0
COHERE 2013 Conference
Open Resources, Open Courses: Their Impact on Blended and Online Learning
October 24, 2013 | Vancou...
Overview

About the Project

Models of e-Learning
Programming

Major Findings

Conclusions

Methodology
About the Project

Models of e-Learning
Programming

Major Findings

Conclusions

Methodology
About the Project
Guided by the e-learning framework (York’s eLearning Business Case, 2010)

•
•
•
•

Respond to enrolment...
About the Project

Models of e-Learning
Programming

Major Findings

Conclusions

Methodology
Models of e-Learning Programming
Web-enhanced model

• No reduction of face-to-face time

Blended models

Blend I (70:30 r...
About the Project

Models of e-Learning
Programming

Major Findings

Conclusions

Methodology
Student Survey

• Adapted from existing surveys (Blended Learning

Toolkit, CLASSE, 2006; Cook et al., 2004; Garrison &
Va...
Analytical Framework
for Evaluation of
Moodle Sites

• Guided by QM Rubric, Chico’s Rubric for Online Instruction, and

Qu...
About the Project

Models of e-Learning
Programming

Major Findings

Conclusions

Methodology
eLearning Formats / Participants

Background
• Courses: 40
• e-Learning formats:
• Blended: 35
• Online: 3
• Web-enhanced:...
Student participants
44.1%

• did not work

16.9%

• worked less
than 10
hours

21.3%

• worked
between 10
and 19 hours

1...
Course Satisfaction

Across different blends
*

All courses
Δ57.3%

Online
(90%)
Blend I (70.9%)
Blend II
(73.5%)

Δ22.8%
...
Learning Preferences (All Courses)

Face-to-face format

Fully online format

38%
Video
lectures

Blended format

47.7%

1...
Effectiveness of Technology Use
Δ73%

Δ67%

Δ64%

able to find
course
information
easily at Moodle

found resources
useful...
e-Learning Experiences
• Online, 96%
• Blend II, 85%
• Blend I, 70%
• Blend IV, 64%
• Blend V, 59%
• Blend III, 55%
• Web-...
Engagement

I was more engaged in this course
Online

56%

All courses
Blend II

46%

Δ31.9%
Blend I
Δ32.2%

44%

Blend V
...
Interaction
(Δ31%)

(Δ27%)

46%

Blend II

36%

38%

Blend I

32%

37%

Web-enhanced

29%

20%

Online

30%

20%

Blend II...
Learning Outcomes
Increased interest in material
(Δ56%)
Improved understanding of
key concepts (Δ51%)

• Online (79%)
• Bl...
Introduction

Models of e-Learning
Programming

Major Findings

Conclusions

Methodology
Blends I and II –
Most effective
blended models
• Blend I
•

Needs
improvement

Nearly a third of
scheduled course time
to...
Blends III, IV and V –
Least effective
blended models
• Blend III
•

A rotation on a fixed weekly
schedule between in-clas...
Recommendations

Implications

• Emphasize active learning
•

•

Proportion of time spent
online is an influence on
studen...
Contact us
For more information…
Dennis York
dennis_york@edu.yorku.ca

Ron Owston
rowston@edu.yorku.ca
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Investigating blended learning in undergraduate education

114

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
114
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Full Title: INVESTIGATING A BLENDING OF CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION WITH MOODLE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT IN UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES INHERENT IN STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES AND EXPERIENCESAbstract: This presentation will address the overall conference theme “Open Resources, Open Courses: Their Impact on Blended and Online Learning” as it sheds light on successes and challenges in Moodle-supported learning across various blends of classroom and online instructional time. Research on blended learning stresses the need to focus on determining under what conditions and with what kinds of students blended learning is most effective. In our two-year study in a large urban university in Canada, we examine the variability in student perceptions of redesigned courses where the proportion of time devoted to online activities varied. Forty-one undergraduate courses from 20 different programs were redesigned from a fully face-to-face lecture format into various eLearning formats. All courses used Moodle, an open-source learning management system, in which course materials were distributed and online activities were carried out. According to the proportion of face-to-face instructional time substituted with time devoted to online activity, we grouped the courses into six clusters: Web-enhanced (0% online); Blend I (30% online); Blend II (50% online); Blend III (in-class lectures/online tutorials); Blend IV (online lectures/in-class tutorials); and fully online (100% online) courses. Our preliminary analysis suggests that the proportion of time spent online is a significant influence on student satisfaction and other related perceptions. As such, Blend I and Blend II students are the most satisfied with and most engaged in their courses, compared to web-enhanced and Blend IV students. Drawing on our research, we will discuss success factors and challenges of various blended formats alongside strategies for using Moodle to shape blended learning.
  • Course satisfaction across different blends (F =54.30, p = .000)Satisfaction in Blend I and Blend II was significantly higher than in Web-enhanced and Blends III, IV, and VSatisfaction in Fully Online was significantly higher than in Web-enhanced, Blend II, and Blends III, IV, and V
  • Transcript of "Investigating blended learning in undergraduate education"

    1. 1. COHERE 2013 Conference Open Resources, Open Courses: Their Impact on Blended and Online Learning October 24, 2013 | Vancouver, BC INVESTIGATING A BLENDING OF CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION WITH MOODLE IN UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES Dennis York, Ron Owston, Susan Murtha, and Janna Finkel
    2. 2. Overview About the Project Models of e-Learning Programming Major Findings Conclusions Methodology
    3. 3. About the Project Models of e-Learning Programming Major Findings Conclusions Methodology
    4. 4. About the Project Guided by the e-learning framework (York’s eLearning Business Case, 2010) • • • • Respond to enrolment pressures Provide better experience for commuter students Better engage students Improve student learning Involved three Faculties • Faculty of Fine Arts • Faculty of Health • Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies Evaluation components • Student experiences • Moodle course website design • Instructor experiences
    5. 5. About the Project Models of e-Learning Programming Major Findings Conclusions Methodology
    6. 6. Models of e-Learning Programming Web-enhanced model • No reduction of face-to-face time Blended models Blend I (70:30 ratio) • 1/3 in-class is replaced with online activities Blend II (50:50 ratio) • In-class and online sessions are equally balanced Blend III • Rotation of in-class lectures and online tutorials on a fixed schedule Blend IV • Rotation of online lectures and in-class tutorials on a fixed schedule Blend V • Rotation of on-class lectures and hybrid tutorials Fully online model • All activities were conducted online
    7. 7. About the Project Models of e-Learning Programming Major Findings Conclusions Methodology
    8. 8. Student Survey • Adapted from existing surveys (Blended Learning Toolkit, CLASSE, 2006; Cook et al., 2004; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008) • 23 likert-type and 6 multiple choice items address • Course satisfaction • E-learning preferences • Flexibility • Engagement and interaction • 5,082 students across three Faculties • 2,597 completed surveys (51% response rate) • Learning outcomes • A paper version of survey administered in class at the end of the semester
    9. 9. Analytical Framework for Evaluation of Moodle Sites • Guided by QM Rubric, Chico’s Rubric for Online Instruction, and Quality Online Course Initiative Rubric • Major criteria: • Moodle organization and layout design • Instructional design and delivery • Student engagement • Student support and resources • 31 Moodle sites were evaluated (77.5%)
    10. 10. About the Project Models of e-Learning Programming Major Findings Conclusions Methodology
    11. 11. eLearning Formats / Participants Background • Courses: 40 • e-Learning formats: • Blended: 35 • Online: 3 • Web-enhanced: 2 • Participants: 2,597 (51%) • Traditional and mature students • Class size: small, medium, and large • Course level: introductory and advanced Blend II 369 (14%) Online, 90 (4%) Webenhanced, 386 Blended, 2,121 (81%) Blend I 720 (28%) Blend III 348 (13%) Blend V Blend IV 160 (6%) 524 (20%)
    12. 12. Student participants 44.1% • did not work 16.9% • worked less than 10 hours 21.3% • worked between 10 and 19 hours 17.7% • worked more than 20 hours 76.7% commuted to campus 23.3% lived on campus
    13. 13. Course Satisfaction Across different blends * All courses Δ57.3% Online (90%) Blend I (70.9%) Blend II (73.5%) Δ22.8% Δ19.7% Web-enhanced (43.6%) Blend III (49.1%) Blend IV (40.5%) Blend V (44.3%) Δ3.48 (1.13) *Based on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
    14. 14. Learning Preferences (All Courses) Face-to-face format Fully online format 38% Video lectures Blended format 47.7% 14.1% Lectures 41.1% 35.0% 22.1% Tutorials 51.3% 23.0% 25.7% 42.9% 26.7% 30.3% Online discussions In-class tutorials Discussions
    15. 15. Effectiveness of Technology Use Δ73% Δ67% Δ64% able to find course information easily at Moodle found resources useful at Moodle found technology used reliable Online & Blends I, II (79-91%) Blends III & V (56-58%) Online & Blends I, II (75-84%) Blends III & V (48-53%) Online & Blends I, II (74-94%) Blends III & V (56-58%) Δ19% reported technology interfered with learning Online & Blends I, III & Web (10-18%) Blends II, IV & V (23-27%)
    16. 16. e-Learning Experiences • Online, 96% • Blend II, 85% • Blend I, 70% • Blend IV, 64% • Blend V, 59% • Blend III, 55% • Web-enhanced, 30% • Online, 96% • Blend II, 70% • Blend I, 65% • Blend III, 39% • Blend V, 36% • Blend IV, 31% • Web-enhanced, 16% • Blend II, 37% • Blend I, 30% • Web-enhanced, 28% • Online, 19% • Blend III, 15% • Blend IV, 14% • Blend V, 13% Flexibility in personal schedule (Δ63%) Travel time reduction (Δ47%) Connection to other students (Δ24%) • Online, 16% • Blend V, 18% • Web-enhanced, 30% • Blend I, 30% • Blend III, 31% • Blend II, 34% • Blend IV, 35% • Online, 25% • Web-enhanced, 39% • Blend V, 44% • Blend II, 44% • Blend I, 45% • Blend III, 50% • Blend IV, 51% Information overload (Δ31%) Required extra effort (Δ45%)
    17. 17. Engagement I was more engaged in this course Online 56% All courses Blend II 46% Δ31.9% Blend I Δ32.2% 44% Blend V 24% Web-enhanced 24% Δ35.3% Blend III Δ2.91 (1.21) 21% Blend IV 16% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
    18. 18. Interaction (Δ31%) (Δ27%) 46% Blend II 36% 38% Blend I 32% 37% Web-enhanced 29% 20% Online 30% 20% Blend III 19% 21% Blend V 15% 19% Blend IV 19%
    19. 19. Learning Outcomes Increased interest in material (Δ56%) Improved understanding of key concepts (Δ51%) • Online (79%) • Blend I, II (67-63%) • Blends IV, V, Web (43-47%) • • • • Online (76%) Blends I, II (60-64%) Blend IV, Web (45-47%) Blends III, V (35-38%) • Online, Blends I, II (33-35%) Developed better • Blend V, Web (25-27%) communication skills (Δ27%) • Blend IV (16%) • Online, Blend II (54%) More opportunities to reflect • Blend I, V (45-49%) (Δ39%) • Web, Blend IV (26-31%)
    20. 20. Introduction Models of e-Learning Programming Major Findings Conclusions Methodology
    21. 21. Blends I and II – Most effective blended models • Blend I • Needs improvement Nearly a third of scheduled course time to be spent in class was replaced with online activities - High course satisfaction - Better learning outcomes - Easy to navigate Moodle sites - Useful online resources - Flexibility in personal schedule - Travel time reduction • Blend II • A blending of in-class and online sessions is equally balanced with a split of roughly 50-50 between time face-toface and online instructional - Strengthen an online community of learners - Improve engagement - Increase online interaction with instructor Success factors
    22. 22. Blends III, IV and V – Least effective blended models • Blend III • A rotation on a fixed weekly schedule between in-class lectures and participation in TA-facilitated Moodle discussions Success factors - Low satisfaction - Weak community ties - Low level of engagement and interaction - Less positive about learning outcomes • Blend IV • A rotation of online lectures and in-class tutorials facilitated by TAs • Blend V • A rotation of in-class lectures and participation in TA-facilitated hybrid tutorials (on-campus and using Moodle discussions) - Easy to navigate Moodle sites - Somewhat positive about flexibility and reduction of travel time Needs improvement
    23. 23. Recommendations Implications • Emphasize active learning • • Proportion of time spent online is an influence on student satisfaction and other related perceptions*. Findings provide some guidance for (re)designing blended courses in choosing the amount of time instructors want students to spend on online activities. • Greater student engagement with the material and with one another • Reach out to students of different needs and preferences • Take advantage of a diverse repertoire of online tools within Moodle • Improve student support on Moodle course sites • Increase on-demand, individualized assistance *Contingent upon the instructors’ teaching style and/or course subject. • Consider the differences of reading online text • Think carefully about strategies of organizing and presenting course information on Moodle
    24. 24. Contact us For more information… Dennis York dennis_york@edu.yorku.ca Ron Owston rowston@edu.yorku.ca
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×