This document discusses pedagogy in blended courses. It summarizes three studies on blended course pedagogy and models. The studies found that blended courses emphasized online discussions, group collaboration, and assessments. Technology was used purposefully for communicating, disseminating content, and facilitating collaboration. Courses incorporated focused online interactions like discussions and group work. However, the document notes that some courses did not fully blend the online and face-to-face elements or emphasize the blend. It concludes by calling for additional research on blended course designs and pedagogical models.

1. PEDAGOGY IN
BLENDED COURSES
Patricia McGee, Ph.D.
The University of Texas @ San
Antonio
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons NonCommercial Sampling Plus 1.0
License . To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/nc-

2. 2.
Pedagogy
Three
Studie
s
1. Best
3. Models
Practices

3. METHOD: PEDAGOGY
 What pedagogical patterns exist among blended
course designs?
 Qualitative meta-analysis
 66+/- cases:
 higher education only, any discipline
 research
 non-research that reports results
 Levels: 23 graduate, 39 undergraduate, 3 instructor
 Authors: Institutions, non-academic units, academic
units, individual faculty members

4. DEFINITIONS: BEST PRACTICES
Two variations:
 Combined elements of face-to-face and online courses
 Provides a substantial portion (30-79%) of content
online, typically relying on discussions within a
planned and pedagogically driven design

5. DEFINITIONS: PEDAGOGY
 No definition
 Standard definition: classroom + online
 Pedagogical Definition, e.g., Adventure Learning,
Carpe Diem Intervention
 Contextual definition, e.g., virtual worlds

6. FINDINGS: PEDAGOGY

7. ONLINE FOCUS
1. Process Content
2. Discussion
3. Groups/Collaboration
4. Assessments

8. TECHNOLOGY W/A PURPOSE
1. Communicating
 E.g., Dynamic FAQ tool*
2. Disseminating Content
E.g., F2F meeting summaries are posted
online
3. Collaborative/Group/Team work
* Ng'ambi, D., & Brown, I. (2009). Intended and unintended consequences of
student use of an online questioning environment. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 40(2), 316-328.

9. FOCUSED E-INTERACTIONS
1. Discussion
2. Narrated PPT
3. Group/team
1. Organize in F2F
4. Peer2peer

10. [ONLINE] STRATEGIES?
Active Learning Examples
Inquiry Learning
CELL (Contributing, Exchanging, and Linking
for Learning)
Collaborative Learning
Acquisition Model + Participation Model
Debate

11. TIME
Frameworks Strategies
 Many: no mention of  Content review and rehearsal
time before F2F
 E.g., virtual lab, streaming
 50/50 or once a week
lecture/podcast, reading,
 A few flexible quizzes)
attendance  “Release the instructor from
lecturing “
 Optional Attendance
 E.g., six optional F2F
meetings; 5 units -
discussion, assigned article
& text readings

12. HOLDOVERS
Guest speakers
Classroom content presentations by instructor
Online extension of F2F

13. MINIMAL ATTENTION TO “BLEND”
Template-based pedagogy:
1) Revisit past learning (last week, summary)
2) Integrate current (analysis, interpretation,
translation for classmates, creating
transparency)
3) Foreshadow (upcoming content; thoughtful
reading and summary, aimed at student)
Fulkerth, R. (2009). A case study from Golden Gate University using course
objetives to facillitate blended learning in shortened courses. JALN, 13 (1), 43-
54.

14. FLEXIBLE LEARNING?
 Weekly online lecture, supplemented with an instructor-
directed laboratory once a week.
 Online video lectures (narrated PowerPoint) were
accessible by the students via their course website.
 At the conclusion of each video lecture, students were
prompted to submit questions concerning the newly
covered content through an electronic posting system.
 After the completion of the online lectures, students were
administered a hybrid online survey. The willing student
participants completed the survey.
 To conclude the course, students were administered the
same 50 item comprehensive final examination as the
students who participated in traditional instruction
Ernst, J. V. (2008). A comparison of traditional and hybrid online instructional
presentation in communication technology. Journal of Technology Education,
19(2), 40-49.

15. SUBTLE DIFFERENCES
BEST PRACTICES PEDAGOGY
Focus on objectives to Focus on activity to
determine the blend determine the blend
Integration between F2F & Report online, F2F
online importance
Varied interactivity Pedagogical template vs.
routine activity
Active learning Active learning

16. BEST PRACTICE: PEDAGOGY
Product
• Focus on practice through isolated or progressive activities
Process
• Assignments and activities support the development of a
well-defined outcome that documents and illustrates the
learner’s mastery of course content
Project
• Assignments and activities support an ongoing step-by-step
set of activities and assignments with benchmarks so
students know they have accomplished objectives

17. IS IT REALLY BLENDED?
 In the face-to-face class, the professor would first
introduce the topic for the week with a short lecture
and then pose questions or a short case for students
to apply the taught concepts.
 The week's topic and concepts were then carried onto
the electronic discussion board where the professor
poses questions for students to respond to, and for
them to work with each other in clarifying each others'
responses.
Hwang, A. A., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2009). Seeking feedback in blended learning:
Competitive versus cooperative student attitudes and their links to learning
outcome. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25 (3), 280-293.

18. Proportion of Content Type of Typical Description
Delivered Online Course
Traditional Course with no online technology used —
0% content is delivered in writing or orally.
1 to 29% Web Course which uses web-based
Facilitated technology to facilitate what is
essentially a face-to-face course.
Uses a course management system
(CMS) or web pages to post the
syllabus and assignments, for
example.
30 to 79% Blended/Hyb Course that blends online and face-
rid to-face delivery. Substantial
proportion of the content is delivered
online, typically uses online
discussions, and typically has some
face-to-face meetings.
Online A course where most or all of the content is
80+% delivered online. Typically have no face-to-
face meetings.
Allen, Seaman and Garrett, Copyright ©2007 by Sloan-C™

19. WORKFORCE BLENDED/HYBRID
MODEL
Two or more forms of distinct methods of instruction,
such as
 Classroom + online (traditional blended)
 Online + mentor or coach (e.g., independent study)
 Simulations with structured classes (e.g., Second
Life™ and FTF)
 On-the-job training + informal learning (e.g.,
internships)
 Managerial coaching + eLearning (e.g., practicum)
(Maisie, 2002, p. 59)

20. REVISED DEFINITION?
Blended course designs
 involve mixed delivery modes - typically face-to-face
and technology mediated
 accomplish learning outcomes that are pedagogically
supported through assignments, activities, and
assessments as appropriate for a given mode
 bridge course environments in a meaningful manner

21. YOUR THOUGHTS?

22. NEXT STEPS
Instructor
Study
Design
Study
Institutional
Study
Models
Analysis

23. THANK YOU!
Dr. Patricia McGee
Patricia.mcgee@utsa.edu
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons NonCommercial Sampling Plus 1.0
License . To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/nc-