Blended Learning:
Pragmatic Innovation
Jim Farmer
As presented at the
JISC/CETIS Conference
November 15, 2006 | Manchester UK
Is the recorder turned on?
Jon
Georgetown University
Types of eLearning
Portion of Content
Delivered Online
Type of Course
0%
Traditional
1 to 29%
Web Facilitated
30-69%
Blended./Hybrid
80+%
Online
Typical Description
Course with no online technology used content is delivered in writing or orally.
Course which uses web-based technology to
facilitate what is essentially a face-to-face
couse. Uses a course management system
(CMS) or web pages to post the syllabus and
assignments, for example.
Course that blends online and face-to-face
delivery. Substantial proportion of the content
is delivered online, typically uses online
discussions, typically has some fact-to-face
meetings.
A course where most of the content is
delived online. Typically has no face-to-face
meetings.
Sloan Consortium, September 2003
The JISC Conferences
and the Enterprise Special
Interest Group
Georgetown University
Value of communication
"Because of the JISC Conferences, the
CETIS SIGs, and the collaborative projects
encouraged by JISC, university IT
managers became aware of the practices
and developments of others, had the
opportunity to learn of perspectives beyond
their own university, and developed
confidence and trust in the work of others.
This has led to sharing that otherwise may
not have occurred, and thus made their
own work much more effective.“
Jim Farmer, “JISC/CETIS conference feedback,”
email, 30 November 2005
Georgetown University
Cited work
Gustav Delius, Chris Sangwin, Neil
Strickland, John Prashoud, Scott
Wilson, Sean Mehan, Niall Sclater,
Jason Cole, Stuart Lee, Ian Boston,
Paul Miller, Mhari McAlpine, Oleg
Liber, Harriet Truscott, Bill Olivier,
Patrick McAndrew, Tish Roberts, Paul
Walk, Vashti Jarach, Robert Sherratt,
Chris Awre, Brian Kelly, Wilbert
Kraan, Jon Mason, Randy Metcalfe,
Colin Smythe, Mark Stubbs, Steve
Jeyes
Georgetown University
XCRI and the PESC course catalog
“In developing the XCRI specification
for exchange of programme,
curriculum, and course data, the
Integration Working Group (and the
CETIS Enterprise SIG) have
developed a process that is very
effective in authoring specifications
that can be rapidly adopted and will
have a long useful life. This could be
a model for other projects creating
specifications for a JISC service.”
Jim Farmer, “Notes, JISC/CETIS Conference,” 15 November 2005
Georgetown University
Drill and practice: algebra
Gustav Delius, “Serving Mathematics in a distributed e-learning
environment, Final Report,” University of York, 24 May 2005
Georgetown University
It is the process!
Unique Service Delivery
• The Student Advisor
• Drop in / Clinic provision
• Reciprocal relationship with other
support services
Listen to Rachel Edwards Educause 2006
interview podcast
“The Learning Grid: 21st Century Learning,” Planning and
Designing Technology-rich Learning Spaces, 17 July 2006
Increasing participation
some unintended consequences
Georgetown University
UK commitment
The UK government is committed to
increasing the participation rate in
college and university education.
Some US/UK differences
Georgetown University
U.K.
Full-time students
working
Average hours
per week
Degree completion
Alternate full-time
and part-time
25 or older
U.S.
46%
73%
11
21
82%
66%
3%
34%
18%
27%
Thomas Weko, Higher Education Policy Institute, Oxford, March 2004
Percent Graduating from Tertiary-Type A
Education (2000)
40%
35%
Percent Graduating
Georgetown University
College and university graduates
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
United
Kingdom
New
Zealand
Australia
United
States
Japan
Sweden
Canada
“International Comparisons,” U.S. Department of Education,
May 2003
Hours Worked per Week
40
35
Hours per Week
Georgetown University
The working participant
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
U.K.
U.S.
Base
Additional
Barriers to success
Georgetown University
• Inadequate high school preparation
• Limited financial resources
• Constrained Time (schedule)
• Constrained Location
• Diverse learning styles
Participation and unit costs
70%
$30,000
60%
$25,000
50%
Participation
Georgetown University
Participation and Cost
$20,000
40%
$15,000
30%
$10,000
20%
Participation Rate
Cost per FTE student
10%
0%
$5,000
$0
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Based on U.S. Department of Eduction reports and
projections; costs in 2005 constant dollars..
Cost per FTE Student
$60,000
Cost per FTE Student
Georgetown University
Cost of additional participants
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
1990
53.8%
2005
65.1%
2005 Base 2005 Added
53.8%
11.3%
In 2005 constant U.S. dollars
An American Perspective:
The Challenges of Student Access
and Student Success
Tuition and Required Fees
Public Universities
45%
40%
35%
Tuition public universities
Consumer price index
Percent change
Georgetown University
The public perception
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
Digest of Education Statistics 2004, NCES
The student’s perspective
Georgetown University
“The explosion of knowledge”
Bonds
Stocks
Derivatives
Hedging
Commercial Paper
Loans
Bonds
Stocks
1962
2002
Finance Course, UCLA Anderson School of Management
Estimated Changes in Productivity
U.S. Public Colleges and Universities
20%
FTE Student, Public 4
15%
FTE Student, Public 2
Cumulative Change
Georgetown University
The government’s view
10%
U.S. Non-farm Business
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
Adjusted for inflation using the CPI
-20%
99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
03-04
04-05
The new reality
16%
Enrollment
State Appropriations
12%
Five Year Change
Georgetown University
Funding U.S. Public Higher Education Students
8%
Funding
Funding
Gap Gap
4%
0%
-4%
Appropriations adjusted for inflation
-8%
99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
03-04
04-05
State Fiscal Conditions and Higher Education Funding, ASCU, Aug 2004
Georgetown University
Since 1972 (1)
Then
Education is a “public good” and
should be financed by the
government.
Now
A student benefits from education
and therefore should pay for it
Student loan industry was created
Student price response 3.3 to 8.8% per
US$1,000 (1990)
Georgetown University
Purpose of higher education
• “[In the U.S.] A college education is
principally, if not solely, an
investment in personal
advancement.”
• “… universities [in the U.S.] are
shaped almost exclusively by the
wants of students seeking
educational credentials and business
and governmental agencies seeking
research outcomes.”
Zemsky, Wegner, and Massy, 2005
Since 1972 (2)
Georgetown University
Then
Universities should only admit students
who are capable of succeeding
Now
Universities are responsible for the success
of any student who has completed high
school or its equivalent
Although the proportion of high school
graduates who go on to college has risen
substantially in recent decades, the college
completion rate has failed to improve at
anywhere near the same pace.
Spellings Report September 2006
The Role of Education
Technology
Georgetown University
eLearning, what we know
• From current experience, improved
learning especially for the less
prepared
• Student preferences (in order)
• Blended/Hybrid
• Totally online
• Traditional classroom
• “Common course redesign can lead
to 40 percent savings in direct
instructional costs of those courses—
16% of total instructional costs or
8% increase in productivity.”
Graves “Order the Change, and Change the Order,” November 2004
Differences in learning rates
Time to Course Completion
40
200
160
Calendar Days
Connect Time
Poly. (Calendar Days)
35
30
140
120
25
100
20
80
15
60
10
40
5
20
0
0%
Hours of Terminal Time
180
Number of Calendar days
Georgetown University
Algebra 2 and Pre-calculus
25%
50%
75%
0
100%
Sillinger and Suppes, 1999
Georgetown University
The future of higher education
An assertion:
Because of the diverse student
population, higher education must
develop “mass customization” of
teaching and learning appropriate for
each individual specific student.
Georgetown University
Marin Dougiamas on technology
Martin Dougiamas at the February 2006
MoodleMoot Savannah
Georgetown University
Research  “Future
implementation”
“The Personal Learning and Research
Environment (PLRE) Working Group
recommended further development
of such an environment. The
conference participants were aware
this is a research project and further
development and deployment of
learning systems should be
continued.”
Jim Farmer “Notes from the JISC/CETIS Conference, 15-16
November 2005, Harriot-Watts University, Edinburgh, Scotland,”
21 November 2005
Some alternatives
Georgetown University
The “model” is broken
Schools of
Education
Government
“management”
Developers
Education
Technologists
Faculty
Students
Should CETIS create the broken links?
Georgetown University
JISC Priorities
Should JISC change its priorities? Yes, but
it will be difficult. James [Dalziel] said the
past policy had been to “let a thousand
flowers bloom.” But with successful
projects and an experienced research
base, JISC could now be more selective
and more focused. … to achieve the
immediate goals of functionality and
interoperability selecting key projects and
insisting on the use of the e-Learning
Framework will be important.
Justin E. Tilton “Notes from the ‘E-Learning Tools, Standards, and
Systems Conference,’ Oxford, UK, 4-5 November 2004.
Georgetown University
Related opportunities
• In conjunction with open courseware,
develop implement a “cartridge”
specification to achieve critical mass.
Save publishers from themselves.
• “Engineer” learning based on
feedback from the use of eLearning
systems.
Assess
prescribe
deliver
Georgetown University
Suggestions
• Focus on the relationship between
pedagogy and eLearning. (Role for
Schools of Education)
• For funding foundations and
agencies:
• Only fund development of services or
functions unique to higher education.
• Shift from funding development to
funding pilot integration and
implementation
• Document, promote the successful
Georgetown University
Suggestions for JISC/CETIS
• Involve Schools of Higher Education
in the development of priorities.
• Require proposals, where possible, to
estimate the availability of the
proposed technology for broad
implementation and the value to the
community.
• Review prior work for technology that
could be extended or integrated for
implementation.
Georgetown University
Oleg Liber, CETIS
• … we should focus on the “immediate
future.”
JISC/CETIS Conference, 14 November 2006
The end
jxf@immagic.com
jxf@Georgetown.edu
Based on a presentation by Justin E. Tilton,
eLearning 2006, 12 February 2006
Georgetown University
Permissions
The presentation itself can be
reproduced and redistributed
provided there are no changes made
to the content.
Supplementary material
Student Perspectives
The higher education web world
Georgetown University
Research
Library
Administration
Instruction
Actual screen shots of production applications,
Justin E. Tilton, 2003
Georgetown University
Students expectations shaped by...
• [In the U.S.] Their experience applying for
admissions and financial aid
• Their use of financial services portals
• Their use of the Internet
• Their life in a “real-time, information rich”
environment.
Be prepared:
94% of Internet-using (78%) youths age 12-17 use
the Internet for school research, 71% say it is the
major source for their school projects and reports,
58% use a school or class Website, 17% have
created a Webpage for school, 74% use Instant
Messaging.
Pew Internet, August 2002
Georgetown University
Students now expect...
• Customer service 24 hours a day,
7 days a week
• Complete information from
a single source
• Information by Web, e-mail, telephone,
facsimile, and wireless devices
• response time of 15 seconds for telephone, 10
seconds for Web, and 2 hours for e-mail and
facsimile
• access to a complete customer history
Students prefer
Georgetown University
• A portal
• Single sign-on even if that means
revealing personal logons and
passwords [aggregation/credential
caching]
• Selection of content [portlets] and
layout [user profile]
• Common portlet navigation and icons
[consistent look & feel]
Serving students
Georgetown University
Mode of Service
Web chat
Per interaction
$7.50
Telephone chat
4.50
E-mail
2.50
Telephone self-service
1.85
Web self-service
0.65
Gartner/Avaya, CFO Jan 2005
eLearning: some results
Georgetown University
Rio Salado College and Plato Math
• Using commercially developed Interactive
Mathematics Rio Salado offered four
courses with one instructor.
• The number of students in a section
increased from 35 to 100.
• A course assistant was added to help with
course management, freeing the instructor
to focus on student learning.
Academic Systems Inc. Profile, October 2002
Georgetown University
Northern Oklahoma College
• Using Interactive Mathematics, the pass
rate for Elementary Algebra increased from
45% to more than 70%.
• Sixty percent of the incoming students at
Northern Oklahoma College are deficient in
mathematics.
• “Students are passing math and staying in
school,” Debbie Quirey said. “75 percent of
our students who take one or more
developmental math classes go on to pass
college algebra.”
Plato Implementation Story, April 2004
Georgetown University
Student motivation to learn
• “Quirey and others in the department
attribute the success to students being able
to review the Interactive Mathematics
instructional module over and over again
until they understand it.”
• Plato Implementation Story, April 2004
• “According to instructors, students using
Interactive Mathematics reported that they
tended to go back and review the
software’s instruction more often than ask
questions of the instructor or ask for help
from tutors.”
Thomas Coe, Mathematics Department Chair, Rio Salado College
Academic Systems Profile, October 2002
Georgetown University
Student willingness to learn
• Students can accelerate their
learning and finish more than one
course level per term.
• “I have had up to 10 percent of my
students complete two courses in a
single semester. A few have even
completed three courses.”
Kim Brown, Mathematics Department Chair, Tarrant County College
Plato Implementation Story, April 2004
Georgetown University
Types of e-Learning
Portion of Content
Delivered Online
Type of Course
0%
Traditional
1 to 29%
Web Facilitated
30-69%
Blended./Hybrid
80+%
Online
Typical Description
Course with no online technology used content is delivered in writing or orally.
Course which uses web-based technology to
facilitate what is essentially a face-to-face
couse. Uses a course management system
(CMS) or web pages to post the syllabus and
assignments, for example.
Course that blends online and face-to-face
delivery. Substantial proportion of the content
is delivered online, typically uses online
discussions, typically has some fact-to-face
meetings.
A course where most of the content is
delived online. Typically has no face-to-face
meetings.
Seizing the Opportunity: The Quality and Extent of Online Education
in the United States, 2002 and 2003, Sloan Consortium, Sep 2003
Georgetown University
Content and teaching
Traditional
Classroom
Content delivery none or linear
Blended
Learning
sequenced
text, images, audio,
video
Learning
Environment 2015
adaptive
text, images, audio,
video
instructional design and
multimedia specialists
Content format
text, images
Content source
faculty
faculty + support
e-mail, forums
e-mail, chat,
forums, Wiki
Collaboration
Learning station Web browser
Web browser with
plug-ins
e-mail, chat, forums,
Wiki, audio and video
conferencing
Web browser with
plugins, personal
learning environment for
some courses
Learning support
Georgetown University
Traditional
Classroom
Blended
Learning
Learning
Environment 2015
Course content,
repositories, remedial
learning objects
Lecture or review, online video-enhanced
office hours
Library
On-line catalog
On-line repository
(JSTOR + ArtStor)
Faculty role
Lecture, office
hours
Lecture or review, online office hours
Academic support
Teaching
assistants
Teaching assistants,
help desk,
assessment center
Tutors, help desk
Interim grades
Continuous assessment
of mastery, learning
styles, and effort
Progress monitoring Interim grades
Georgetown University
Content development
Process
Traditional
Classroom
Blended
Learning
Faculty choice
Faculty choice
+ multimedia
development
Scope of content Faculty defined
Faculty defined
Assessments
Faculty
authored
Faculty
authored
Reuse
None or limited
None or limited
Learning
Environment 2015
Specialized course
development roles
and software,
multimedia production
facilities
Interinstitutionally
defined learning
objectives (transfer)
Assessment specialist
authors
Published and open
learning objects and
media objects
Students learn at different rates
250
25
200
20
150
15
100
10
Calendar Days
Connect Time
Log. (Calendar Days)
50
5
0
Computer Connect Hours
Calendar Days
Georgetown University
Time to Course Completion
0
0
25
50
75
100
Percentage of Students
Sillinger and Suppes, 1999
Distribution of Time of a Session
Algebra 2
25%
Percentage of Students
Georgetown University
Students work differently
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Number of Hours per Session
12
13
14
15
16
Georgetown University
Characteristics of eLearning
success
Institution
Open University (UK)
Rio Salado College
University of Phoenix
Coastline College
University of Lubeck
Content
Authoring
Call
Center
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
24/7
18/7
18/7
14/7
Transfer
Quality
Assurance
Limited
Arizona
Local
California
EU
3-factor
3-factor
3-factor
3-factor
3-factor
Relative
cost
Lower
Lower
Lower
The three factors of quality assurance are content and
instructor based on student performance and, separately,
student course satisfaction. See also the U.K. student survey
ranking instruction using 19 questions.
Georgetown University
Accommodating student needs
Early work by Pat Suppes has
demonstrated that students have
different learning styles, which he
represented as “trajectories” of
learning based on when different
students mastered course content.
The flexibility of eLearning suggest
opportunities to transform classical
“term-based” learning.
A
B
C
D
F
Course Grade
Content Mastery
Georgetown University
Learning trajectories
Time
End of
Scheduled Term
Based on the work of Pat Suppes at Stanford University
A
B
C
D
F
Course Grade
Content Mastery
Georgetown University
Quick learner
Time
End of
Scheduled Term
Boredom vs.
supplementary
course
content?
Monitoring tools
can quickly
identify students
that are at risk
A
B
C
D
F
Course Grade
Content Mastery
Georgetown University
Early intervention
Time
End of
Scheduled Term
Unforeseen
events resulting
in inactivity
A
B
C
D
F
Course Grade
Content Mastery
Georgetown University
Unexpected externality
Time
End of
Scheduled Term
Immutable time
constraints limit a
capable student
A
B
C
D
F
Course Grade
Content Mastery
Georgetown University
Success or failure?
Time
End of
Scheduled Term
Georgetown University
Types of e-Learning
Portion Online
0%
1 to 29%
30 to 79%
80+%
Type of Course
Traditional
Web Facilitated
Blended/Hybrid
Online
Seizing the Opportunity: The Quality and Extent of Online Education
in the United States, 2002 and 2003, Sloan Consortium, Sep 2003
Hours per week to achieve
content mastery
Georgetown University
Student effort
12
9
6
3
0
Lecture/Discussion
3h 2h 1h
Blended
Collaboration
Method of instruction
Tutorial
The emerging learning
environment
Cost of Course Content per Student
for various levels of Course Development costs
$1,000
US$6,000
US$37,500
US$120,000
US$1,000,000
$800
Cost per student
Georgetown University
Investing in courseware
$600
$400
$200
$0
10
100
1,000
Class size, 3-year, 6-term course life
10,000
“Engineered courses”
Georgetown University
Lübeck University of Applied Sciences
• Learning objectives (using EU
transfer course objectives)
• Contract author only for draft text
and media suggestions
• Development Manager
• Instructional design
• Media development
• Assessment authoring
In separate
units
Academic services
Georgetown University
Lübeck University of Applied Sciences
• Technical support (separate from faculty)
• Tutor
• Domain competence
• Native language of the student regardless of
the language of the course
• Selected for ability to communicate
• Academic Services Support System
(see also University of Oxford and Open
University UK)
The technology
Some alternatives
Where the money goes now
U.S. Public Universities
12%
Cumulative Change
Georgetown University
Change in Distribution of Expenditures
8%
4%
Instruction
Research
Public Service
Library
Student Services
Administration
Plant
0%
-4%
-8%
1991-1992
1996-1997
2001-2002
What does it cost?
Georgetown University
Instructional Cost per Full-Time Equivalent
U.S. 4-year Colleges and Universities
$14,000
HEPI Adjusted Cost
$12,000
$10,000
Cost per FTE
Undergraduate Tuition and Fees
Graduate Tuition
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
1976-77
1981-82
1986-87
1991-92
1996-97
2001-02
Georgetown University
Use of eLearning
• “We did not hear that colleges looked to
distance learning as a common strategy to
help accommodate students and minimize
loss of access. We do want to point out that
one college that serves a large portion of
its students through distance learning did
find it economical to increase this portion.
… with the infrastructures already in place,
they could accommodate additional
students in these programs more easily
than in classrooms.”
Ensuring Access with Quality to California’s Community Colleges, May 2004
The emerging learning
environment
Georgetown University
Observations
Based on observations by Bryan
Williams, remote-learning.net, in
supporting Moodle services.
• Students will continue learning if the
eLearning resources are available.
• Quick learners will go beyond the scope
of a course if materials are available.
• Those slow to learn or interruptions to
their learning will succeed if given
additional time.
Georgetown University
Basis for projections
• Twenty minutes of eLearning “drill and
practice” time is equivalent to sixty minutes
in a traditional classroom.
• Students are expected to spend three hours
in study for each hour in lecture.
• Collaboration time differs sharply
depending upon the characteristics of the
group.
• Tutorials take additional time because of
the interest and focus of the student (and
achieve more than expected “course
mastery.”
The emerging “market” for
eLearning
Georgetown University
Proposed open /closed courseware
Study hours
Tutors
Tech support
Examination
Certification
Pedagogy
Peer group
Forums
Open Courseware
Learning Object
16 - 32
No
No
Personal guidance
No
Yes
Informal
Courseware
120 - 240
Yes
Yes
As required
Yes
Yes
Enrolled students
By subject
By course
Proposed, Open University of the Netherlands, Feb 2006
Georgetown University
Expected results
• “Learning on demand” in chunks (at
no cost to the student)
• Incentive to either
• Subscribe to tutorial support
• Participate as a student
• Seek “certification” by examination
paying current tuition
• Increase value of “brand” and gain
course enrollments
Learning technology
Summary of trends
Georgetown University
• Professional specialists
• Move process control from faculty to learning
designers (and learning systems)
• Mergers or consortia to achieve
economies of scale
• Public pressures to improve
cost/benefit
• More granular content, more
flexibility in schedule, multi-format
learning materials
Georgetown University
Barriers to success
• Change in culture from faculty-centered
instruction to student learning
• Change in organization form –
functional organization
• Acceptance of increased “automation”
• Development of feedback to achieve
adaptive leaving activities
• Adoption of standard learning objectives
for many undergraduate courses.
To be successful
Georgetown University
• Content interoperability is imperative
• New consortium-developed or
commercial software with new
functions and new architecture
• Open standards are required to
reduce IT maintenance costs
• Specialization will require retraining
current staff
Collaboration is key to lower unit costs
Georgetown University
Transformation is feasible
• eLearning has produced an
experienced and knowledgeable
cadre (many attending eLearning
2006).
• Increased effectiveness and reduced
costs have been broadly
demonstrated.
• All needed information and education
technologies have been developed
and are being used somewhere.
Georgetown University
The “model” is broken
Schools of
Education
Government
“management”
Developers
Education
Technologists
Faculty
Students
Should CETIS create the broken links?