Working draft date: August 1, 2014
CLU Faculty Guidebook:
Assessing the Empirical Evidence and
Creating and Facilitating Blended Learning
Undergraduate Classes
California Lutheran University
by
Harry Starn, Jr., MS, CFA, CFP®
Cia DeMartino, PhD
2
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3
A. Guidebook’s Intended Audience and Purpose ................................................................. 3
B. Definition: Hybrid versus Blended Classrooms ............................................................... 3
C. Why consider a blended format if our face-to-face classrooms aren’t broken? ............... 4
Section I: Pedagogical Opportunities in Blended Learning Classes ........................................ 6
Empirical Evidence – Outcomes in Blended Classrooms ................................................ 6
Research from Meta-Analyses ............................................................................................ 6
Research from Smaller Institutions Contrasting Undergraduate Blended Learning with
Face-To-Face Instruction. ................................................................................................... 7
B. Theory............................................................................................................................... 8
C. Other Reasons for Adoption ........................................................................................... 10
Transformative Potential for Pedagogical Innovation ...................................................... 10
Millennial Learner ............................................................................................................ 11
Hard and Soft Skills for the Jobs of the Present and Future ............................................. 12
Section II: Designing a Blended Class ....................................................................................... 13
A.
A. Tenants of Quality Undergraduate Teaching ................................................................. 13
B. Integration – The Core Concept of Blended Course Design .......................................... 15
C. Orchestrating the “Best of F2F” with “Best of Online” ................................................. 16
D. Leverage Technology to Serve Your Pedagogical Agenda ............................................ 18
E. Avoiding the Course-and-a-Half (1.5x) Tendency ......................................................... 19
F. Creating a Flipped Classroom ........................................................................................ 19
G. Discovering the Right Mix between Classroom and Online .......................................... 20
Section III: Best Practices In Facilitating The Blended Classroom ....................................... 22
A. Preparing Students for the Blended Classroom .............................................................. 22
B. Embracing Revised Faculty and Student Roles .............................................................. 23
C. Maintaining “Strategic Presence” ................................................................................... 24
D. Connecting Classroom and Online Interactions ............................................................. 25
E. Building Community ...................................................................................................... 26
F. Sustainable Faculty Workload ........................................................................................ 26
Section IV: Summary ................................................................................................................. 28
Rethinking the Traditional Format: Implications from teaching a blended course. ......... 28
Appendix I: Resources................................................................................................................. 29
Appendix II: Course Design Map............................................................................................... 34
3
Introduction
1
A. Guidebook’s Intended Audience and Purpose
This guidebook, which represents a work-in-progress draft, is intended to serve as a resource for
faculty at California Lutheran University. It was created for the express purpose of: 1) exploring
pedagogical reasons that support a transition from a fully face-to-face class to a Blended
classroom environment, 2) examining “best practices” for Blended classroom design, and 3)
communicating practical strategies for facilitating the blended classroom. The information in this
guide emanates from a variety of sources, including: academic literature, CLU faculty and guides
from other universities. A comprehensive resource list is provided within the appendix.
B. Definition: Hybrid versus Blended Classrooms
The terms “hybrid learning” and “blended learning” have often been used to express the same
general concept. Both refer to a classroom-delivery format that involves some combination of
face-to-face and virtual-classroom time. Participants at a 2005 Sloan-C Workshop on the topic
adopted the following definition for blended learning:
1. Courses that integrate online with traditional face-to-face class activities in a planned,
pedagogically valuable manner; and
2. Where a portion (institutionally defined) of the face-to-face time is replaced by online
activity (Laster, Otte, Picciano, and Sorg, 2005).”2
Based on their research of best practices, Patricia McGee and Abby Reis offer the following
definition, which we will embrace in this guide: “Blended course designs involve instructor and
learners working together in mixed delivery modes, typically face-to-face and technology
mediated, to accomplish learning outcomes that are pedagogically supported through
assignments, activities, and assessments as appropriate for a given mode and which bridge
course environments in an manner meaningful to the learner.”3
1
Thesys International. http://www.thesysintl.com/Blended education-model.html
Anthony Picciano, “Introduction,” Blended Learning: Research Perspectives (Sloan Center for Online Education)
2007: 20.
3
Patricia McGee and Abby Reis, “Blended Course Design: A Synthesis of Best Practices,” Journal of Asynchronous
2
4
The Graduate School of Educations (GSOE) at CLU created operational definitions of courses
based on the percentage of instructional time that is delivered online, which this guide will also
adopt.
C. Why consider a blended format if our face-to-face classrooms aren’t broken?
Why transition from a fully face-to-face experience? This is a relevant question, which has been
voiced by faculty in our undergraduate program. After all, we are a small-size liberal arts
university that prides itself on personalized face-to-face engagement. Our classroom sizes are
intentionally capped, which ensures students get to interact and know their faculty. We create
community and a unique experience for our students. Why would we think about giving up even
a portion of our “face time” to engage in a virtual environment, when that is what makes us so
unique and effective4? Why should be consider creating blended courses when our face-to-face
classrooms aren’t broken?
Most will agree that there are non-pedagogical reasons that motivate institutions to offer Blended
Learning Networks, Volume 16, Issue 4, October 2012: 9.
4
Lisa Spiro and Bryan Alexander, “Open Education in the Liberal Arts: A National Institute for Technology in
Liberal Education (NITLE) Working Paper, March 2012: 28.
5
learning classes. These include competitive positioning that creates a potential for increased
enrollments, improved student and faculty scheduling flexibility and access, and efficient uses of
infrastructure. Moreover, it’s clear that the external environment in higher education is radically
changing as content is becoming ubiquitous and student debt has reached crippling levels. In
response to uncertainty surrounding the future of our country’s higher-education system,
universities and colleges are repositioning. Paraphrasing one of the panel participants during this
year’s UPCEA Conference on Online Leadership, “we didn’t know where the (MOOC) tsunami
was going but we wanted to make sure we were riding the wave.” That same mindset – not sure
where higher education is going but making sure to be on board – is prevalent at many
institutions, but provides no assurance that going along for the ride will benefit our students.
As faculty, our concern remains fixed on the student-learning experience and the quality of our
teaching. Faculty should assess evidence in order to determine if a transition from a fully face-toface experience to one that offers the option of blended delivery is pedagogically justified. Peter
Shea echoed the same frame when opening his chapter contribution to the 2007 Sloan Blended
Learning report:
“What problem does blended learning solve? Why would we want to move
instruction out of the classroom and put some, but not all of it into an online
format? What are the benefits? What are the losses?”5
Before exploring the empirical evidence regarding learning outcomes, it’s worth pausing to
reflect on reasons faculty have elected to move from the fully face-to-face classroom to a
blended environment. Osguthorpe and Graham offered the following, “Those who use blended
approaches base their pedagogy on the assumption that there are inherent benefits in face-to-face
interaction (both among learners and between learner and instructor) as well as the understanding
that there are some inherent advantages to using online methods in their teaching.” 6 Kaleta,
Skibba and Joosten discovered in a qualitative study involving ten participants across three
educational institutions that faculty taught blended courses because of teaching and learning
benefits. “These benefits included increased student learning and the potential to ‘get students to
work independently’ and become ‘more responsible for their own learning.”7 Starenko concluded
from their qualitative study involving 29 faculty that the “great majority” decided to try a
blended format in order to address “communication among and with students.”8
Peter Shea, “Towards a Conceptual Framework for Learning in Blended Environments,” Blended Learning:
Research Prospectives (Sloan Center for Online Education, 2007): 19.
6
Russell T. Osguthorpe and Charles R. Graham, “Blended Learning Environments: Definitions and Directions,”
The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Volume 4, Issue 3, 2003: 228.
7
Robert Kaleta, Karen Skibba, and Tanya Joosten, “Discovering, Designing, and Delivering Hybrid Courses,”
Blended Learning: Research Prospectives (Sloan Center for Online Education, 2007): 119.
8
Michael Starenko, “Enhancing Student Interaction and Sustaining Faculty Instructional Innovations through
Blended Learning,” Blended Learning: Research Prospectives (Sloan Center for Online Education, 2007): 167.
5
6
Section I: Pedagogical Opportunities in Blended Learning Classes
A. Empirical Evidence – Outcomes in Blended Classrooms
History has painted a two-sided scholarly argument over whether the qualities of the medium can
affect learning9. On one extreme are researchers like Clark, a particularly vehement proponent
of the impossibility of learning differences due to the medium an educational message used10.
His argument is primarily based on the “replaceability” criterion: any learning outcome from a
specific medium can be replicated using a different medium, and therefore the difference is not
in the medium itself. The different qualities or attributes of a given medium are only more
efficient for certain learners or goals; they are moderating, rather than independent, variables. For
example, while a film can zoom in to show a close up of an insect’s wing, a teacher can draw it
on the board; in both cases, the method of highlighting details is what impacts learning.
Research from Meta-Analyses
Decades’ worth of evidence comparing online versus traditional classroom settings has
supported this hypothesis, starting with Clark’s own (1985) review of a meta-analysis conducted
by Kulik, Kulik, and Schwalb. The original meta-analysis had found that computer-based
education had positive effects on learning for adults. Clark sampled and re-analyzed 30% of the
studies included in Kulik, Kulik, and Shwalb’s meta-analysis11. He concluded that media
factors, such two-way communication and use of the Web, were not significant predictors of
learning outcomes above and beyond methodological and/or pedagogical factors. Clark found
that the research reviewed that did find learning effects from media attributes had confounded
media and methodology variables.
Other reviews and meta-analyses that provide support to this position are Zhao et al. and Russell,
2001. Russell’s appropriately-named website http://www.nosignificantdifference.org/ and
companion book, "The No Significant Difference Phenomenon", catalog 355 research reports,
many of which share his conclusion of no learning differences dependent on delivery mode.
Likewise, Zhao and three colleagues (2005) conducted a meta-analytical study of research to
determine factors that impact the effectiveness of distance education. Their work added to the
literature that confirmed that there is “no significant difference in outcomes between distance
learning and face-to-face education,” although, there were differences across studies. The authors
noted that “not all distance education program are created equal.” They submit that important
elements of a quality distance education program include: opportunities for interaction, the
“presence” of a live instructor, and the right mix between human and technology.12
On the other side of the argument is Kozma (1994), who argued for years against Clark’s
position. Kozma thought that even if there was no evidence at the time for the learning effects of
9
Hastings, Nancy B., and Monica W. Tracey. "Does media affect learning: where are we now?." TechTrends 49.2
(2004): 28-30.
10
Clark, 1983; Clark, 1994
11
Clark, 1985
12
Yong Zhao, Jin Lei, Bo Yan Chan Lai and Hueyshan Sophia Tan, “What Makes the Difference? A Practical
Analysis of Research on the Effectiveness of Distance Education,” Teachers College Record, August 2005: 1861.
7
media, it did not preclude the possibility of effects in the future. He believed that the attributes
of a medium can directly influence learning outcomes. Some of the new media attributes he
pointed to were media convergence, multimedia capabilities, and social connectivity.13
Intriguingly, the future Kozma imagined might be now, particularly when investigating hybrid
courses. The previous meta-analytic work comparing traditional courses versus fully online
courses found no significant differences, but current work comparing hybrid courses to
traditional courses has found significant differences.
The strongest evidence of the benefits of a hybrid courses comes from meta-analysis of studies
contrasting online (or blended) with face-to-face education14. Means et al. (2009) found that a
blended curriculum best enhanced learning. Students who had a part or their entire course online
achieved superior objective learning outcomes (g+ =.25, p<.001). Contrasts of completely faceto-face with blended courses only had even larger positive effects in learning outcomes in favor
of the blended courses (g+ = .35, p.<001). This relationship was partially, but not completely,
mediated by time; students had more time to complete online tasks than immediate tasks, and
having more time was found to enhance learning. However, controlling for time on task still,
courses with any online component still had better learning outcomes (g+ = .19, p<.001).
In the most recent meta-analysis, Bernard et al. (2014) focused on the details of blended learning
(BL) courses to tease out demographic and pedagogical factors that moderate effects on learning
achievement. 96 BL studies were included in the analysis, and then further separated out studies
that had a clear control group using no technology, and studies having some technology in both
groups. Study features were coded across four major categories; research design, publication
demographics, course demographics, and pedagogy (Cohen’s K = .84). They found a modest, but
significant benefit of blended learning: “In terms of percentile difference (i.e., U3 minus 50 %),
students at the median of the control condition (i.e., no BL) would be expected to be 13.0 %
higher in achievement had they experienced the BL conditions.” (p. 115). Their average effect
size was in line with Means et al.’s (2009) at g+= 0.334 (k=117). They found no difference
between STEM and non-STEM courses; both types of classes are appropriate for BL.
Research from Smaller Institutions Contrasting Undergraduate Blended Learning with FaceTo-Face Instruction.

13
14
Georgia Gwinnet College (2011) – GGC is a small, public liberal arts school. Napier,
Dekhane and Smith evaluated student outcomes from the final exam and student
satisfaction via mid- and end-of-term surveys for freshman and sophomores in a core
computer literacy course. The data came from a total of five sections taught by three
instructors. The authors offer the following outcomes: a) there was no meaningful
difference in final exam performance outcomes between the blended and face-to-face
section (i.e., hybrid sections performed slightly better than traditional sections on four of
eight assessment goals, traditional sections performed slightly better on three goals, and
both groups scored about the same on the remaining goal), b) there was no meaningful
difference between student retention and c) average student ratings for the blended class
were three points and above (on a five point scale). “Those who agreed to having trouble
Kozma 1994
Means et al., 2009
8


using technology reported lower overall satisfaction with the course as compared to the
students who disagreed with the statement.” Students identified positive aspects as:
flexibility, interaction with the professor, independent learning, prepared you for the real
work, focus on learning and social presence. One the other hand, concerns included:
requires discipline, requires time management skills, took away from class time, need to
be comfortable with technology, and need to work outside of class.15
West Chester University (2011) – Kenney, a faculty teaching undergraduate education
psychology (professional education core for teacher preparation), conducted research that
focused on five aspects of the student-learning experience in a blended class: student
learning, engagement, preparation for the face-to-face meeting, participation and student
interest in the material. “On the unit test, the blended section had a slightly higher
average score (47.46 out of 60) than both the large, non-blended section (44.34) and the
small, non-blended section (47.40)… Overall the results of the action research study were
positive. The students using the blended format learned the content, and many indicated
that their engagement, preparation, participation and interest increased. When asked if
they preferred a blended to a traditional course, 35% preferred a blended format, 25%
preferred a traditional approach and 39% were unsure. However, 78% recommended that
the instructor continue using the blended approach.”16
Bryn Mawr College - Empirical research on the application of blended learning in small
liberal arts settings is still limited, so Bryn Mawr College created the Blended Learning
in the Liberal Arts Initiative, to partner with 40 liberal arts universities and colleges to
explore student learning outcomes. While the initiative is still in its infancy, early
findings have been positive. They found it improved learning outcomes and that both
students and faculty found it consistent with Liberal Arts values. For STEM courses,
93.5% of students in blended classes passed with a 2.0 or higher, versus 83% in nonblended courses. The faculty members have also found the hybrids to be worthwhile;
every faculty member at Bryn Mawr who started with the pilot have continued teaching
their courses as blended, as have the majority of faculty at their partner institutions17.
B. Theory
There are many theoretical frameworks that have been used to look at online, distance, and to a
lesser extent, blended learning. However, only Communities of Inquiry (CoI) has been used as a
framework in multiple quantitative blended learning studies.
Communities of Inquiry: The CoI framework offers a theory that is “consistent with
constructivist approaches to learning in higher education.” That model, which identifies three
key issues, is depicted below.
17
Cassidy & Spohrer, 2013.
9
18
Social presence refers to the faculty’s cultivation of community, common purpose, group
cohesion and open communication. Cognitive presence involves moving the class from
spontaneous, exploratory discussion to thoughtful and reflective dialogue and application (i.e.,
higher levels of cognitive thinking). Teaching presence refers to the intentional and on-going
facilitation of the learning experience, including: course organization and management,
maintenance of a “safe” collaborative environment, activity management and student support.19
While purposeful application of these three elements is good practice in any classroom, it is the
blended classroom that best supports this enriching confluence. Online aspects of the course
allow for asynchronous group knowledge co-creation in more formal, structured, and democratic
ways, while face-to-face classroom discussions allow individuals to project themselves as real
people, communicating verbally and nonverbally, often in informal ways. In both environments,
the instructor can provide guidance, but with different dynamics. In the physical classroom, the
teacher has the clear leadership role, while online interactions often have a more flat
organizational structure. 20 21
Shea and Bijerano (2008) tested all three constructs with a sample of 2159 students in online
courses across dozens of universities. They created a metric of the community of inquiry
framework consisting of 34 items, asking participants about the clarity of course topics and
goals, the value of online discussions, and their sense of belonging in the course. They found a
three factor solution best matched the data; with those factors accounting for 63% of the
variance. Furthermore, those factors demonstrated a good fit as determined by structural
equation modeling. These findings were echoed by Garrison, Cleveland-Innes and Fung (2010)
who also tested and confirmed the facture structure of the CoI survey instrument with a smaller
sample (N=205).
Multimedia/Multimodal Learning Theories: While not studied in the context of blended
learning, there have been many studies looking at the most effective way to present learning
materials. Ginns (2005) conducted a meta-analysis on the modality effect using 43 studies with
random assignment experiments (N=1887). According to the modality effect, learning is
D. R. Garrison, “Online Community of Inquiry Review: Social cognitive, and Teaching Presence Issues, Sloan
Consortium, 62.
19
Ibid, 65.
20
Moore, Brenda. "Using technology to promote communities of practice (CoP) in social work education." Social
Work Education 27.6 (2008): 592-600.
21
Farmer, James. "Communication dynamics: Discussion boards, weblogs and the development of communities of
inquiry in online learning environments." Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference.
2004.
18
10
improved if textual information, like that found in paragraphs in a textbook, is presented in an
auditory format and accompanied by relevant visual information, such as a graph or image.
Ginns found significant benefits for presenting information multimodally across; most fields of
study (science had the greatest effect size), all age groups, and all presentation types (audio-tape,
computer screen, and virtual reality). The meta-analysis strongly supports that students learn
more from instructional materials that use graphics with spoken text versus graphics with written
text. As applied to a blended classroom, information presented using pre-recorded lectures with
images, animations, and graphs will improve learning over textbook readings. 22
C. Other Reasons for Adoption
Transformative Potential for Pedagogical Innovation
Above and beyond the empirically-supported learning benefits, blended courses can also
stimulate pedagogical innovation in our integrated undergraduate classrooms. As noted on the
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s Hybrid Course webpage, “This format may challenge you
in a whole new way of teaching.”23 Blended formats can expand pedagogical opportunities and
offer a framework that fosters participation, active learning, and meta-cognition.
Expansion of Pedagogical Strategy and Techniques. Bonk and colleagues surveyed distancelearning educations to discover what pedagogical techniques they would prefer to use in the
upcoming decade. The following table summarizes the authors’ findings.
24
While instructors ranked student-centered, active learning elements highly, unfortunately, in
many universities, lecturing is still currently the norm. Hurtado et al (2012) found that across
417 four-year colleges and universities, 45% of instructors reported using extensive lecturing in
all or most of their courses.
The combination of face-to-face and online engagement promotes a natural shift towards
22
Ginns, Paul. "Meta-analysis of the modality effect." Learning and Instruction15.4 (2005): 313-331.
“Hybrid Courses – Advantages and Challenges.” University of Wisconsin Milwaukee. Web. Learning Technology
Center 2014. http://www4.uwm.edu/ltc/hybrid/faculty_resources/advantages.cfm
24
Curtis J. Bonk, Kyong-Jee Kim, Tingten Zeng, “Future Directions of Blended Learning in Higher Education and
Workplace Learning Settings,” The Handbook of Blended Learning, Chapter 39, 2006: 556.
http://www.publicationshare.com/c083_bonk_future.pdf
23
11
student-centered learning activities. Faculty, in blended environments, tend to serve as
facilitators of learning by developing and managing authentic activities, promoting on-going
participation in rich discussions, empowering and guiding student research and energizing
content. The role-shift is certainly true in the flipped-classroom model, which typically relegates
lecture-content and testing to the online environment, retaining real-life problem solving and
other hands-on-learning activities for the face-to-face meetings. Confident that students have
already engaged in the content prior to meeting because of testing, faculty can delve deeper into
the content and fully engage in experiential learning.
Group problem-solving, collaborative tasks, problem-based learning, discussions, case analysis,
simulations and student-generated content translate effectively into the blended classroom.
Reflective collaboration in the asynchronous discussion boards augments the spontaneous
dialogue from the physical classroom. The creative, seamless integration of classroom and online
activities can elevate time-on-task and depth of critical thinking. As described by Dziuban, “In
blended learning, collaboration creates a collective cognitive base where the teaming orientation
of students increases the power of learning by an order of magnitude.”25
Millennial Learner
“For instructors and designers to achieve quality in a blended learning environment
energy and activity needs to be applied to understanding who students are, learning
about their abilities, passions and goals and creating blended learning activities that
align with these.”26
Young adults who were born in the 1980s through mid-90s are referred to as the millennial
generation. Their experience in growing up as “digital natives” created preferences and
expectations that are much different than generations before them. Of course, experienced
teachers realize and respect that every individual is unique; however, it is worthwhile to
understand generational characteristics because it offers another lens for assessing the potential
value in offering blended undergraduate classrooms.
Sweeney offers several useful insights about millennial behaviors in his research entitled,
“Millennial Behaviors & Demographics.” They include:
1) an expectation for learning options and services (i.e., pick-and-choose how they learn)
2) engaged, active learning (e.g., simulations, case studies, hands on activities)
3) convenience and flexibility (where and when they are ready)
4) personalization and customization (e.g., listening to the textbook rather than reading)
5) comfort in collaborating with friends via mobile applications
6) attachment to gaming technology (full-motion video, graphics, levels of learning)
7) socially motivated
8) less inclined to read than previous generations when the same age27
25
Dziuban et al., 280.
Peter Shea, “Towards a Conceptual Framework for Learning in Blended Environments,” Blended Learning:
Research Prospectives (Sloan Center for Online Education, 2007): 22.
27
Richard Sweeney, “Millennial Behaviors & Demographics,” New Jersey Institute of Technology, December
2006: 2-6.
26
12
Those behaviors and preferences align with many of the strengths inherent in the blended
classroom, including: convenience of 24/7 mobile access, via asynchronous and synchronous
tools, video resources, custom analytics, collaboration that can leverage web sources, e-portfolio
and gaming simulations. If we apply this knowledge of the learner effectively, then “…we might
well turn our attention to blended learning as a way of reengaging America’s youth.” 28
Hard and Soft Skills for the Jobs of the Present and Future
Finally, by using technology in the classroom, we are hopefully teaching at three levels; the
content, the medium, and the skills to learn more independently. One of the most often
mentioned soft skill that employers look for are communication skills29. But today,
communication skills are not just speaking and listening; more and more of our communication
takes place online. And there are different rules for the different online formats. Best Buy, Cisco,
Pixar, IBM and Sony Ericsson all have internal wikis30, which require a different type of writing
than an email, whitepaper, or formal report. The more communication media students are
exposed to, the more comfortable they will be in their future work environments, and the less
likely they will be to revert back to informal styles of online communication they use in their
personal lives (like text messages).
Another soft skill that is frequently mentioned by executives was flexibility; which
included being a lifelong learner31. Blended and online learners often have an increased
responsibility to manage their own learning. Practicing this skill with a mentor to guide the
process should help students better understand how they, as individuals, learn. The blended
design allows for both independent and collaborative learning experiences independent of time
and space. 32 Shin, Haynes, & Johnston (1993) found that physicians who had studied at selfdirected undergraduate programs were more likely to be up to date with current medical
knowledge (specifically hypertension) then their traditional undergraduate counterparts. 33
28
Dziuban, 283.
Marcel M. Robles. “Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skill needed in today’s workplace”, Business
Communication Quarterly, 2012: 75(4).
30
Stewart Mader. “7 Effective wiki uses and the companies that benefit from them.
http://stewartmader.com/2008/09/01/7-effective-wiki-uses-and-the-companies-that-benefit-from-them/
31
Robles
32
Garrison & Kanuka
33
Shin, John H., R. Brian Haynes, and Mary E. Johnston. "Effect of problem-based, self-directed undergraduate
education on life-long learning." CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal 148.6 (1993): 969.
29
13
Section II: Designing a Blended Class
After analyzing the empirical data, it’s clear that student satisfaction with the Blended learning
experience is highly correlated with the course design, the faculty’s expertise in facilitating the
dual environment, and the student’s preparedness for engaging in the course. In this section, you
will examine important issues that need to be considered when creating your blended course.
A. Tenants of Quality Undergraduate Teaching
“In a complex and fast-changing technological world, we must always remember
that there are enduring principals of good teaching and ways of engaging students
which transcend different media and technologies.” Dr. Peter Chatterton34
The content of Chickering and Gamson’s 1987 seminal article entitled, “Seven Principles for
Good Practice in Undergraduate Education,” which was based on decades of research on the
undergraduate experienced, provided educators a roadmap of enduring teacher guidelines. Those
guidelines follow:
Good practice in undergraduate education encourages:
1. Student-faculty contact
2. Reciprocity and cooperation among students
3. Active learning
4. Prompt feedback
5. Time on task
6. High expectations
7. Respect diverse talents and ways of learning35
Any delivery format for undergraduate education – fully face-to-face, blended or fully online –
would need to embrace these guidelines. The guidelines make sense, and we know they work. So
the first question would be “Do the seven tenants translate into the virtual environment?”
The following image depicts “best practices in distance learning” as defined by the US Distance
Learning Association (USDLA).
Sarah Knight and Lare Killen,“Emerging Practice in a Digital Age: A guide to technology-enhanced institutional
learning,” JISC, August 2011: 47.
35
Arthur W. Chickering and Zelda F. Gamson, “Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education,”
AAHE Bulletin, March 1987.
34
14
As depicted, best practices in distance education embrace the guidelines. Interactivity – studentto-faculty, student-to-student and student-to-content – is at the heart of distance education.
Expectations are communicated, assessments and activities are varied to respect the diversity of
learners, prompt feedback is offered and resources are built into the course for the purpose of
adding depth.
“Quality Matters” is a nationally-recognized program.36 It involves a peer-review process
designed to certify the quality of online courses. Their rubric, which clearly embraces Chickering
and Gammon’s principles, includes the following criteria:
Course Overview
Learning Objectives
Assessment/Measurement
Instructional Materials
Learning Interaction/Engagement
Course Technology
Learner Support
Accessibility
Orientation, purpose, expectations, policies, pre-requisites,
Instructor and student introductions
SLOs linked to measurable outcomes, module objectives, learning
objectives designed for level of the course
Measurable assessments, clear grading policy, assessments are
sequenced, varied and appropriate, multiple assessments
Materials contribute to learning objectives, current, cited, variety of
perspectives, required and optional content
Opportunities for interaction that promote SLOs, response time for
feedback communicated, participation expectations
Tools support learning objectives, promote active learning, course
design consistent and logical, readily accessible
Technical support available, communicate how to connect with
technical support services, academic support
Guidance on accommodation, alternatives to auditory and visual
content, readability, assistive technologies
Chickering and Ehrmann weigh in on the conversation by suggesting that technology can
accommodate the key principles of undergraduate teaching in their 1996 article, “Implementing
the Seven Principles: Technology as a Lever.”37 In that article, the authors offer the following
insights:
36
Quality Matters Program, Higher Education Program, https://www.qualitymatters.org/higher-education-program
Arthur W. Chickering and Stephen C. Ehrmann, “Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as Lever,”
American Association for Higher Education, October 1996: 3-6. http://www.fmtsystems.com/04-news/Impl-7prin.pdf
37
15







Communication technologies that increase access to faculty, promote resource sharing,
and promote shared learning and problem solving can “usefully augment face-to-face
contact.”
Technology can strengthen faculty interaction with students, especially with shy students.
Collaborative learning and problem solving can be strengthened by leveraging
technology.
Technologies can promote active learning (e.g., simulations, statistical research).
“New technologies can dramatically improve time on task for students and faculty.”
“Repertoires for learning” can be broadened.
Technology will allow for self-pacing (slower student can take more time and get more
feedback).
B. Integration – The Core Concept of Blended Course Design
Simply stated, integration is the “heart” of blended course design. The physical and virtual
classrooms lose their separate identifies to become one. As Jay Caulfield describes
“…experienced hybrid teachers view their class as one integrated learning experience that
involves frequent interaction regardless of where that interaction occurs.”38 The objective is to
orchestrate a unified course with seamless integration of activities and collaboration.
“A blended learning design represents a significant departure from either of these
approaches (i.e. fully offline or fully online). It represents a fundamental
reconceptualization and reorganization of the teaching and learning dynamic, starting
with various specific contextual needs and contingencies (e.g., discipline, developmental
level, and resources). In this respect, no two blended learning designs are identical. This
introduces the great complexity of blended learning.”39
The strategic design process offers a useful construct for creating your integrated blended
classroom. As with any face-to-face or line course, the design process begins by reflecting on
overall goals and objectives. With your destination in mind, the weekly flow and student learning
outcomes are visualized. With SLOs clearly in mind, you’re able to identify the activities,
assignments and content that will support learning – all the time moving the pieces in
combination to leverage what tends to work best in the physical classroom and what works best
online. The design of your course (or redesign of an existing course) and the diversity of
activities you choose are undoubtedly driven by purpose, pedagogy, nature of the content,
characteristics of the learner and unique teacher style and skills.
The following image depicts the layout of the course design map that you will be able to
leverage when collaborating with one of CLU’s instructional designers.
38
39
Jay Caulfield, How to Design and Teach a Hybrid Course, Stylus Publishing, 211.
Garrison and Kanuka, 97.
16
In the prior section, you read that blended classes naturally shift the classroom dynamic toward
student-centered learning, whether they are engaged in critical online discussions with
classmates or engaged in experiential online activities in the physical classroom. In designing
your integrated classroom, you’ll undoubtedly reflect on how to optimize that opportunity. Peter
Sands describes it as “imagine interactivity rather than delivery.”40 Peter Shea shared the
following insight in his chapter contribution to the Sloan Report.
“Can learning activities in blended environments be designed to give learners more
responsibility, ownership, and understanding of their learning relative to face-to-face
instruction? Can blended environments be designed to enhance learner motivation and
engagement levels with meaningful and worthwhile content?” … “To accomplish this we
need to know first what knowledge learners bring to learning environments. A theory of
blended learning should account for mechanisms by which online and face-to-face
instruction can be combined to effectively and efficiently determine and build upon
incoming abilities?”41
Each blended class that you design and facilitate possesses a potential for nurturing studentcentered learning and cultivating the undergraduate’s critical thinking capacity.
…to be a critical thinker is to take control of one’s thought processes and gain a
metacognitive understanding of the processes (i.e., learn to learn). A blended learning
context can provide the independence and increased control essential to developing
critical thinking. Along with the increased control that a blended learning context
encourages is a scaffolded acceptance of responsibility for constructing meaning and
understanding.”42
C. Orchestrating the “Best of F2F” with “Best of Online”
One of the fundamental approaches to creating a blended classroom is to leverage what
instructional methods work best in the face-to-face (F2F) environment with what work best in
the online. The following two tables summarize inherent strengths of each medium.
Peter Sands, “Inside Outside, Upside Downside: Strategies for Connecting Online and Face-to-Face Instruction
for Hybrid Courses,” Teaching with Technology Today 8(6), March 2002.
http://www.wisconsin.edu/ttt/articles/sands2.htm
41
Peter Shay, 22-23.
42
Garrison and Kanuka, 98.
40
17
By extension, there are activities that naturally align with the face-to-face environment and those
that align with the online medium. They include:
Best of the “synchronous” face-to-face activities:
1. Introductions, group organizational meetings
2. Presentations
3. Labs and demonstrations
4. Role plays
5. Class “round table” discussions
6. Debates
7. Live review of quizzes and challenging content
8. Brainstorming ideas
9. Face-to-face group interaction (spontaneous dialogue)
10. Live questions and answers
Best of the “asynchronous” online activities:
1. Delivery of pre-recorded content lectures, YouTube videos, webinars and
archived guest lectures
2. Instructor-led, asynchronous discussion boards (reflective dialogue)
3. Reflection/journaling
4. Problem sets
18
5. Research
6. Sharing documents
7. Quizzes and assessments with immediate computer feedback
8. Content that continues to build from term to term
9. Computer simulations
10. Asynchronous questions and answers
The diversity of the activities offers an interesting conundrum. As Garrison and Kanuka express,
“There is considerable intuitive appeal to the concept of integrating the strengths of synchronous
(face-to-face) and asynchronous (text-based Internet) learning activities. At the same time, there
is considerable complexity in its implementation with the challenge of virtually limitless design
possibilities and applicability to so many contexts.”43
D. Leverage Technology to Serve Your Pedagogical Agenda
“Teachers need to use tools such as scope and sequence and curriculum mapping
to determine goals and objectives…Teachers should not simply choose
technology just because it is there. There should be an intended purpose and
reason why technology helps to achieve the goal.”44
There have been numerous conversations on our campus regarding the role of technology in our
fully face-to-face classrooms. Some faculty embrace incorporating technology; others are
resistance because the technology doesn’t serve their pedagogical objective. Both mindsets have
merit, although it’s important to remember that our millennial learners grew up as “digital
natives.” Technology is part of their daily social lives.
Obviously, technology will play a major role in the blended classroom. Frequently used
applications will include:
 Learning management system (e.g., Blackboard, Moodle)
 Audio/video capture and editing applications (e.g., Panopto, Camtasia)
 Discussion boards, blogs, wikis and online journals
 Online testing mechanisms with automatic feedback
 Simulation software
 Social media and email
 Synchronous collaboration tools (e.g., Collaborate, Skype, Adobe Connect)
 Mobile devices for interaction and data collection
While technology will play an elevated role in your blended class, it is still only a tool that is
available to serve your pedagogical agenda. Citing McGee and Reis, ““The focus on technology
to support learning is reflected in recommendations to treat technology as a means to a
pedagogical end.”45 If there is a pedagogical agenda that is not currently being served with
existing technology, then collaborate with our instructional designers. New applications are
43
Ibid, 96.
Pam Jimison, “Effective Blended Learning Environments,” Media Review 17, 2011: 60.
45
Patricia McGee and Abby Reis, “Blended Course Design: A Synthesis of Best Practice,” Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks 16(4), October 2012: 15.
44
19
coming on line all the time.
Case: “The pilot program at the State University of New Your (SUNY), Empire State
was spearheaded by Dr. John Beckem with the business course, ‘Diversity in the
Workplace.’…For this pilot, Dr. Beckem used a simulation titled ‘Making a Successful
Presentation’ in order to prepare students for the presentation of their diversity
audit…The story/‘episode’ then unfolds almost as an interactive television show in which
the student is immersed in a lead role within a photo-realistic setting. In this role, the
student interacts with a variety of characters who communicate with the students through
media rich audio and video footage. There are two basic types of characters: ‘Virtual
Mentors’ who provide the student with information (based on key learning objectives)
and inquisitors who ask the student questions that test understanding. Ultimately, students
must apply their knowledge about successful presentation delivery…”46
E. Avoiding the Course-and-a-Half (1.5x) Tendency
Empirical evidence substantiates that student satisfaction with blended courses is substantially
lower when students perceive a greater workload in the blended class than that which is required
in fully face-to-face sections. It is important that you intentionally keep this in mind, particularly
when redesigning an existing course (as opposed to creating a completely new course). Kaleta,
Skibba and Joosten offer a useful suggestion by writing, “Instructors need to determine what
content is really necessary. ‘Do I really have to do these things?’ Activities that are not necessary
to reach the learning goals can be removed. In addition, many of the instructors wanted to learn
how to create more interactive online activities that would provide ‘choices’ of learning
opportunities for students.”47
Karen Teeley, an experienced Blended classroom teacher at Simmons College in Boston offered
the following practical reflections during an interview that is available for online viewing.
“Be careful about creating a course and a half which often gets talked about when you’re
talking about blended course design. You tend to take your original course and then add a
lot of things to it and so after a couple years of doing that, I find myself winnowing
back…cutting out some of the content and course assignments. That’s one of the things I
find really challenging is to make sure that it’s not too much material for the students and
it’s not too much material for me too.”48
F. Creating a Flipped Classroom
The flipped-classroom model has received wide attention over the past few years because of its
success in supporting active learning. The intent of the model is depicted below.
John M Beckem and Michael Watkins, “Brining Life to Learning: Immersive Experiential Learning Simulations
for Online and Blended Courses,” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(5), October 2012: 65.
47
Kaleta, Skibba and Joosten, 128.
48
Karen Teeley, “Tips for Blending Your Course,” Simmons College (Interview)
http://at.simmons.edu/blendedlearning/learnhow/casestudies/teeley/interview.php
46
20
As shown, the classroom lecture is “flipped” to online. The student engages in the pre-recorded
content in the online environment and completes testing prior to coming to the face-to-face
setting. Knowing that the student has already engaged in the content, the faculty is free to
facilitate active learning activities. The physical classroom becomes a laboratory or incubator
where learning content is applied in authentic activities. Moreover, the flipped model creates an
expectation that the classroom will be experiential. That flips everything for the student.
Moreover, empirical evidence suggests that the flipped classroom produces higher levels of
learning and retention.
Obviously, the flipped model is perfectly aligned for the blended classroom.
G. Discovering the Right Mix between Classroom and Online
The 50/50 mix (i.e., 50% face-to-face time and 50% online time) is a common model at
universities and colleges. Often that mix is used in order to make efficient use of classroom
space; however, it is only one option available to you. One size doesn’t fit all. The “right mix” of
face-to-face versus online time for your class should reflect your goals, pedagogical agenda, the
type of content, and the characteristics of the learner.
“The balance between online and face-to-face components will vary for every course.
Some blended courses, because of the nature of their instructional goals, student
characteristics, instructor background, and online resources, will include more face-toface than online strategies. Other courses will tip the balance in favor of online strategies,
using face-to-face contact infrequently…The aim in either case is to find that harmonious
balance – the balance of instructional strategies that is tailored specifically to improve
student learning.”49
“Research studies have shown that, if designed correctly, blended instruction is an
effective learning strategy that can promote student participation, engagement, and
interactivity, which supported the author’s decision to adopt the method in her education
course. What the author found particularly valuable in the literature review was the
important of incorporating the seven principles of good instructional practice when
49
Osguthorpe, 228.
21
redesigning a traditional course into a blended format, finding the right blend between
online and face-to-face instruction, and looking for a faculty mentor to provide guidance
and support.”50
As you reflect on the classroom and online meeting mix and the flow of your course, remember
to leverage the support you receive by working with the instructional designer. Voicing the
issues and brainstorming the possibilities will help bring clarity so that it’s not just “trial and
error.” An instructional designer at Simmons College shared the following practical advice
during an interview about collaborative course design; that interview is available for online
viewing.
“I think the instructional designer brings an eye, a larger eye, a vision piece to the table to
help the instructor sort out how they’re going to meet all of their goals and the ways that they
can do that in a different way….there are many different ways to reach your goals using all
of the tools that you have available to you.”51
50
Kenney and Newcombe, 51.
Claudia Morner,, “Collaborative Course Design” Simmons Collge (Interview)
http://at.simmons.edu/blendedlearning/learnhow/casestudies/morner/interview.php
51
22
Section III: Best Practices In Facilitating The Blended Classroom
Zane Berge (1995) suggested that there are four primary roles that online instructors/facilitators
serve: pedagogical (setting up the course and applying teaching theory), social (promoting class
cohesiveness and interaction), managerial (organization, establishing expectations and norms)
and technical (helping participants become comfortable with the software platform).52 In the
prior section, you explored pedagogical issues in creating your course; in this section, you will
examine best practices in facilitating the blended classroom. Note that the importance of
skillfully managing the blended classroom should not be understated. As summarized by the
authors of the University of Illinois pilot study:
“We can surmise from this that delivery mode may not be a major factor in
student success. Since there is no significant difference, it can be concluded that
other factors may be more important such as course design, selection of the right
content materials, instructor/student interaction, and/or student motivation may
plan a more important role than delivery mode. It seems that if the instructors use
best practices for whatever delivery mode they will be using, then the mode of
delivery will not be a major factor in student performance.”53
A. Preparing Students for the Blended Classroom
Your efforts to prepare each student for the new Blended learning environment during your first
face-to-face meeting will reap huge dividends. In “setting the stage” you will want to: frame the
blended classroom, establish clear expectations about behaviors and deliverables, discuss time
management and provide an introduction to and resources for navigating the technology.
Framing the Purpose and Design of the Blended Classroom. Gatekeeper instructors in
fully-online programs “sell” the value of the class to incoming students who are unfamiliar
with the online-class methodology. That “sell” includes describing the flow of the course,
explaining the routine, emphasizing the value of group collaboration, introducing the
technology and assuring students that they will be comfortable with the flow and technology
within one to two weeks. It’s then up to the instructor to make sure that happens (which it
does). The same is true for instructors who offer blended classes to undergraduate students.
You will need to offer explanation and assurance to your young-adult learners.
“The hybrid model is new to students, so they need a clear rationale for its use. Our
instructors learned that students required repeated explanations about the model,
explaining clearly what it is and why the instructor chose it. To quote one student’s
observation, “There was only one real problem; it was difficult at first to understand
how the course was being taught and to get the technology to work properly. After
the course got rolling, it did get easier and easier to get a grip on it.”54
52
Berge, Zane. “The Role of the Online Instructor/Facilitator. eModerators.com, 2-3.
http://olc.gre.ac.uk/ET/ELD/KNTI/etutres.NSF/ba86bb22bb63c1f980256a520002e72e/875ef871eec01e10802575740077144b/$FILE/Role%20of
%20the%20Online%20instructor%20facilitator.PDF
53
Larson, 41.
Alan Aycock, Carla Garnham and Robert Kaleta, “Lessons Learned from the Hybrid Course Project,” Teaching
with Technology Today 8(6), March 2002: http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/garnham2.htm
54
23
Clear Expectations. In the initial face-to-face class, instructors typically review the syllabus
with their students. The same holds true in the first meeting for the blended class; however,
there are additional issues to cover, including: specific expectations about online
participation and how posting to the discussion board and viewing of pre-recorded content
factor into the overall grading rubric, discussion-board etiquette, and the need for students to
complete online activities (e.g., pre-recorded lectures, research assignments, discussion board
assignments) prior to coming into the subsequent face-to-face “laboratory.”
“Thus, it is important for instructors to explain clearly the rationale of using blended
instruction and to pay attention to their students’ expectations and skills. It is critical
for the instructors to help students grasp the real concept of blending instruction,
which accommodates different learning styles and self-directed learning…In other
words, the online activities should be clear on how activities are connected to the
face-to-face learning, what outcomes are expected, and how the end products are
evaluated.”55
Time Management. Self-directed learning creates an opportunity and a challenge. The
opportunity is that the students will engage in high-level critical thinking and develop skills
that will help them to “learn how to learn.” The challenge is that it requires the student to
accept responsibility for their learning. To succeed in self-directed learning, the young-adult
learner will need to develop time-management skills. You will have access to timemanagement resources, which you should share with your students.
“Students who have spent the past two decades or so in the traditional classroom
settings will have to learn new skills to cope with the distribution of requirements
over time…”56
Technology Orientation. In fully online programs, incoming students are supported with a
new student orientation. In that orientation, students engage in the community web portal,
navigate a virtual classroom and engage with collaborative software (e.g., Blackboard
Collaborate). That sets the stage for entry into their first fully online class.
It is highly recommended that you offer your Blended classroom students an orientation of
your virtual classroom during the initial face-to-face meeting. Go into the learning
management system, walk the student through the organized learning modules, demonstrate
how to access the discussion boards, pre-recorded lectures and resources, and navigate to the
“help” resources. Discuss how to access the ISS help desk and let the student know that you
are there to assist them.
B. Embracing Revised Faculty and Student Roles
Hong Lin, “Blending Online Components into Traditional Instruction in Pre-Service Teacher Education: The
Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 2(1), January
2008: 10.
56
Sands, http://www.wisconsin.edu/ttt/articles/sands2.htm
55
24
Depending upon the nature of engagement and dynamics in your current face-to-face classrooms,
the student-centered blended course may require a shift in faculty and student roles.
Role of the Teacher. The role of faculty in a blended course shifts from the traditional
“distributor of information” function to that of a “facilitator of learning.” This idea was
concisely summarized by CLU faculty Michael Quinlan who shared, “My job is to open
windows for my students.” In the blended classroom, instructors set up their classrooms in a
way that creates learning opportunities. The instructor provides clear and frequent direction,
manages activities, offers encouragement, energy and timely feedback, and promotes
integrated interaction.
“One of the most noteworthy consequences of the explosion in online learning is that
it compels teachers and institutions to examine pedagogy and student learning. To
wit, in order to teach a hybrid course effectively, it is essential that the teacher see
his or her role primarily as a facilitator of learning.”57
Role of the Student. As previously noted, the student will take on increased responsibility for
their learning in the blended environment. He or she needs to be ready to engage in the
material. Interaction moves from cooperation (i.e., dividing up the work) to collaboration
(i.e., engaged in dialogue and critical inquiry with others in the community).
“Blended learning is consistent with a horizontal democracy of learning where class,
instructors, and students behave more like partners rather than masters and
apprentices, programs become localized in the sense of worldwide access, and
institutions of higher education are forced to collaborate rather than compete.”58
C. Maintaining “Strategic Presence”
Maintaining strategic presence in any fully online or blended course is vital. So what exactly
does that mean? Strategic presence involves active leadership, so the students know you are
there, but with a willingness to step back and let things happen. Balancing the two is the
challenge.
The dynamics of classroom discussions, with the spontaneous give-and-take of ideas and the
faculty being a key player in the flow, doesn’t necessarily serve as the model for online
discussions. Rather, the faculty may start the threaded discussion, sit back and watch the class
engagement, come back in to offer strategic redirection or a new observation, and then sit back
and watch the learning take place. “Free riders” are corralled. You want to motivate and
strategically direct but avoid the “so-what’s-the-answer-professor” mentality.
“…the way students learn best, I think, online is when they learn from each other. They
discover on their own – they find information and understand and discover, but at the same
time they’re listening to their colleagues in the class. I’ve always wanted to do that in faceto-face classes. I’ve always wanted to have people learn from each other, but it isn’t easy to
Daniel L. Brunner, “Using Hybrid Effectively in Christian Higher Education,” Christian Scholar’s Review 36(2),
Winter 2007: 117.
58
Dziuban, 280.
57
25
do…here I have to just step back from the keyboard and watch the students answer perhaps
another student’s question rather than me chiming in.”59
“The online discussion activities were highly discursive with multiple positions
being generated to develop new thinking, and the online environment appeared to
approve the quality of the thinking….The absence of the teacher online seemed to
create a democratic space for the students where they took on the responsibility of
the debate.”60
D. Connecting Classroom and Online Interactions
“Promoting, facilitating and integrating online and face-to-face interactions are
essential to blended learning. Without integration of interactions in the different
modalities blended environments will fail to achieve their potential.”61
The integration of classroom and online interactions is an important aspect of managing the
blended classroom. Gerbic substantiates the above quote when she shared the following
observation from her study of 25-30 students from New Zealand and China who participated in
an undergraduate compulsory business course: “…there was an expectation that the online
discussions would be explicitly linked and integrated with these (face-to-face) classes. When this
did not happen, then the online discussions became isolated and unimportant in the students’
learning.”62 The following images depict possible ways of connecting your face-to-face and
online interactions.
Experienced fully-online teachers employ the same mindset when connecting their asynchronous
59
Morner, (interview) http://at.simmons.edu/blendedlearning/learnhow/casestudies/morner/interview.php
Philippa Gerbic, “Getting the blend right in new learning environments: A complementary approach to online
discussions,” Education and Information Technologies 15, 2010: 133.
61
Shea, 26.
62
Gerbic, 132.
60
26
discussion boards with the synchronous live chats. For example, evidence from the field (e.g.,
data concerning industry usage) can be introduced and spontaneously discussed during the live
chat. That empirical evidence and the live class discussion can be used as the starting point or
spring board for an ensuing discussion board thread, in which students continue to research the
issue. The depth of critical inquiry increases and learning takes place at a high cognitive level.
It is worth emphasizing again that integrative, collaborative learning is at the heart of blended
classrooms. As concisely described by Garrison and Kanuka, “…learners can be independent of
space and time – yet together… When thoughtfully integrated with the rich dynamic of fastpaced, spontaneous verbal communication in a face-to-face learning environment, the
educational possibilities are multiplied.”63 These observations reiterate the transformative
potential of blended learning.
E. Building Community
Community building takes place before and throughout the term. In fully online situations, best
practices include sending out a welcome or “broadcast” email in which the faculty makes first
contact with the participants. The brief email might include: a welcome from the instructor,
instructions for how to access the virtual classroom, information about first assignments (which
typically includes a “Getting Started” discussion board for class introductions), a brief
description of the first week and information about activities planned during the term.
Instructions may also be sent regarding how to upload digital images into the virtual classroom.
During the term, community building continues via small group projects, live chat and student
lounge discussions, study groups, emails and collaboration in discussion boards.
In facilitating the blended course, you might also consider drafting and emailing your own
broadcast letter. Regardless, you will certainly start actively building community during your
first class session. That will involve introductions, review of acceptable behaviors (safe learning
environment) and the uploading of digital images. Community building continues throughout the
term. The face-to-face feature of the blended class naturally promotes community building, while
the asynchronous engagement only deepens the connections, especially for those who are shy.
“One instructor summed up what many discovered: A lot of people are afraid that
replacing seat time with online is going to diminish the quality of the relationship –
whether it is teacher –student or student-student. And actually I have to say from my
experience it is contrary to that…I get more quality interactions and feedback from
the students, which then helps increase my connection to them. Study findings
indicate that when a positive climate is created, hybrid environment have the
potential to build relationships even more so than in traditional or online courses.”64
F. Sustainable Faculty Workload
“…for teachers who are open to the idea of a technology mediated course, the big
challenges are finding the time, creating a balance between the expectations of the
students, adhering to the prevailing culture of the college, and their own needs to
63
64
Garrison and Kanuka, 97.
Kaleta, Skibba and Joosten, 128-129.
27
experiment with new pedagogies.”65
How might faculty sustain the added demands of a blended course? First, don’t set yourself up to
teach the 1.5x course. As previously noted, it is important for you and the student that the course
doesn’t expand into a “course and a half.” Think about ways of building your course so that
learning objectives are achieved, while at the same time not placing an unsustainable burden on
yourself. Additionally, set reasonable engagement expectations from the outset, leverage the
efficiencies of the learning management system and leverage CLU’s institutional resources.
Establish Reasonable Engagement Expectations: It is important to set expectations at the
beginning of the term. They include:


Student response time during the week and over weekends
Communicate your level of involvement in the discussion boards (e.g., faculty sets up
the threads and strategically manages, students are active)
Leverage the Learning Management System. The learning management system (e.g.,
Blackboard) offers features that can efficiently help you manage workload. They include:




Testing efficiencies (e.g., quizzes with automatic grading and feedback), particularly
in low-stake or practice exams where selection-type questions can be used
Survey efficiencies
Student analytics (e.g., student “hits” in content areas, student time on task,
identification of at-risk students, composite email posts)
“Course copy” to the next term or into multiple sections
Leverage CLU’s Institutional Resources. You are not in this alone. CLU has put together
resources to assist you. They include:






Instructional designers
Center for Teaching and Learning resources (scholarship, training support)
Distant learning group (weekly module construction within the Blackboard LMS)
Collaboration with other CLU online and blended learning faculty
ISS help desk
Library staff
Undoubtedly, the nature of a blended course with its on-going engagement will create a
workload that exceeds the traditional face-to-face class; however, that doesn’t mean you might
not find reward. There are so many ways of expanding pedagogy. When those classes come
together and the learning elevates, it is extremely rewarding. As Brunner discovered,
“At both University of Central Florida and University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee,
faculty satisfaction for hybrid courses is significantly higher than for comparable
face-to-face or online sections of the same course, even though it inevitably means
more work. When teachers experience hybrid pedagogy it often affects the way they
teach other, even face-to-face, courses.”66
65
66
Banerjee, 11.
Brunner, 122.
28
Section IV: Summary
“Hybrid instruction is the single greatest unrecognized trend in higher
education today.” Graham Spanier, President of Penn State University
Rethinking the Traditional Format: Implications from teaching a blended course.
In this faculty guide, you were presented with: 1) empirical evidence that compared blended
classes to traditional face-to-face classes, 2) best practices” in Blended classroom design, and 3)
practical strategies for facilitating the blended classroom. It is the hope of this guide’s
contributors that the information will be useful to you as you consider the possibilities.
When reflecting on the data, it’s worth thinking about the implications of teaching in the dualenvironment class. Could your learning takeaways influence how you teach in your traditional
classroom? Could the experimentation with expanded pedagogical strategy and techniques
change the way we integrate activities, particularly now that we augment the face-to-face class
with an online learning management system. As described below, the answer is “yes” for
numerous other instructors.
“A number of the research participants said that the hybrid course experience has
caused them to reconsider and improve how they teach their other courses. This is
consistent with what the authors have observed as the have worked with hybrid
instructors over several years. Faculty appear to be changing their approach to
teaching and learning, primarily by taking a more learner-centered approach.”67
“Good teaching is still good teaching. However, research gives evidence that, all
other things being equal, creating a hybrid course forces a re-examination of
pedagogy and provides the potential for increased student learning and satisfaction.
Personally, now that I have experimented with hybrid, I am motivated to learn more
about pedagogy and apply it to other courses.”68
The contributors to this guidebook wish you the very best as you continue to position CLU as a
leader among institutions of higher education.
67
68
Kaleta, Skibba and Joosten, 139.
Brunner, 124.
29
Appendix I: Resources
Anderson, Craig A., et al. "The influence of media violence on youth."Psychological science in
the public interest 4.3 (2003): 81-110.
Anderson, Craig A., and Brad J. Bushman. "Effects of violent video games on aggressive
behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior:
A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature." Psychological science 12.5 (2001): 353-359.
Aycock, Alan, Carla Garnham and Robert Kaleta. “Teaching with Technology Today: Lessons
Learned from a Hybrid Model.” Teaching with Technology Today 8(6), March 2002.
http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/garnham2.htm
Babb, Stephanie, Cynthia Stewart and Ruth Johnson. “Constructing Communication in Blended
Learning Environments: Students’ Perceptions of Good Practice in Hybrid Courses.” Journal of
Online Learning and Teaching 6(4), December 2010: 735-753.
Bandura, A. A social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O. John (Ed.), Handbook of
personality (2nd ed., pp. 154-196). New York: Guilford Publications, 2001.
Banerjee, Gouri. “Blended Environments: Learning Effectiveness and Student Satisfaction at a
Small College in Transition.” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 15(1), February
2011: 8-19.
Beckem, John M. and Michael Watkins. “Bringing Life to Learning: Immersive Experiential
Learning Simulations for Online and Blended Courses.” Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks 16(5), October 2012: 61-70.
Berge, Zane L. “Facilitating Computer Conferencing: Recommendations from the Field.”
Education Technology 35(1), 1995: 22-30.
Bernard, Robert M., et al. "A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher
education: from the general to the applied." Journal of Computing in Higher Education 26.1
(2014): 87-122.
Bernard, Robert M., et al. "How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A
meta-analysis of the empirical literature." Review of educational research 74.3 (2004): 379-439.
Brunner, Daniel L. “Using ‘Hybrid’ Effectively in Christian Higher Education.” Christian
Scholar’s Review 36(2), Winter 2007: 115-126.
Cassidy, Kimberly and Jennifer Spohrer, “Keynote: NGLC Blended Learning Study Report and
Where Do We Go from Here?,” Blended Learning in the Liberal Arts Conference, 2o May 2013,
Bryn Mawr, PA –
Caulfield, Jay. How to Design and Teach a Hybrid Course. Sterling: Stylus Publishing, LLC,
30
2011.
Chickering, Arthur W. and Zelda F. Gamson. “Seven Principles for Good Practice in
Undergraduate Education. American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) Bulletin, 39(7),
1987: 3-7.
Chickering, Arthur W. and Stephen C. Ehrmann. “Implementing the Seven Principles:
Technology as Lever.” American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) Bulletin, 1996: 3-6.
Collopy, Rachel M. B. and Jackie Marshall Arnold. “To Blend or Not to Blend: Online and
Blended Learning Environments in Undergraduate Teacher Education.” Issues in Teacher
Education 18(2), Fall 2009: 85-101.
Clark, Richard E. "Evidence for confounding in computer-based instruction studies: Analyzing
the meta-analyses." ECTJ 33.4 (1985): 249-262.
Clark, Richard E. "Media will never influence learning." Educational technology research and
development 42.2 (1994): 21-29.
Clark, Richard E. "Reconsidering research on learning from media." Review of educational
research 53.4 (1983): 445-459.
DeSchryver, Michael, and Rand J. Spiro. "New Forms of Deep Learning on the Web: Meeting
the Challenge of Cognitive." Cognitive effects of multimedia learning (2009).
Dukes, Lyman L., Scott M. Wring and Mark A. Koorland. “The Blended Course Delivery
Method: The Not-So-Distant Education.” International Society for Technology in Education
22(4), Summer 2006: 153-158.
Dziuban, Charles, Joel Hartman, and Patsy Moskal, “Everything I need to Know about Blended
Learning I Learned from Books.” In Picciano and Dziuban (Eds.), Blended Learning: Research
Perspectives. Needham, MA. Sloan Center for Online Education, 2007: 265-285.
Farmer, James. "Communication dynamics: Discussion boards, weblogs and the development of
communities of inquiry in online learning environments." Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings
of the 21st ASCILITE Conference. 2004
Fishbein, M. et al. “Factors Influencing Behavior and Behavior Change.” In Handbook of Health
Psychology edited by A. Baum, T. Revenson, and J. Singer. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 2001.
Garrison, D. Randy, Martha Cleveland-Innes, and Tak Shing Fung. "Exploring causal
relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the
community of inquiry framework." The Internet and Higher Education 13.1 (2010): 31-36.
Garrison, D. Randy and Heathre Kanuka. “Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative
potential in higher education.” Internet and Higher Education 7, February 2004: 95-105.
31
Gerbic, Philippa. “Getting the blend right in new learning environments: A complementary
approach to online discussions.” Education and Information Technologies 15, 2010: 125-137.
Gerbic, Philippa. “Teaching using a blended approach – what does literature tell us?”
Educational Media International 48(3), September 2011: 221-234.
Ginns, Paul. "Meta-analysis of the modality effect." Learning and Instruction 15.4 (2005): 313-331.
Hastings, Nancy B., and Monica W. Tracey. "Does media affect learning: where are we
now?." TechTrends 49.2 (2004): 28-30.
Haytko, Diana L. “Traditional Versus Hybrid Course Delivery Systems: A Case Study of
Undergraduate Marketing Planning Courses.” Marketing Education Review 11(3), Fall 2001: 2739.
Hurtado, Sylvia, et al. "Undergraduate Teaching Faculty: The 2010-2011 HERI Faculty Survey."
Higher Education Research Institute: University of California, Los Angeles (2012).
“Hybrid Courses – Advantages and Challenges.” University of Wisconsin Milwaukee. Web.
Learning Technology Center 2014.
http://www4.uwm.edu/ltc/hybrid/faculty_resources/advantages.cfm
Jimison, Pam. “Effective Blended Learning Environments. Media Review 17, 2011: 59-68.
Keengwe, Jared and Jung-Jin Kang. “Blended Learning in Teacher Preparation Programs: A
Literature Review.” International Journal of Information and Communication Technology
Education 8(2), April-June 2012: 81-92.
Kenney, Jane and Ellen Newcombe. “Adopting a Blended Learning Approach: Callenges
Encountered and Lessons Learned in an Action Research Project.” Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks 15(1), February 2011: 47-59.
Kolb, David A. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Vol. 1. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984.
Kozma, Robert B. "Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate."Educational
technology research and development 42.2 (1994): 7-19.
Larson, David K. and Chung-Hsien Sung. “Comparing Student Performance: Online Versus
Blended Versus Face-to-Face.” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 13(1), April 2009:
31-42.
Lin, Hong. “Blending Online Components into Traditional Instruction in Pre-Service Teacher
Education: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.” International Journal for the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning 2(1), 2008: 1-14.
Marks, Julie T., et al. "A comparison of Web and print media for physical activity promotion
32
among adolescent girls." Journal of Adolescent Health 39.1 (2006): 96-104.
Martyn, Margie. “The Hybrid Online Model.” Educause Quarterly 1, November 2003: 18-23.
Mayer, Richard E. "Cognitive theory of multimedia learning." The Cambridge handbook of
multimedia learning (2005): 31-48.
McGee, Patricia and Abby Reis. “Blended Course Design: A Synthesis of Best Practices.”
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 16(4), October 2012: 7-22.
Means, Barbara, et al. "Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A metaanalysis and review of online learning studies." (2010).
Means, Barbara, et. al. “The Effectiveness of Online and Blended Learning: A Meta-Analysis of
the Empirical Literature.” Teachers College Record 115, March 2013: 47 pages.
Moore, Brenda. "Using technology to promote communities of practice (CoP) in social work
education." Social Work Education 27.6 (2008): 592-600.
Napier, Nannette P. “Transitioning to Blended Learning: Understanding Student and Faculty
Perceptions.” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 15(1), February 2011:20-32
Osguthorpe, Russell T. and Charles R. Graham. “Blended Learning Environments – Definitions
and Directions.” The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 4(3), 2003: 227-233.
Picciano, Anthony G. “Blending with Purpose: The Multimodal Model.” Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks 12(1), February 2008: 7-18.
Picciano, Anthony G. “Introduction.” In Picciano and Dziuban (Eds.), Blended Learning:
Research Perspectives. Needham, MA. Sloan Center for Online Education, 2007: 5-18.
Precel, Karen, Yoram Eshet-Alkalai and Yael Alberton. “Pedagogical and Design Aspects of a
Blended Learning Course.” International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning
10(2), April 2009: 1-15.
Rohrer, Doug, and Harold Pashler. "Learning styles: where’s the evidence?."Medical
education 46.7 (2012): 634-635.
Rose, Ann. “Planning a Hybrid Course.” Distance Education & Learning Technologies, 2009.
https://sites.google.com/a/westliberty.edu/techtips/Home/planning-a-hybrid-course
Russell, Thomas L. "No Significant Difference Phenomenon." Educational Technology &
Society 2 (1999): 3
Sands, Peter “Inside Outside, Upside Downside: Strategies for Connecting Online and Face-toFace Instruction for Hybrid Courses.” Teaching with Technology Today 8(6), March 2002.
http://www.wisconsin.edu/ttt/articles/sands2.htm
33
Shea, Peter. “Towards a Conceptual Framework for Learning in Blended Environments.” In
Picciano and Dziuban (Eds.), Blended Learning: Research Perspectives. Needham, MA. Sloan
Center for Online Education, 2007: 19-36.
Shea, Peter, and Temi Bidjerano. "Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster
“epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education." Computers & Education
52.3 (2009): 543-553.
Shin, John H., R. Brian Haynes, and Mary E. Johnston. "Effect of problem-based, self-directed
undergraduate education on life-long learning." CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association
Journal 148.6 (1993): 969.
Spiro, Lisa and Bryan Alexander. “Open Education in the Liberal Arts: A NITLE Working
Paper.” National Institute for Technology in Liberal Education, March 2012: 1-53.
http://www.nitle.org/live/files/48-open-education-in-the-liberal-arts
Sweeney, Richard. “Millennial Behaviors & Demographics.” New Jersey Institute of
Technology: Newark New Jersey, 2006. http://unbtls.ca/teachingtips/pdfs/sew/MillennialBehaviors.pdf
Stacey, Elizabeth and Philippa Gerbic. “Success factors for blended learning.” Proceedings from
Ascilite Convention. Melbourne, 2008.
Teeley, Karen. Tips for Blending Your Course (Interview). Blended Learning. Simmons College,
2008. http://at.simmons.edu/blendedlearning/learnhow/casestudies/teeley/interview.php
Vignare, Karen. “Review of Literature Blended Learning: Using ALN to Change the Classroom
– Will it Work?” Michigan State University Summer Workshop, 2006.
http://msuglobal.com/files/Blended%20Learning%20Review%20of%20Literature%20Vignare.p
df
Wichadee, Saovapa. “Facilitating Students’ Learning with Hybrid Instruction: A Comparison
amoung Four Learning Styles.” Journal of Research in Educational Psychology 11(1), 2013: 99115.
Zhao, Yong, Jing Lei, Bo Yan Chun Lai, and Hueyshan Sophia Tan. “What Makes the
Difference? A Practical Analysis of Research on the Effectiveness of Distance Education.”
Teachers College Record 107(8), August 2005: 1836-1884.
34
Appendix II: Course Design Map
Course:
Instructor:
Required Texts:
Units:
Carnegie Hours:
Glossary of Terms
ILH: Instructor Lead Hours
SIH: Student Initiated Hours
PSLO: Program Based Student Learning Outcomes
Blooms: Blooms Levels
CLU Student Learning Outcomes
Comm
SkillsWritten
-Articulate an
explicit focus
-Find, analyze,
and evaluate
sources
-Synthesize
information to
support their
arguments
-Present
arguments in an
engaging and
coherent style,
appropriate to the
conventions of
standard
-US English and
of the discipline,
and to the nature
of the work
Comm
SkillsOral
Information
Literacy
Quant.
Literacy
Creative and
Critical Thinking
Identity
and Values
Principled
Leadership
Teamwork
Skills
Cross Cultural
Competency
-Communicate
publicly in a
clear, engaging
and confident
manner
Effectively
create,
organize, and
support ideas
for a particular
audience
Critically
evaluate
content and
delivery of oral
comm
Determine the
extent of the
information needed
Access the needed
information
effectively and
efficiently
Evaluate sources
and information
critically
Use information to
accomplish a
specific purpose
Recognize
economic, legal,
and social issues
surrounding the use
of information in
order to use
information
ethically and
legally
Transform data
into graphical
representation
Interpret data
and make
decisions using
investigative,
analytical,
quantitative,
and critical
thinking skills
Identify, interpret, assess,
and evaluate relevant
information
Generate relevant and
probing questions and
multiple solutions
Recognize premises,
assumptions, and point(s)
of view underlying an
argument, theory, or
selection of information
Create or generate ideas
and processes, think openmindedly, and consider
issues from multiple
perspectives
Reach well-reasoned
conclusions and apply
conclusions to new issues
and problems
Predict consequences
Articulate
purpose and
direction in life
(vocation)
Develop a sense
of responsibility
to self,
community, and
the world
Develop an
identity
grounded in
religious,
ethical, and
moral
convictions
Demonstrate
both compassion
and a
commitment to
justice toward
others
Develop
personal
principles of
ethical
leadership
Evaluate the
impact of
leadership
actions
Self-assess for
intentional
growth as an
ethical leader
Demonstrate
interpersonal
skills (oral
and written
communicati
on, active
listening) and
sensitivity to
diverse
opinions
Apply skills
of
cooperation,
collaboration,
negotiation,
and group
decisionmaking in a
team
environment
Identify influences of
one or more historical
eras and unfamiliar
cultures
Identify and compare
critical ideas, traditions,
and artifacts of cultures
Describe how different
cultures have
contributed to the
contemporary world
Demonstrate strong
cross-cultural analytic
and communication
skills
Identify and explain the
social importance of
race, ethnicity, culture,
gender, sexuality, class
and
religion
Program Student Learning Outcomes
1.
Course Student Learning Outcomes
1.
Course Design Map
Lecture Topics
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Week 7
Week 8
Week 9
Week 10
Week 11
Weekly SLOs with
Blooms Level
Readings
Additional
resources
Pre-recorded
Lecture topic
Discussion
topics
Assessments
35
Bloom’s
Name
Definition
Level
1
Knowledge and Knowledge of major ideas, grasp meaning
Comprehension Ability to: define, describe, examine, label, interpret, distinguish,
and discuss
2
Application
Use information, use methods, concepts and theories in new
and Analysis
situations, solve problems using required knowledge
Ability to: see patterns and recognition of hidden meanings,
analyze, order, connect, explain, and infer
3
Synthesis and
Use of old ideas to create new ones, generalize from given facts,
Evaluation
relate knowledge from several areas, predict, conclude, assess
value, verify value of evidence, make choices on reasoned and
articulated argument
Ability to: integrate, modify, plan, create, design, formulate,
prepare, generalize, summarize, rewrite, assess, select, judge and
explain, discriminate, support, effectively communicate conclusions
and recommendations