Blended Learning Presentation for Laureate 2008

2,485 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
1 Comment
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,485
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
18
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
134
Comments
1
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Blended Learning Presentation for Laureate 2008

  1. 1. “ Blended Learning” Dr. Greg Williams February 22, 2008
  2. 2. Dr. Greg Williams <ul><li>Director & Clinical Assistant Professor </li></ul><ul><li>University Maryland </li></ul><ul><li>Instructional Systems Development </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>www.umbc.edu/isd </li></ul>
  3. 3. Agenda <ul><li>What is blended learning? </li></ul><ul><li>Why use it? </li></ul><ul><li>What does research say? </li></ul><ul><li>Modes of delivery </li></ul><ul><li>Challenges </li></ul><ul><li>Best practices </li></ul><ul><li>Discussion </li></ul>
  4. 4. Blended Learning Quiz <ul><li>Define “blended learning”? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the benefits? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the challenges? </li></ul>
  5. 5. What Is Blended Learning? <ul><li>Many definitions </li></ul><ul><li>None are universally accepted </li></ul><ul><li>Some include percentages </li></ul>
  6. 6. What Is Blended Learning? <ul><li>Most widely accepted definition </li></ul><ul><li>“ combines face to face with computer-mediated instruction” </li></ul><ul><li>Mix of instructional delivery methods </li></ul>
  7. 7. Why Is the Definition Important? <ul><li>No common term hampers dialogue </li></ul><ul><li>Research results can be </li></ul><ul><li>“ apples to oranges” </li></ul>
  8. 8. What Does Blended Learning Look Like? “ I know it when I see it” The Honorable Potter Stewart, Former Supreme Court Justice, describing pornography
  9. 9. Is Blending New? <ul><li>Best known definition due to growth in eLearning </li></ul><ul><li>Different instructional strategies </li></ul><ul><li>e.g. 1 st grade w/ Sister Veronica </li></ul>
  10. 10. Why Blend? <ul><li>Ask “why” before “how” </li></ul><ul><li>Improved pedagogy </li></ul><ul><li>Increased access & flexibility </li></ul><ul><li>Learning is social </li></ul><ul><li>Context vs. content </li></ul><ul><li>Learning is process, not an event </li></ul>
  11. 11. Why Blend? <ul><li>Puts focus back on the basics </li></ul><ul><li>Promotes “Informal Learning” </li></ul><ul><li>Clever way to “fool’ faculty & trainers </li></ul><ul><li>In the future, we’ll drop the word “blended” (same as “eLearning”) </li></ul><ul><li>e.g. my son’s question to me </li></ul>
  12. 12. What Does the Research Say?
  13. 13. Brandon Hall Research (Clarey 2007)
  14. 14. Brandon Hall Research (Clarey 2007)
  15. 15. ASTD Annual Report 2006 <ul><li>Premier professional association for training </li></ul><ul><li>Did not mention blended learning </li></ul><ul><li>Did cite “best” organizations as using blended approach </li></ul>
  16. 16. Online Learning Outlook <ul><li>Online students mostly undergrads </li></ul><ul><li>Growing, 3.18 million students Fall 2005 </li></ul><ul><li>Academic leaders say online programs critical to long-term strategy </li></ul><ul><li>Babson Research Group & Sloan Consortium survey 2007 </li></ul>
  17. 17. Meta-Analysis Research <ul><li>Over 19,000 trainees in 168 courses </li></ul><ul><li>Included 96 research studies </li></ul><ul><li>Combining web-based training with f2f class more effective than stand alone classes </li></ul><ul><li>(Sitzmann 2006) </li></ul>
  18. 18. Perceptions
  19. 19. Instructor Perceptions (Clarey 2007) <ul><li>Quality as good or better than f2f </li></ul><ul><li>Blending requires more work </li></ul><ul><li>Instructors have greater flexibility </li></ul><ul><li>Writing skills improve </li></ul><ul><li>Deeper learning occurs </li></ul>
  20. 20. Learner Perceptions <ul><li>Learn more from peers than instructor </li></ul><ul><li>( Arabasz, 2003) </li></ul><ul><li>Higher satisfaction than f2f or online ( Dzuiban, 2003; Lewis & Orton, in Bonk, 2006) </li></ul><ul><li>Higher levels of interaction </li></ul><ul><li> ( Dzuiban, 2003) </li></ul>
  21. 21. Learner Perceptions (Clarey 2007)
  22. 22. Faculty Perceptions (Clarey 2007)
  23. 23. Modes of Delivery
  24. 24. Synchronous Delivery <ul><li>Traditional course delivery </li></ul><ul><li>Same time, same place instruction </li></ul><ul><li>What most people know </li></ul>
  25. 25. Synchronous Pros <ul><li>Allows real time applications </li></ul><ul><li>Allows real time f2f communication </li></ul><ul><li>Faster to develop </li></ul><ul><li>Easy modification and set-up </li></ul><ul><li>Facilitator can improvise easier </li></ul><ul><li>Is a familiar format </li></ul>
  26. 26. Synchronous Cons <ul><li>More planning and coordination </li></ul><ul><li>May incur travel costs </li></ul><ul><li>Hard to standardize </li></ul><ul><li>Learners cannot learn at own pace </li></ul><ul><li>Tied to physical classroom </li></ul>
  27. 27. Asynchronous Delivery <ul><li>Different times and different places </li></ul><ul><li>Does not occur in real time </li></ul><ul><li>Separation of time and/or place </li></ul>
  28. 28. Asynchronous Delivery Formats <ul><li>Web-based </li></ul><ul><li>Stand alone computer-based (CDs) </li></ul><ul><li>Video & audio </li></ul><ul><li>Print materials </li></ul><ul><li>Mobile media devices (cell, iPod) </li></ul>
  29. 29. Asynchronous Pros <ul><li>Reduces time, travel, logistics & scheduling issues </li></ul><ul><li>Easily distributed </li></ul><ul><li>Facilitates standardization & maintenance </li></ul><ul><li>Learner can learn at their own pace </li></ul><ul><li>Can allow self-directed learning </li></ul>
  30. 30. Asynchronous Cons <ul><li>Not ideal for complex content </li></ul><ul><li>Initially expensive </li></ul><ul><li>Time consuming to produce & develop </li></ul><ul><li>Limited interaction w/ learners & instructor </li></ul><ul><li>Unfamiliar delivery for many </li></ul>
  31. 31. Channels of Delivery <ul><li>Synchronous physical format can include: </li></ul><ul><li>Instructor-led classroom sessions </li></ul><ul><li>Hands-on lab, workshops </li></ul><ul><li>Field trips </li></ul><ul><li>On the job training </li></ul><ul><li>Coaching, mentoring, tutoring </li></ul>
  32. 32. Channels of Delivery <ul><li>Synchronous eLearning formats can include: </li></ul><ul><li>Online meetings & discussion </li></ul><ul><li>Virtual classroom </li></ul><ul><li>Webinars </li></ul><ul><li>Conference calls </li></ul>
  33. 33. Channels of Delivery <ul><li>Asynchronous formats can include: </li></ul><ul><li>Online discussion </li></ul><ul><li>Documents and web pages </li></ul><ul><li>Recorded tutorials/lessons </li></ul><ul><li>Recorded events, lectures </li></ul><ul><li>Simulations and scenarios </li></ul>
  34. 34. Matching Instructional Activity With Delivery
  35. 35. What Works Best Face-to-Face? <ul><li>Deliver basic info about course & technology </li></ul><ul><li>Course orientation </li></ul><ul><li>Getting to know each other </li></ul><ul><li>Assess skills performed by student </li></ul><ul><li>Exams and evaluations </li></ul>
  36. 36. What Works Best in eLearning Format? <ul><li>Threaded discussions </li></ul><ul><li>Doing “pre-work”, e.g. reading w/ quiz, team discussions, tutorials </li></ul><ul><li>Provide list of resources </li></ul><ul><li>Access to remote experts, guest speakers </li></ul>
  37. 37. Best Practices
  38. 38. Best Practices (Mahan 2006) <ul><li>Emphasize pedagogy and design over technology </li></ul><ul><li>Match objectives w/ activities, then determine format </li></ul><ul><li>Identify what doesn’t work well in f2f </li></ul><ul><li>Clarify syllabus & course format upfront </li></ul>
  39. 39. More Best Practices (Mahan 2006) <ul><li>Choose technology w/ students & instructors in-mind </li></ul><ul><li>Stress time mgt. for students & instructors </li></ul><ul><li>Hold in-person kick-off meeting </li></ul>
  40. 40. Who is Using Blended Learning?
  41. 41. IBM’s Use Of Blended Learning <ul><li>Use f2f, webcasts, Second Life, support coach, online feedback and surveys </li></ul><ul><li>Learning outcomes aligned with business goals </li></ul>
  42. 42. IBM’s Use Of Blended Learning <ul><li>Learn IBM tools & resources </li></ul><ul><li>Business strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Career management </li></ul>
  43. 43. University of Phoenix Blended Learning <ul><li>3 types of instructional delivery </li></ul><ul><li>FlexNet, 5 week blended format </li></ul><ul><li>First and last class in-person </li></ul><ul><li>Middle 3 week online </li></ul><ul><li>My experience with UOP </li></ul>
  44. 44. Challenges
  45. 45. Challenges for Students <ul><li>Unfamiliar instructional format </li></ul><ul><li>May confuse attending vs. performing </li></ul><ul><li>Time management </li></ul>
  46. 46. Challenges for Students <ul><li>Personal learning style (not for all) </li></ul><ul><li>Access to & using technology </li></ul><ul><li>Support services </li></ul>
  47. 47. Challenges for Faculty <ul><li>Buy-in and acceptance </li></ul><ul><li>Quality & academic integrity issues </li></ul><ul><li>Change </li></ul><ul><li>Time, to develop and tech </li></ul><ul><li>Technical skills </li></ul>
  48. 48. Challenges for Faculty <ul><li>Institutional support </li></ul><ul><li>Course evaluations, loss of control </li></ul><ul><li>Training </li></ul><ul><li>Compensation </li></ul><ul><li>Intellectual property </li></ul>
  49. 49. Challenges for Administrators <ul><li>Administrative structure (champion?) </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation and effectiveness </li></ul><ul><li>Technical expertise (teacher & org.) </li></ul><ul><li>Organizational culture and change </li></ul><ul><li>Social interaction and quality </li></ul>
  50. 50. More Challenges for Administrators <ul><li>Cost and faculty compensation </li></ul><ul><li>Student support services </li></ul><ul><li>Threatened by technology </li></ul><ul><li>Access </li></ul><ul><li>Legal Issues </li></ul>
  51. 51. Closing Thoughts <ul><li>Blended Learning not going away </li></ul><ul><li>Embrace it as an opportunity </li></ul><ul><li>It’s simpler than you think </li></ul><ul><li>Not as “scary” as 100% eLearning </li></ul>
  52. 52. Closing Thoughts <ul><li>Both will simply be “learning” </li></ul><ul><li>e.g. online banking </li></ul><ul><li>My son’s question </li></ul><ul><li>Future is now </li></ul>
  53. 53. Questions & Discussion
  54. 54. Dr. Greg Williams <ul><li>Director & Clinical Assistant Professor </li></ul><ul><li>University Maryland </li></ul><ul><li>410-455-6773 </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>www.umbc.edu/isd </li></ul><ul><li>http://web.mac.com/gregwilliams123/Greg_Williams_Faculty_Website/Bio.html </li></ul>
  55. 55. References Arabasz, P., Pirani, J., & Fawcett D. (2003). Supporting E-learning in Higher Education. Educause Center for Applied Research Study, Vol. 3. Retrieved from www.educause.edu/LibraryDetailPage/666?ID=ERS0303 ASTD State of the Industry Report (2005, 2006). http://www.astd.org Bonk, C. J. & Graham, C. R. (2006). The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing. Clarey, J. (2007) “The Real Story: Blended Learning” Brandon Hall Research, www.brandon-hall.com
  56. 56. References Dziuban, C.D., Hartman, J., Juge, F., Moskal, P.D., & Sorg, S. (2005). Blended learning: Online learning enters the mainstream. In C. J. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning environment. Indianapolis, IN: Pfeiffer Publications Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., & Moskal, P. (2004). Blended Learning. Educause Center for Applied Research Bulletin, 2004(7), 1-12. Retrieved from www.educause.edu/LibraryDetailPage/666?ID=ERB0407 Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Moskal, P., Sorg, S., & Truman, B. (2004). Three ALN modalities: An institutional perspective. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education: Into the Mainstream (pp. 127-148). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education. Retrieved from http://www.sc.edu/cte/docs/ThreeModalities2003.pdf
  57. 57. References Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E–learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge/Falmer. Educational Research Complete database. Mahan, W. (2006). Best Instructional Design, Development and Delivery Practice. Blended Learning Symposium. Retrieved from http://bli.psu.edu/bli/winterfest.html Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D. & Wisher, R. (2006) The Comparative Effectiveness of Web-based and Classroom Instruction: A Meta-Analysis. Personnel Psychology, 2006
  58. 58. Dr. Greg Williams <ul><li>Director & Clinical Assistant Professor </li></ul><ul><li>University Maryland </li></ul><ul><li>410-455-6773 </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>www.umbc.edu/isd </li></ul><ul><li>http://web.mac.com/gregwilliams123/Greg_Williams_Faculty_Website/Bio.html </li></ul>

×