1. The Blended Learning Toolkit: A DIY
Platform for Blended Learning
Faculty Development
Kelvin Thompson, Ed.D.
University of Central Florida
@kthompso
#slnsolsummit #blendkit
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

2. http://bit.ly/suny12_thompson

3. Caveats
• No widely accepted definition of blended learning
• Blended = “best/worst of both worlds”
• Blended learning best conceptualized as f2f-enhanced
web course
• Integration of f2f and online is perhaps the most
elusive of concepts for blended instructors
• Materials shared here are targeted at those
transitioning from f2f-only experience but may be
applicable to those with prior online or blended
experience
• No one-size-fits-all answers
• Goal: Provide resources you can include in faculty
development for blended learning
3

4. Caveats
• Please follow along! (short urls throughout)
• Polls interspersed throughout
– Text messaging (send to 37607)
– Twitter (tweet to @poll)
– Web site (go to http://PollEv.com/blendkit)
• Specific codes to use for each response option
on each poll
• A LOT to introduce, so please jot down thoughts
for the end 
4

5. An Institutional Profile
BLENDED LEARNING @ UCF

6. Blended Learning at UCF
500% growth in blended courses
n Fully Online Courses
n Blended Learning Courses

7. UCF Fall 2008 Headcount
“Live” Main Campus
Students
43,466
“Live” Rosen
Campus Students
865
2,446
1,301
2.6% 1.7%
137 111
0.3% 0.2%
33,087
Web
65.8% 7,127 2,847 Students
14.2% 5.7% 11,514
363
0.7% 923
1,436 1.8%
2.9%
2,046 “Live”
4.1%
Regional
Students
4,800

8. UCF Fall 2009 Headcount
“Live” Main Campus
Students
45,988
“Live” Rosen
Campus Students
782 2,531
827
1.6% 1.5%
204
697
0.4%
1.3%
33,988
Web
63.5% 8,593 3,637 Students
16.1% 6.8% 14,543
375
0.7% 1,030
1,497 1.9%
2.8% “Live”
1,886
3.6% Regional
Students
4,809

9. UCF Fall 2010 Headcount
“Live” Main Campus
Students
47,926
“Live” Rosen
Campus Students
695
2,472
758 1.2%
1.4%
234
764 0.4%
1.4%
34,059
Web
60.6% 10,363 4,113 Students
18.4% 7.3% 17,172
478
0.9%
1,213
2.1%
1,490
2.7% “Live”
2,049
3.6% Regional
Students
5,251

10. Blended Learning at UCF
Blended Learning 2009-2010 Totals since
Academic Year 2002
Sections 681 5,031
Registrations 24,241 160,860
Student Credit Hours (SCH) 70,438 476,823

11. Course Evaluation Ratings
N = 672,185
Course Modality % Overall
“Excellent”
Blended 51.2%
Fully Online 48.3%
Face to Face 48.2%
Lecture Capture (with classroom) 43.4%
Lecture Capture (no classroom) 41.6%

12. Student Success Rates by Modality
F2F Blended Fully Online
(n=618,899) (n=39,021) (n=109,421)
100 95
91 91 88 91 88 91 94 88
90 87 88 88 88 87 86
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Spring 09 Summer 09 Fall 09 Spring 10 Summer 10

13. Withdrawal Rates by Modality
100
90
F2F (n=551,065) Blended (n=39,769) Fully Online (n=109,495)
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10 4 4 5 3 2 4 3 3 4 3 3 5
2 4
1
0
Spring Summer Fall Spring Summer
09 09 09 10 10

14. Student Satisfaction in Fully Online and
Blended Courses
Fully online (N = 1,526)
Blended (N = 485)
Percent
44%
39% 41% 38%
9% 11% 9% 5%
3% 1%
Very Satisfied Neutral Very Unsatisfied
Satisfied Unsatisfied

15. Faculty Willingness to Teach
Web/Blended Courses in the Future
Definitely
Probably
Probably not
Definitely not
Positive
69% 81%
16% 13%
Neutral 10% 2%
or 6% 4%
negative
Online Blended
n=71 N=53
Modality

16. The Blended Learning Toolkit
OVERVIEW
16

17. UCF/AASCU NGLC Project Overview
• Scale the proven UCF Blended Learning
model via the national AASCU network of
more than 420 institutions and systems
• Starting with 20 targeted schools selected
for their alignment with NGLC objectives
(under 26, low income)
17

18. Scale UCF Model of Blended Learning
• Across 20 AASCU institutions and 11 states
18

19. Partners
Individual Institutions State Coordinating Institutions State Participating Institutions
Columbus State University Missouri Harris-Stowe State
University
Fayetteville State University Lincoln University of
Missouri
Grambling State University Missouri Southern State
Southeast Missouri State University
Northwestern State University (LA) University Missouri State University
Indiana University Kokomo University of Missouri-St.
Louis
Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi Alabama University of North
Alabama
The College at Brockport, Troy University University of South
State University of New York Alabama
Thomas Edison State College Minnesota St. Cloud State University
University of Maine at Fort Kent Winona State University
19

20. 20

21. Project Overview
• An open educational resource (OER) Blended
Learning Toolkit containing:
– Best practices, strategies, models, and course
design principles.
– Two OER prototype courses in Composition and
Algebra.
– Faculty development resources
– Assessment and data collection protocols, including
survey instruments and standards.
21

22. Goals for BlendKit Course
• Design and develop your blended learning
course
• Consideration of key issues related to
blended learning and practical guidance in
helping you produce actual materials for your
blended course (i.e., from design documents
through creating content pages to peer
review feedback at your own institutions).
22

25. BlendKit Course Materials
• Instructional modules
• BlendKit Reader
• Do-It-Yourself design tasks
• Recordings of interdisciplinary faculty interviews
• Recordings of online webinar discussions with
faculty group
http://bit.ly/blendkit
25

26. BlendKit Course Materials
GUIDED TOUR
26

27. BlendKit Reader
• Designed to stimulate scholarly
reflection/discussion
• “Questions to Ponder” for each chapter
• Drawn from Creative Commons licensed
material (except as noted) plus original content
• Five chapters (7-14 pages each)
• Available in html, pdf, and ebook (mobi & epub)
http://bit.ly/blendkit_reader
27

33. Recordings
• Interdisciplinary faculty from three institutions:
– Instructor audio interviews [10 minutes each]
– Webinar sessions with Q&A [30 minutes each]
• Understanding Blended Learning
• Blended Interactions
• Blended Assessments of Learning
• Blended Content & Assignments
• Quality Assurance
http://bit.ly/blendkit_recordings
33

38. DIY Tasks
• Step-by-step guides for many common
development tasks
– Explanations
– Templates
– Examples
• Five broad tasks with at least 2 sub-tasks each
• Substantive in specificity!
http://bit.ly/blendkit_diy
38

39. DIY Tasks
Task 01: Conceptualize Your Blended Learning Course
Task 02: Design for Interaction in Your Blended Learning
Course
Task 03: Decide Upon Assessments of Learning in Your
Blended Learning Course
Task 04: Develop Content/Assignment Pages for Your
Blended Learning Course
Task 05: Assure Quality in Your Blended Learning Course
http://bit.ly/blendkit_diy
39

40. Task 01: Conceptualize Your Blended Course
COURSE BLUEPRINT
40

41. 41

42. 42

43. 43

44. 44

45. 45

46. Course Blueprint
• Easily by-passed, but don’t!
• High level overview mapping course goals to
assignments
• Use electronic version or just do it on a piece of paper
– Word template looks cool but doc versions may cause problems
• May be “in your head,” but get it out on paper
• Ignore delivery mode (f2f v. online) initially
– Focus on identifying the best activities to achieve the course
goals
46

47. Task 01: Conceptualize Your Blended Course
MIX MAP
47

48. 48

49. 49

50. 50

51. Mix Map
• Identify a mode (f2f, online, both) for all components
• Suggested approach – online course with face-to-face
enhancements
• How to decide on delivery mode:
– Start with your absolutes - What has to be delivered face-to-face
or online? What works best in one environment v. the other?
– Next – What will work in either environment?
– Note: You may need to modify an existing activity to fit a new
delivery mode. (See Task 3)
• Map out your overall strategy paying particular attention to
how the two environments integrate
– Integration is the single most challenging issue in blended
learning!
51

52. Task 02: Design for Interaction
CREATE COURSE DOCUMENT
DRAFTS
52

53. 53

54. 54

55. 55

56. 56

57. Create Course Documents
• Emphasis on single-purpose online
documents (Neidorf, 2006)
• Making the formerly implicit (f2f) explicit
(online)
• Clear articulation of student expectations
• Some people prefer “print-friendly”
versions (e.g., pdf) over HTML
– TIP: See accessibility guidelines!
57

58. Task 02: Design for Interaction
USING ZAPT
58

59. 59

60. 60

61. 61

62. 62

63. Using Zapt
• HTML is truly cross-platform (all can view)
• Accessible HTML avoids weird code
• Zapt tool is very easy if initial set-up
doesn’t scare you away!
• Note: Formatting instructions (CSS files) are
housed on UCF servers
– Pro: Immediate set-up
– Con: Must upload to preview
Trusting that we’ll keep them online
63

64. Task 02: Design for Interaction
MODULE INTERACTION
WORKSHEET
64

65. 65

66. 66

67. 67

68. 68

69. Module Interaction Worksheet
• Builds upon Blueprint and Mix Map tasks
• Sets the stage for Creating Module Pages
• Assumes that one will be developing
online modules
– Several questions useful for designing
interaction independent of module
– Possibly think “weeks” instead of modules
• Another opportunity to consider integration
of f2f and online
69

70. Task 03: Decide Upon Assessments of Learning
ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
70

71. 71

72. 72

73. 73

74. Assignment Instructions
• Remember to revise Blueprint and Course Docs as ideas evolve!
• Goal: Standalone documents with perfect clarity of expectations
• The clearer the written communication, the more time is freed for f2f activities.
• Goal: Make the formerly implicit explicit
– However, written instructions could be distributed f2f or online.
• Make sure students understand how each assignment links online and f2f
• Do not duplicate assignments or content between f2f and online
– Ex: Reading assignments as homework and then cover content in class. Make sure class
discussion covers items subject to confusion and expands on reading through
examples, case studies, etc.
– If online assignment is an extension of f2f discussion/activity, ensure students understand
what needs to be added or expanded in the online assignment.
74

75. Task 03: Decide Upon Assessments of Learning
CONFIGURE ONLINE QUIZ SETTINGS
75

76. 76

77. 77

78. Configure Online Quiz Settings
• A primer for online assessment
– Minimize motivation for cheating
– Examine biases for assessment in one mode
over another
– Make assumptions explicit
(e.g., collaboration, etc.)
– Opportunity to review cognitive level of existing
assessments
• Specifics will be determined by your
CMS/testing software
78

79. Task 04: Develop Content/Assignment Pages
CREATE MODULE PAGES
79

80. 80

81. 81

82. 82

83. 83

84. Create Module Pages
• A possible extension of earlier Assignment
Instructions and Module Interaction tasks
• Goal: Standalone documents with perfect
clarity of expectations
• The clearer the written communication, the
more time is freed for f2f activities.
• One cohesive whole from which students
may access assignment
instructions, course content, etc.
84

85. Task 04: Develop Content/Assignment Pages
MODULE TEMPLATE
85

86. 86

87. 87

88. Module Template
• Use as a starting point
• Decide upon all elements to include in your
modules (e.g, objectives, content, references)
• Use Word style sheet (e.g., “Heading 1,” etc.)
• Review Assignment Instructions for possible
module headings/sub-headings
• Maintain consistency from one module to
next
• Use Zapt to generate accessible HTML if you
wish
88

89. Task 05: Assure Quality
BLENDED COURSE
IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST
89

90. 90

91. 91

92. Implementation Checklist
• Very generic steps!
• Incorporate your institution’s requirements
• Structured approach is reminiscent of
managing an online course (may feel unusual
for f2f)
• Note numerous cues for fostering integration
of f2f/online
• Note emphasis on iterative design
(e.g., simple design feedback collection
punch list for next version)
92

93. Task 05: Assure Quality
BLENDED COURSE SELF-
ASSESSMENT/PEER REVIEW FORM
93

94. 94

95. 95

96. 96

97. 97

98. Self-Assessment/Peer Review Form
• Many elements are common to courses in all
modes
• Blended-specific sections
– First (“Course Expectations”)
– Last (“Implementation of Blended”)
• Evaluate it yourself, but there’s no substitute
for a new set of eyes!
• Identify a trusted colleague
• Note evaluation of design vs. implementation
98

100. Instructional Modules
• Pulls together all BlendKit Course
materials (readings, tasks, etc.)
• Each module anchored to
– one focus question
– 3-4 learning objectives
http://bit.ly/blendkit_activities
100

107. FACULTY DEVELOPMENT LESSONS
LEARNED
107

108. BlendKit2011
• Open online course focused on blended learning
– Publicly accessible readings, document templates, and
how-to instructions
+
– Five weeks of facilitation:
• Weekly encouraging messages
• Weekly 30 min. webinars featuring guest blended learning
instructors & discussion with others
• Weekly reading/activity reflection prompts for blogging
(more interaction with others).
• Social networking opportunities for more interaction
108

109. Why an Open Online Course?
• Open materials may be used at any time
for self-study well beyond the NGLC
grant period
• No differences in course management
systems to get in the way of the course
• Easier for participants to self-select
course components with which to engage
• More diverse group, larger number of
participants with whom to interact
109

110. = NGLC Institution
= Non-NGLC Institution
110

111. Lessons Learned
• Many participants would’ve preferred more
structure
• Next time: Use CMS as home base
• Consider more traditional participation
roles
– Successful completion = submitting required
assignments
– Auditing = all other participation
• Consider implementing open badges
111

112. BlendKit2012?
• Possibly offering another cohort option in
summer 2012
• Get on the mailing list:
http://bit.ly/blendkit_mailinglist

113. Ideas for Adaptation
• Use the BlendKit Reader for discussion group
• Link to specific components as you wish
• All materials are licensed for reuse/remixing
– Download, edit, and upload to your own web site
– Modify materials and send copies to us for
uploading
• Other ideas?
• Contact us for brainstorming!
113

114. Blended Teaching Strategies
Teaching Online Pedagogical Repository
http://topr.online.ucf.edu

115. What Is It?
a resource to support the curation of effective
pedagogical practices in online and blended courses
individual entries include:
• strategy description drawn from the pedagogical
practice of online/blended teaching faculty
• artifacts depicting the strategy from actual courses
• alignment with cited findings from research or
professional practice literature
All released for reuse/remix under Creative
Commons

116. • 30+ published strategies relevant to online and blended
courses
• New strategies added/updated regularly
• Categorized by Content, Interaction, or Assessment
• Get ideas for your blended course design!

118. QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS?
DISCUSSION?
118

119. Thanks!
Kelvin Thompson, Ed.D.
kelvin@ucf.edu (connect to faculty dev. group)
http://twitter.com/kthompso
https://profiles.google.com/drkelvinthompson
Slides: http://bit.ly/suny12_thompson
http://bit.ly/blendkit