Principles of Course Redesign: A Model for Blended Learning PDF

Preview

Summary

SITE 2016 - Savannah, GA, United States, March 21-26, 2016 Principles of Course Redesign: A Model for Blended Learning Kristen Shand Susan Glassett Farrelly Victoria Costa California State University Fullerton United States [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Blended le...

Description

Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Principles of Course Redesign: A Model for Blended Learning Kristen Shand, Susan Glassett Farrelly

Related papers

Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Using Blended Teaching t o Teach Blended Learning: Lessons Learned from Pre-Service Teac… Krist en Shand, Susan Glasset t Farrelly

Blended learning: Deficit s and prospect s in higher educat ion Liliana Cuest a Medina T HE ART OF BLENDING: BENEFIT S AND CHALLENGES OF A BLENDED COURSE FOR PRESERVICE T EACH… Susan Glasset t Farrelly

SITE 2016 - Savannah, GA, United States, March 21-26, 2016

Principles of Course Redesign: A Model for Blended Learning Kristen Shand Susan Glassett Farrelly Victoria Costa California State University Fullerton United States [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Blended learning is becoming the default course design model at many higher education institutions. The literature on blended learning calls for effective models of blended courses based on principles of course redesign and best practices of integrated instructional delivery. This paper describes the course redesign process of a postbaccalaureate course from a face-to-face delivery to a blended learning model. The course transformation was based on four principles of course redesign gleaned from the current research. A model matrix of content delivery methods, student activities, and technology tools is included. This course was implemented in fall 2014 with online activities for two-thirds of the course and face-to-face activities for one-third. On completion, students were surveyed on their involvement and satisfaction with the blended model. The survey results were positive. Introduction For well over a decade, the movement toward blended learning environments in university classrooms has gradually, yet consistently increased. Although some large public universities have adopted and implemented blended learning at the institutional level, most universities have moved forward in a more informal way with individual instructors working to improve student outcomes in the classes they teach (Drysdale, Graham, Spring & Halverson, 2013; Graham, Woodfield & Harrison, 2012). At universities without an institutional plan for blended learning, individual faculty have led and continue to lead the charge, oftentimes without formal support or guidance. These faculty have explored, designed and implemented blended approaches in their classrooms based on their instructional needs, student learning goals and personal visions of blended learning. The result has been an eclectic collection of blended learning course models which have met with varying degrees of success. There is much to learn from the successes and challenges experienced by faculty who have developed, implemented, assessed and redesigned their courses in search of an effective model of blended learning instruction. University administrators and faculty development leaders can learn from these experiences and use them as models as they move toward a formal adoption of blended learning structure and strategies on their campuses. In fact, McGee and Reis (2012) note a gap in the current blended learning literature and point out a lack of examples of effective blended course models. They call for the publication and dissemination of research and examples of various course redesign models, including the unique elements of blended learning courses that differ from other models of instruction. This study is a step to fill that gap, as it describes the transformation and implementation of a social studies instructional methods course from a face-to-face format to a blended learning model. This paper describes the selection of blended learning design principles and their application in the course redesign process. The redesigned course was implemented in fall 2014, and students reported (anonymous survey) on their engagement, perception and satisfaction with the blended course. The result is to define what Graham, Henrie and Gibbons (2014) identified as a design model, a model that indicates core attributes necessary to bring about targeted outcomes. Background on Blended Learning Blended learning has been defined as any activity, course or program that incorporates two or more delivery mediums (Graham, 2006). In most cases, the two distinct delivery mediums include face-to-face instruction and technology-mediated instruction. At the activity level within a face-to-face course, blending occurs when a specific instructional activity contains both human-mediated and technology-mediated elements. At the course level, blending occurs when there is a combination of face-to-face course meetings and online meetings and activities. At the program level, blending occurs when some of the degree-program courses are offered face-to-face and others are offered online. At the university level, blending occurs when students have the ability to self-select a mixture of face-to-face and online courses to meet their overall educational goals (Graham, 2006). For the purposes of this paper, we explore blended learning at the course level, and investigate the use of blended learning principles in the course redesign process. The term blended learning evokes diverse visions of the teaching and learning process, and where and how it occurs. University instructors have long used technology-mediated activities within their courses to promote student engagement with course content and ensure academic success. The number of blended courses in higher

-378-

SITE 2016 - Savannah, GA, United States, March 21-26, 2016 education continues to increase as does demand (Bliuc, Goodyear, & Ellis, 2007; Porter, Graham, Spring, & Welch, 2014) and is considered by many scholars to be the emerging default course design model (Alammary, Sheard, & Carbone, 2014; Halverson, Graham, Spring, & Drysdale, 2014; Jeffrey, Milne, Suddaby, & Higgins, 2014). This growth was bolstered by a large U.S. Department of Education (DOE) meta-analysis of empirical studies on the effectiveness of online learning as compared to face-to-face instruction (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2009). Students were found to have performed slightly better in 100% online courses as compared to face-to-face counterparts, but significantly better in blended courses. In the DOE analysis, blended or hybrid courses were defined as “instruction that combines online and face-to-face elements” (p. xii). More often than not, the terms “blended” and “hybrid” are used interchangeably when referring to post-secondary courses. Regardless, lack of a standard definition for either has hindered research and strategic approaches to institutional implementation (TorrisiSteele & Drew, 2013; VanDerLinden, 2014; Wold, 2013). Although difficult to accurately measure, organizations and scholars often use a proportional range of online versus face-to-face activities ranging between 30-70% as a definition. In contrast, many authors cite Garrison and Vaughan's (2008) definition, which asserts that blended learning “is the organic integration of thoughtfully selected and complementary face-to-face and online approaches and technologies” (p. 148). The later requires a transformational approach to course redesign (Glazer, 2011; VanDerLinden, 2014) where blended learning “represents a fundamental reconceptualization and reorganization of the teaching and learning dynamic” (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004, p.97). Principles and Best Practices for Blended Course Redesign Researchers have studied and synthesized many different blended learning design practices (Alammary et al., 2014; Glazer, 2011; Graham, 2006; McGee & Reis, 2012: Means, Toyama, Murphy, & Baki, 2013). The metaanalysis of Means, Toyama, Murphy, and Baki (2013) not only provided statistically-derived evidence of blended learning’s positive impact on student achievement, it also identified effective pedagogical practices and types of tasks that benefit from from an online versus face-to-face delivery. Alammary, Sheard and Carbone (2014) classified design approaches into three categories: low-impact, medium-impact and high-impact. At its simplest, low-impact, blended course redesign is the addition of an online activity to an existing face-to-face course with no other changes to the face-to-face course delivery. To achieve maximum benefits of blended learning a high-impact blended design is required. This design approach focuses on the learning outcomes and determines the best delivery option based on the student learning needs and technology available. Therefore, high-impact redesign requires the instructor “to have a full understanding of student needs and be familiar with a variety of tools that can be used to better achieve the course objectives. They also have to be confident in using computer technology in an educational context” (p. 450). In their extensive literature review of blended learning in higher education, Torrisi-Steele and Drew (2013) found that effective blended learning required extensive course redesign integrating technology to create student-centered learning experiences. Scholars consistently support pedagogical transformation, not merely a repackaging of existing course content, as necessary for effective blended course redesign (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Graham, 2006; Torrisi-Steele & Drew, 2013; VanDerLinden, 2014). Multiple authors describe principles and best practices that support a transformational redesign process for blended learning (Alammary et al., 2014; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Glazer, 2011; Graham, 2006; Hofmann, 2006; McGee & Reis, 2012, Means et al., 2013). Through careful and systematic review of the literature, we selected and synthesized the following principles and best practices for blended learning course redesign: Principle #1 – Course redesign needs to focus on the objectives of the course, not on the technologies (Alammary et al., 2014; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Hoffman, 2006; McGee & Reis, 2012). Garrison and Vaughan (2008) recommend that blended course redesign start by identifying “key learning outcomes - knowledge, skills, and attitudes” (p. 177) before designing learning activities that integrate online and face-to-face components. The design of a blended course should emerge from the goals and objectives of the course which focus on the content to be learned, skills to be mastered, and outcomes to be assessed. Once these objectives have been established, online and in-person instructional activities can be planned that meaningfully target these objectives. Allamary et. al. (2014) suggest using Hoffman’s (2006) approach. Instructors should look at each course objective and then consider the best media for meeting each objective. McGee and Reis (2012) posit that clearly defining course objectives prior to the start of the redesign process is critical since the objectives should determine the content delivery mechanism, the pedagogical choices for activities, and the amount of time spent in online versus

-379-

SITE 2016 - Savannah, GA, United States, March 21-26, 2016 face-to-face pursuits. Learning outcomes are more effectively achieved when targeted by specific activities appropriately matched to delivery mode (Means, Toyama, Murphy, & Bakia, 2013). Principle #2 – Content delivery mechanisms, student engagement activities and assessments should be based on course content, learning needs of students, and pedagogical affordances of the designated technology tools (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Massie, 2006; McGee & Reis, 2012; Means et al., 2013) The selection of course activities and the mediums used to deliver them is probably the most challenging of the blended learning course redesign process (McGee & Reis, 2012). The focus should be on using the content delivery method that best meets the needs of the learners while honoring the blended nature of the course (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Means et al., 2013). Additionally, the complexity of the content to be learned needs to be considered. For example, if the content of a lecture is fairly straightforward and relatively easy to comprehend, a narrated online lecture would be an appropriate fit. However, if the material is more complex and the instructor anticipates a heavy load of student questions that need immediate attention, then a face-to-face lecture will better address student needs (Hoffman, 2006; Means et al., 2013). The affordances and constraints of the technology tools planned for the course also need to be considered in selecting content delivery methods and student engagement activities (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008). Technology tools can be grouped by purpose and selected for use in a blended course based on how well the purpose of the tool aligns with the objectives of the course. For example, when course objectives call for discussion and communication of certain topics, and the discussion can move forward in an asynchronous environment, a communication tool such as Voicethread or a Blog can be used in the online component of the course. Likewise, when course objectives call for student identification and presentation of ideas, online presentation tools such as Prezi or Emaze can effectively be utilized online. These technology tools can also be utilized in the face-to-face meetings. For example, students can showcase their web-based presentations, concept maps and websites with their peers in class and participate in structured conversation about the content. They can also engage with the technology tools in small groups to critically-think and grapple with difficult concepts. Principle # 3 – Online and face-to-face components of the course need to be integrated into a comprehensive whole (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Hoffman, 2006; Glazer, 2011; McGee & Reis, 2012). Hoffman (2006) claims that when redesigning a course for blended instruction, all too often, course instructors and program designers string together stand-alone components into a learning path rather than truly weaving learning experiences together. In a blended course, the face-to-face and online components must connect with each other and flow meaningfully from one medium to the next. For example, if one of the online modules for a course contains a presentation on a key topic, the face-to-face meeting can follow up with a facilitated group discussion on the content or concept. Glazer (2011) refers to this as “layering” and finds that it “works best when both parts of the course are designed for active learning” (p. 6). Students need multiple passes through the content, often through different media, to better construct knowledge. An effective weave of online and face-to-face components helps to support this goal (Massie, 2006) and improves the quality of learning experiences (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008). The weave is planned in the design stages and carried out in the implementation and facilitation of the course. Principle # 4 – Blended courses should begin with an orientation to teach students how to successfully navigate the online components of the course and prepare for the face-to-face meetings (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Hoffman, 2006; Jones 2006). To help students feel prepared and confident in a blended course, the instructor should provide an orientation (preferably in-person) that includes review of both the online and face-to-face components of the course, and the role and function of each (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Hoffman, 2006). Such orientation activities provide students with a sense of confidence, and contribute to their persistence in the course (Jones, 2006). In-person instruction on how to use the learning management system (Blackboard, Moodle, etc.) and other technology tools and apps used in the course allows students to focus on the course content rather than trying to figure out how to navigate the online environment or manipulate a specific technology tool (Hoffman, 2006). Digital tutorials can also be included in the online portion of the course as needed to further support the students. Applying Blended Learning Principles to Course Redesign – An Example To put these principles into practice and demonstrate the course redesign process, a graduate-level instructional methods course for future middle and high school teachers, entitled Teaching Social Science in Secondary Schools, was selected for redesign into a blended format. The following narrative describes the elements of the course redesign with a focus on the principles outlined above.

-380-

SITE 2016 - Savannah, GA, United States, March 21-26, 2016 Course Objectives The first step in the redesign process was to focus on Principle #1 – Course redesign focuses on the objectives of the course, not the technologies. The overall goal of the instructional methods course was to prepare future teachers to understand the purpose and practice of teaching social science in public schools. The course objectives, listed in Table 1, stemmed from this goal. The objectives focused on the content and skills that students enrolled in the course were expected to master by the end of the course. The purpose of the course was to provide the students with the necessary learning theories, instructional methods, engagement strategies, and resources to teach social studies in ways that promote critical-thinking, concept formation, and student engagement. Major emphasis was placed on practical aspects of classroom instruction, such as synthesizing content into units and individual lessons, working with state and national content standards, and using a wide variety of strategies to actively engage their classroom learners with history-social science content. In alignment with principle #1, technology tools were not included in the objectives as they serve as vehicles of instruction to help target course objectives, but are not directly connected to the student learning outcomes. Table 1: Course Objectives Course Objectives

•

examine pedagogical practices of effective teaching including comprehensive unit and lesson design

•

design lessons with varied instructional and student engagement strategies for teaching geography, history, civics and economics in secondary schools

•

explore myriad primary source archives, databases and analysis tools, and investigate ways to use primary sources to engage students in doing history

•

produce comprehensive lesson involving lecture, reading, inquiry, simulation and discussion

•

identify varied approaches to deliver subject-specific content and engage grade 7-12 students in learning

•

develop common core literacy strategies for gathering, analyzing and utilizing evidence from informational text

•

develop appropriate and differentiated assessment strategies

•

identify and develop strategies to effectively teach English Learners, Struggling Readers and Students with Special Needs, and provide accommodations according to their needs

Course Content and Design After the course objectives were articulated, the next step was to determine how to meet the objectives through instructional methods and activities, and to consider what format (online or face-to-face) would be appropriate for each method of instruction. The focus for this part of the redesign was on Principle #2 – Content delivery mechanisms, student engagement activities and assessments should be based on course content, learning needs of students, and pedagogical affordances of the designated technology tools. In pursuit of this principle, the student learning needs were first considered and then the course topics identified. Afterward, the optimal method for content delivery and engagement (i.e., lecture, inquiry, reading, discussion, project-based learning, etc.) was selected for each topic. It is important to note that the learning needs of students enrolled in this course were unique. They were in a secondary teaching credential program that integrates coursework and fieldwork. They were required to teach in local public schools for a minimum of 4 hours (often more) a day...