
- 16.6:1 ROI
Living in the “New Normal”:
- Declining state support
- No funds for new construction
- Increasing student demand
- Increasing tuition and fees
- Online and blended learning may be “our only hope.”
This is to say, online and blended learning may be our only fiscal hope in an environment of declining support.
Thank you so much for the excellent summary! Impressive and fast.
You’re welcome! It’s obviously not complete, but I tried to get as much of the important info as possible as he flew through the slides.
I agree–great clarity and focus in the summary! See you in San Diego!