Blended learning Enters the Mainstream

Charles Dziuban, Joel Hartman, Frank Juge, Patsy Moskal, Steven Sorg

he number of colleges and universities engaged in Web-based instruction has increased dramatically over the past decade. Advancements in computer technologies and the Internet, combined with significant research in new learn­ing theories, have helped fuel exploration and research on how to best use these technologies to improve teaching and learning.

There is no doubt that the recent technological advances have, at the very least, fostered much discussion regarding virtual teaching and learning, and in some cases have resulted in transformed practices at many institutions of higher education (Dziuban, Hartman, & Moskal, 2004). The U.S. Department of Edu­cation (2003) reported that 56 percent of all two- and four-year Title IV degree-granting institutions are offering distance education courses, with 90 percent of those using asynchronous Internet instruction. Campus Computing 2003 (Green, 2003) reported that more than half of all college courses are using Internet resources, with nearly half of public university courses using a course Web site. In fact, universities now use the Internet more than any other mode to deliver dis­tance education (Ashby, 2002), and the trend is toward even higher levels of adop­tion in the future (Allen & Seaman, 2003).

Institutions of higher learning are also seeing changes in their incoming stu­dents. Today's undergraduates are more technologically savvy than ever before, with more than 78 percent having used the Internet for homework prior to en­tering college, more than 67 percent having used e-mail, and 80 percent acquiring

The Handbook of Blended Learning

a computer by the time they get to college. Undergraduate students report spend­ing an average of twelve hours per week on the Internet (EDUCAUSE, 2003). In addition, today's students also appear to be older. About 43 percent of those en­rolled in 1999-2000 reported that they were age twenty-four or over, and 82 per­cent of these older undergraduates were employed (Horn, Peter, & Rooney 2002).

Many institutions are now developing courses that combine both fully online and face-to-face instruction. Faculty, students, and administrators are beginning to realize a number of advantages from these blended courses, and many see in them the potential of offering the best of both the physical and virtual in­structional worlds. Courses that replace a portion of face-to-face instruction with asynchronous Web components increase flexibility while retaining both face-to-face and online interaction. Research investigating blended learning indicates the emergence of a number of trends. First, blended courses provide a powerful mechanism for meeting the educational needs of students. Because many students have job and family responsibilities, blended courses help provide the flexibility they require (McCray, 2000; Strambi & Bouvet, 2003; Wingard, 2004). Not sur­prisingly, many students have come to prefer blended courses over their face-to-face counterparts, and this is often displayed in high levels of student satisfaction with this mode of instruction (Dziuban, Hartman, & Moskal, 2004; Leh, 2002; Willett, 2002).

An additional benefit reported from blended courses is a higher level of interaction than commonly experienced in face-to-face courses (Dziuban. Hartman & Moskal, 2004; Waddoups & Howell, 2002; Wingard, 2004). The interaction tools available in most blended courses and course management systems, coupled with the asynchronous structure of such courses, combine to form a highly effective computer-mediated communication environment. They also facilitate access to material and experts that might not be otherwise available. The result is a learning environment where students can be actively engaged and potentially learn more than in a traditional on-campus classroom (Dziuban. Hartman, & Moskal, 2004). From an institutional standpoint, classroom space can be more efficiently used when a substantial portion of the course is offered in an online format. In theory, multiple courses can occupy the same classroom time slot, whereas in practice, universities and colleges are experimenting with how to leverage this effect to increase efficiency and reduce costs.

While the potential benefits are positive, the research is clear that for blended courses to be educationally effective, quality course design is critical (Dziuban. Hartman, & Moskal, 2004; King, 2002; Waddoups & Howell, 2002). Faculty must learn how to use Web resources effectively, including highly popular course man­agement tools such as Blackboard or WebCT (Morgan, 2003). Perhaps more important are the pedagogical and instructional design components associated with

Blended Learning Enters the Mainstream

how best to use online tools, including how to facilitate interaction in the course, what content or interactions are best delivered through the Web versus face-to-face, and how to motivate students to be actively involved in and take greater respon­sibility for their own learning. Faculty members are faced with significant challenges such as how to rethink the way they teach a class, and they often need access to instructional design support to guide them through this process. Having faculty and student support ready and available when things go wrong (and they will) is crit­ical. Students and faculty need access to technical specialists who can provide them with information and guidance when difficulties or failures related to campus servers, course management systems, Internet service providers, or other technology elements occur (Strambi & Bouvet, 2003; Willett, 2002).

Blended Courses at the University of Central Florida

Figure 14.1 illustrates the initiative for the three Web modalities offered at the University of Central Florida (UCF): fully online (W), mixed mode (M), and Web enhanced (E) courses. Fully online courses and programs are predominantly de­termined at the college and department level. The E courses, which are face-to-face with added Web components, began when faculty became interested in using Web resources to enhance their classes. This E modality has become so prevalent that UCF has eliminated this designation since many face-to-face classes now are Web enhanced.

A blended (M) model was created in 1997 as an institutional response as a result of the finding that 75 percent of the students who enrolled in the first wave of fully online courses the previous year were also enrolled in face-to-face courses

FIGURE 14.1. UCF INITIATIVE FOR ONLINE LEARNING MODALITY.

The Handbook of Blended Learning

(Dziuban, Hartman, Moskal, Sorg, & Truman, 2004). Blended courses were im­mediately popular with students, and enrollments increased from 125 in 1997 (eight blended courses) to more than 13, 600 (508 blended courses) in academic year 2003-2004. The UCF approach replaces some classroom meeting time with online activity A blended course typically holds one face-to-face class meeting per week, with the remaining course material and interaction being online; however, the model varies by faculty and discipline. For instance, " Exploring Wines of the World" is an elective in UCF's Rosen College of Hospitality Management. The nature of this course makes it an ideal fit for the blended model. The class originally met face-to-face for one hour and fifteen minutes every other week, with a laboratory wine tasting on alternate weeks.

Impact on Faculty and Students

Blended courses benefit the institution, the students, and the faculty in numer­ous ways. Institutional goals include more efficient use of classroom space, im­proved student retention, and enhanced student learning through increased interactivity and active student engagement (Dziuban et al., 2000; Hartman. Dziuban, & Moskal, 2000). If optimally scheduled, blended courses can reduce use of classroom time by 50 to 60 percent, thereby allowing two to three different course sections to be scheduled into a single weekly classroom slot.

Many students faced with work and family obligations are attracted to the flexibility of blended courses, and fully or partially online courses may be an im­portant factor in determining whether they can complete a degree program. The millennial or Net generation students (Oblinger, 2003) have a natural affinit\ for the use of technology. They are familiar with the Internet, digital media, and the Web and see online courses as responding to their needs.

Faculty success in the online environment is one of the most critical factors in developing and sustaining an online learning initiative. It is an irony of the acad­emy that few faculty members have ever studied learning theories, pedagogy, in­structional strategies, curriculum development, assessment strategies, or curricular applications of instructional technology. As one UCF faculty member blunth expressed it, " We do to them what was done to us." The culture of scholarship through which faculty teach, conduct research, publish, and seek tenure and pro­motion functions well within the academy. However, when applied to the devel­opment of instructional technology products, such as online courses, the results vary in quality, are not sustainable, and may find limited acceptance by other fac­ulty (Hanley, 2001). Because the blended online course format at UCF is regarded as transformative, UCF faculty members are required to participate in an inten­sive faculty development program in order to teach a course in this modalitv

Blended Learning Enters the Mainstream

Priorities for the development of blended courses are established by the respec­tive college deans and chairpersons through consultations that occur once each academic term. Although faculty members responsible for the courses selected for blended learning development are identified by the respective colleges, it is ex­pected that their participation in online learning will be completely voluntary.

Faculty Professional Development

The UCF faculty development program for blended learning is a simulation course titled " Interactive Distributed Learning for Technology Mediated Course Deliv­ery" (IDL6543). The program is itself an authentic blended learning experience in which faculty members participate as " students, " with instructional designers serving as the " instructors." IDL6543 is structured as a sixty-hour-plus, eight-week program: ten online asynchronous modules (thirty hours), nine classes (fifteen hours), six labs (seven and a half hours), and individual consultations with in­structional designers for needs assessment and development (seven and a half hours). The program is designed and delivered by Course Development and Web services (CDWS) and supported by the Center for Distributed Learning (CDL).

The online modules provide faculty members with a situated learning expe­rience from a student perspective, with subject matter covering asynchronous dis­tributed learning, best practices, online interaction, assessment, group work, copyright, learner support, and course development processes. In-class activities include demonstrations, guest presenters (including experienced faculty, who are referred to as " Web vets"), cooperative learning activities, and group discus­sions. Lab sessions emphasize the development of specific skills related to online course maintenance and delivery. Homework consists of " assignments" relating to the development of materials for the courses the faculty will eventually teach online. Centralized faculty and course development support frees instructors from technical demands such as HTML programming, thus allowing them to concentrate fully on the design of their courses (Willis, 1994).

Before each session begins, an initial consultation is conducted with each faculty participant by an instructional designer to assess the faculty member's tech­nical skills, the needs of the course he or she will be developing, and any special concerns or expectations the faculty member may have. As incentives, partici­pating faculty members are provided with a one-course release or equivalent stipend and a new notebook computer equipped with wireless networking and a standard software load so that they can use it to complete their work. Consulta­tions with an instructional designer occur on a regular basis to guide the faculty member through the learning process. The team experience of faculty working with an instructional designer for an extended period also helps develop the trust

200 The Handbook of Blended Learning

relationships necessary for faculty to accept the involvement of staff experts in the design and delivery of their courses; in effect, it builds confidence, shared knowl­edge, understanding of the role of instructional designers, and overall rapport.

The final session is the Faculty Showcase, where each instructor presents a module of the course he or she is redesigning to an audience consisting of fellow faculty, department chairs, deans, and CDWS staff, with an occasional visit by the university's provost or president. Although these presentations are brief, they clearly reveal the degree of transformation the faculty members have experienced. After faculty members have completed IDL6543, they continue to work with their as­signed instructional designer to complete development of their initial course. When the online course is completed, instructional designers review it for quality before it is offered online.

During the first semester a new blended course is offered, the instructor has access to his or her instructional designer and production staff to resolve any last-minute problems or brush up on any skills needed to deliver the course. As faculty become more familiar with the tools and techniques necessary to develop online courses, they are encouraged to take greater responsibility for ongoing course maintenance activities. Many individuals initially choose the " full-service" option of having staff design, develop, and produce their courses, then later shift to a " self-service" model with increased personal responsibility.

The transformative nature of the UCF blended model results in a sense of continuous improvement in course design. For example, the design of the " Exploring Wines of the World" course was modified with the completion of a new hospitality management laboratory—classroom environment. This facility allowed the instructor to fulfill his initial plan to integrate the classroom and lab­oratory experiences fully. Both lecture and wine tasting could then occur simul­taneously in a class so that students tasted a wine immediately after it was described, and discussion could occur. Online activities—exercises, quizzes, and modules—reinforced what was covered in class. The professor reports that this integration of activities will be enhanced in the future.

We find that this continuous incremental model of improvement is common in these blended courses as faculty become comfortable with the model and new and improved resources become available. Faculty find the flexibility of this modal­ity allows them to use instructional resources and techniques they might noi have had access to in a pure face-to-face or fully online modality. They are further encouraged by positive student perception of the course and improved student performance.

For many institutions, the initial engagement in online learning consisted of fully online courses and programs offered to distant students. With blended

Blended Learning Enters the Mainstream

learning, the focus is on the institution's mainstream students, faculty, and academic programs. The differences in approach and impact can be signifi­cant. Internally directed initiatives require greater emphasis on systemic ap­proaches, attendance to issues of campus and faculty culture, and increasing requirements for student business and academic support services to be acces­sible online.

Some Demographics for Blended Learning

The blended online course model has the potential to yield significant classroom space efficiencies. However, a review of blended course scheduling practices indicated this was not occurring as expected. While the university's scheduling guidelines en­able sharing traditional Tuesday-Thursday and Monday-Wednesday-Friday time slots and alternate week (for example, every other Monday) offerings, some faculty have developed highly flexible instructional patterns using the blended model. Other instructors may have a preplanned but irregular on-again, off-again class meeting schedule, and some take advantage of real-time progress and learning assessment and develop their reduced seat-time strategies on a week-to-week basis throughout the term.

Scheduling personnel continually works toward a goal of having a high per­centage of sections matched with other companion classes sharing the same room and block schedule time. The percentage of blended class sections that are matched and share classroom space and block schedule time slots grew from 24 percent in fall 2002 to 42 percent in fall 2004.

Outcomes for Blended Learning

A recent program sponsored by the EDUCAUSE National Learning Infra­structure Initiative (National Learning Infrastructure Initiative, 2003) on trans­formative assessment (ТА) has led to new thinking on the manner in which we conceptualize and use data-based information regarding teaching and learn­ing through technology. Considering evaluation in three phases (administra­tive, progressive, and transformative), the National Learning Infrastructure Initiative suggests that assessment is a fundamental component of higher ed­ucation transformation. Simultaneously, the Sloan-C Consortium has devel­oped a model for assessing quality education in asynchronous learning networks (Moore, 2002).

The Handbook of Blended Learning

Two important elements of the Sloan pillar framework involve learning effectiveness and student satisfaction. Learning effectiveness concentrates on assessing whether technology-based instruction produces comparable or supe­rior learning outcomes when compared to face-to-face environments. Student satisfaction considers how well learners adapt and thrive in technology-enhanced learning environments. In addition to asynchronous learning net­works, these elements form an effective underpinning for evaluating blended learning. At the University of Central Florida, evaluation procedures encom­pass the two national initiatives, producing a protocol that is consistent with the blended learning metaphor—a mixture of face-to-face and online learn­ing. (For more information on the blended learning impact evaluation at UCF conducted by the Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness, see h ttp: // rite, ucf.edu.)

Learning Effectiveness

At UCF, we use a declassification strategy to determine learning effectiveness with grades. By declassification, we mean reducing grades to a binary format that defines success in a course. Grade distributions vary widely across depart­ments for reasons that reflect differences in instructional and assessment philoso­phies, as well as accepted academic norms. This causes difficulty comparin, A's, B's, C's, and so on across departments in a way that reflects the impact of blended learning. The declassification approach attempts to mitigate these idio­syncratic differences by sacrificing some specificity to gain reliability. The process is straightforward: an A, B, or С grade is considered success, while any other grades—D, F, W, or I—are classified as nonsuccess. Obviously, the deci­sion about where to define the cut-off point between success and nonsuccess is arbitrary. Another important variable in learning effectiveness is the withdrawal rate of students enrolled in blended courses compared to roughly compara­ble face-to-face and fully online courses.

Figure 14.2 shows the success rates for the spring 2003 semester for the three UCF colleges housing the majority of Web courses: Arts and Sciences (CAS. Health and Public Affairs (COHPA), and Education (СОЕ). Success rates vary bj college for all disciplines, but the trend is for blended courses to produce succe^-rates equal to or higher than their face-to-face and fully online counterparts.

Figure 14.3 illustrates the college comparisons for withdrawal rates in tl: various modalities. As with success rates, withdrawal rates vary across the col­leges, with the СОЕ typically showing the lowest attrition. Overall, the with­drawal rates for blended courses are generally comparable to those ifl face-to-face sections.

The Handbook of Blended Learning

FIGURE 14.4. STUDENT SATISFACTION WITH BLENDED LEARNING (Л/ = 473).

Blended Learning as a Transformative Construct in Higher Education

The blended environment serves as a prototype for universities of the future. Fully online initiatives are a phenomenon separate from the academy— essentially advocating deemphasis of traditional approaches and teaching strate­gies. However, the blended format coalesces Web-based and face-to-face instruction into an entirely new model that holds the potential to transform both teaching and learning.

Blended teaching and learning responds to what Oblinger (2003) and Wendover (2002) define as the new-generation learners (millennials). These stu­dents, born after 1980, have grown up with what other generations view as new technologies. They are connected (mostly to each other) and proficient in the use of communicative technology, often viewing what transpires in college classrooms as slow moving and uninteresting. Wendover (2002) describes a classroom sce­nario where four generations are present (matures, baby boomers, generation-Xers, and millennials). He suggests that matures' and boomers' preferred mode of communication is prolonged discussion. The generation-X students simph want to move on with it, while the millennials are quite content to sit and watch the goings on.

Our findings at UGF show that younger students are less satisfied with their online experience, with the millennials being the least satisfied of the generational

Blended Learning Enters the Mainstream

groups. An important caution is that blended learning is not strictly an instruc­tional phenomenon. All aspects of the university must be involved in a systemic way—colleges, departments, faculty, support services, and infrastructure—to en­able student and faculty success in the online environment. When those ele­ments are in place and functioning effectively, blended learning can produce satisfied and high-achieving students, professionally satisfied faculty, opportunities for innovative and responsive program design, more efficient and effective use of facilities, and improved relationships with the community. The blended learning model has the potential to transform. It can change online learning from some­thing the institution does to something the institution is, and it can lead to fun­damental changes in the way instructors teach and students learn, strategies for delivering services, and space needs and new resource use efficiencies. Blended learning, in the context of the academy, is a complex system that will inevitably have both positive and negative side effects. The task ahead of us is to better un­derstand the dynamics of blended learning so that we can optimize its impact on our institutions, faculty, and students.

References

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2003). Sizing the opportunity: The quality and extent of online education in the United States, 2002-2003. Needham, MA: Sloan-C.

Ashby, С. М. (2002). Distance education: Growth in distance education programs and implications for federal education policy. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.

Dziuban, C, Hartman J., & Moskal, P. D. (2004, March 30). Blended learning. ECAR Research Bulletin, 7. Retrieved August 1, 2004, from https://www.educause.edu/ecar/.

Dziuban, C, Hartman, J., Moskal, P., Sorg, S., & Truman, B. (2004). Three ALN modalities: An institutional perspective. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Into the mainstream (pp. 127-148). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.

Dziuban, C. D., Moskal, P., Juge, E, Truman-Davis, В., Sorg, S. & Hartman, J. (2000).

Developing a web-based instructional program in a metropolitan university. Unpublished manuscript, University of Central Florida.

EDUCAUSE. (2003). The pocket guide to U.S. higher education. Retrieved June 29, 2004, from https://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB220 1.pdf.

Green, К. С (2003). Campus computing 2003. Encino, CA: Campus Computing Project. Avail­able online from https://www.campuscomputing.net.

Hanley, G. L. (2001). Designing and delivering instructional technology. In C. Barone & P. Hagner (Eds.), Technology-enhanced teaching and learning (pp. 57-64). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hartman, J. L., Dziuban, C. D, & Moskal, P. (2000). Faculty satisfaction in ALNs: A depen­dent or independent variable? In J. Bourne (Ed.), Online education: Learning effectiveness and faculty satisfaction (pp. 151-172). Nashville, TN: Center for Asynchronous Learning Networks.

CHAPTER FIFTEEN