Blended Learning
Wendy L. Mahan, Ph.D.
Instructional Designer, CHHD
My Background

Education Technology Services (ETS)



Courseware Initiative 2003-2005
Blended Learning Initiative 2005-2007
CHHD/Nursing since Jan 2008
BLI – Quick History




General education courses
Develop online version and hybrid version.
Purpose: Curricular Integrity, efficient use of
resources, free up classrooms, student
preferences.
Assessment completed by SITE.
Blended or Hybrid Course
HYBRID/
BLENDED
F2F
Web
Enhanced
Completely
Online
Broad Recommendations
from the Literature
• Redesign - don’t add on elements.
• Hold an initial kick-off meeting.
• Make students aware of what a hybrid course entails.
• Assist with time management skills.
• If using teams, do the following:
• Use early F2F meetings to establish community, roles and
rules.
• Decrease these meetings as semester goes on.
• Ensure F2F meetings are of *value.*
Recommendations based on
BLI Experience
• Kick off meetings are essential.
• Face-to-face meetings must include active participation.
• Face-to-face meetings must result in some type of points earned.
• Face-to-face meetings must be integrated with online materials,
and together, they must keep the student engaged during the week.
• Face-to-face meetings provide the opportunity to create better
student-instructor interaction than online only.
• Developing an online course first, and then developing the hybrid
is easier than vice versa.
Lessons learned based on BLI
Experience
•If students find that they are not accountable for face-to-face
meetings, attendance will drop – dramatically.
•Blended learning decreases class size and increases faculty
workload – unless the designed correctly.
•If the online activities and face-to-face experience are not seamless
and engaging, it is very easy for the student – and the faculty
member – to forget about the class.
•Before choosing a day for the F2F meeting, decide on the design
first.
How do you develop blended
courses?
Table of Comparative
Advantage


David Brown, VP and Dean of
International Center for Computer
Enhanced Learning at Wake
Forest University.
This technique encourages one to
place the right activities in their
most appropriate environments.
Table of Comparative Advantage
"What activities that I normally pursue in a traditional classroom can be
transitioned online with the least loss in effectiveness?"
Activity
F2F only
Online
Notes
Lectures
Disadvantage
Advantage
F2F passive; online can be
made interactive and more
adaptable to individual
needs
Guest
speakers
Disadvantage
Advantage
Difficult to find someone
free during class time;
student who can’t attend
cannot make it up.
Small Group
discussions
Advantage
Disadvantage
Easier to communicate
F2F, but run out of time
frequently; could extend
to online message boards
Table of Comparative Advantage
"What activities that I normally pursue online that will increase in
effectiveness if I move them back to a F2F format?
Activity
F2F only
Online
Notes
Online Lessons
Disadvantage
Advantage
Address individual
learning needs;
always accessible
Online Quizzes
Disadvantage
Advantage
Self-scoringlessens workload
Periodic Message
board Discussions
Disadvantage
Advantage
Can’t do F2F due
to large class size
and room layout
Bullet-Proof Model
(Troha, 2002)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Conduct a learner & context analysis of your course
List your learning objectives.
Conduct content analysis - course outline.
Identify the learning activities in the outline that
would be the *best* in a face-to-face, traditional
setting.
5. Identify the learning activities in the outline with the
potential for online delivery.
6. Make final decisions about course delivery
considering #1-#5:
3-C Didactic Model
(Kerres & De Witt, 2003)
Evaluation
Synthesis
Construction
Analysis
Application
Understanding
Knowledge
Bloom’s Taxonomy
Communication
Content
3-C Didactic Model
(Kerres & De Witt, 2003)
1.
2.
3.
List learning objectives.
Classify each according to three components.
Determine how much of the course will be devoted to each type of
component



4.
Rule of Thumb: Content, 33%; Communication, 33%; Construction, 33%
Mathematics: Content, 30%; Communication, 20%, Construction, 50%
Nutrition: Content, 80%; Communication, 5%; Construction, 15%
Determine delivery system based on aspects of that particular
course.



Who is the audience?
Is group work involved?
What are the costs (time, travel, cognitive demands, etc.)
What do these models have in
common?



Break down your content
Identify the delivery method (online vs. F2F).
Consider the above in conjunction with
targeted audience, context of instruction,
available resources, etc.
My experienced confirmed…
Consistency of
who will be
teaching
semester to
semester
No. of Students
enrolled in course
Learning
objectives/
content covered
Student
Motivation
Individual
characteristics of
faculty
Faculty
workload/Access
to TAs
Existing format
of course
Analysis
and
Design
No. of meetings
per week
Things to consider
Taught by
TAs
High
enrollment
Lower –level
objectives;
survey course
Low student
motivation –
required course
More
research
focused;
conservative
High Workload,
no TAs
Currently F2F
format
Online
Not enough to
do in F2F or all
F2F lectures
Things to consider
Same
instructor
teaches every
semester
Low
enrollment
(<30 students)
High student
motivation
;major –related
course
Teaching
focused;
adventurous
Reasonable
Workload or
access to TAs
High level
objectives
Currently online
format
Hybrid
Variation in
meetings lends
itself to
collaborative
projects
Example – UNT
What technologies can be
used to create an ideal
blended course?
ANGEL
Best for:
•Online lessons
•Posting links to online resources or placing articles on
course reserve.
•Discussion forums
•Quizzes
Advantages: In control of content, grading, secure
Disadvantages: Storage issues, students view as rigid and
constricting
Web 2.0 Tools
For student-created, collaborative assignments and
projects – some examples include:
•Google Docs or Zoho
•MyPlick
•WetPaint
•Ning
•Gliffy
•Toondo
Advantages: Encourages collaboration and creativity,
low learning curve, free
Disadvantages: No control over content, copyright
issues, grading
PSU Resources
Blogs @ Penn State
Adobe Connect
Digital Commons (student-created podcasts and videos)
Advantages: In control of content, secure, tech
support
Disadvantages: technical glitches, frequent updates
to new platforms, tech support, plus scheduling
issues with Digital Commons
Questions?
References
Models:
Troha, F. J. (2002). Bulletproof instructional design: A model for blended learning.
USDLA Journal, 16 (5). Retrieved October 20, 2005 from:
http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/MAY02_Issue/article03.html
Kerres, M. & DeWitt, C. (2003). A didactic framework for the design of blended learning
arrangements. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3). Retrieved September 2005 from:
http://online-campus.net/edumedia/publications/Draft-JEM-BL.pdf
Examples
University of North Texas – Blended Learning Project:
http://web3.unt.edu/cdl/BLP/index.cfm?M=Courses
Web 2.0 Tools
Google Docs: http://docs.google.com
Zoho: http://www.zoho.com/
MyPlick: http://www.myplick.com/
Ning: http://www.ning.com/
Gliffy: http://www.gliffy.com/
Toondo: http://www.toondoo.com/
PSU Resources
Blogs at Penn State: http://blogs.psu.edu/
Adobe Connect: http://meeting.psu.edu/forum
Digital Commons: http://digitalcommons.psu.edu/