Blending it by Design:

1

• Blending it by Design
• An Institutional Approach to Blended Learning
• Norm Vaughan Jim Zimmer
• Mount Royal College
• Calgary, Alberta, Canada nvaughan_at_mtroyal.ca
  jzimmer_at_mtroyal.ca

2
Overview

• Context
• Blended learning
• Evolution of Blended Delivery _at_ MRC
• Phase I
• Phase II
• Blended learning principles and course examples
• Next steps

3
Calgary Context

• MRC is situated in the City of Calgary
• Canadas 5th largest urban centre population
  952,962
• Oil and gas major industry
• Large head office centre
• Other post-secondary institutions in Calgary
• University of Calgary
• Southern Alberta Institute of Technology
• Bow Valley College

4
(No Transcript)
5
Mount Royal College Context

• Four year undergraduate college
• Our students in credit programs
• 12,700 credit students (7,800 FLEs)
• 57 full-time
• 63 female
• Average age 22 years
• Direct from high school 39
• 80 from Calgary area
• 260 FT faculty 450 PT faculty

6
MRC Program Base

• On-site Credit Programs
• four-year Applied Baccalaureate programs
• Four-year collaborative bachelors programs
• university transfer programs
• two-year diploma programs
• certificate programs

7
Program Base (contd)

• Distance Education
• Advanced Studies in Critical Care Nursing
• Advanced Studies in Mental Health
• Gerontology
• Forensics Health Studies
• Maternal Infant Child Healthcare
• Early Childhood Care and Education
• Childrens Mental Health
• Project Management
• Personal Fitness Trainer
• Funeral Director and Embalmer
• Addiction Studies

8
.on the web at www.mtroyal.ca/adc
Academic Development Centre
Curriculum Development
Audio and Video Conferencing
Media Productions
fostering teaching excellence and innovation
Student Technicians and Resource Tutors
Instructional Design
Ed Tech Training
Faculty Development
9
Uptake of Learning Technology By Faculty at Mount
Royal College

• 60-65 have course-related websites (Blackboard
  or custom-made)
• 90-95 use e-mail to communicate with students in
  course delivery
• 50-60 use PowerPoint in classroom delivery
• 35-40 use multimedia CD-ROMS

10
Challenges, Circa 1999-2000

• High levels of uptake of learning technology by
  faculty..BUT..
• 1) workload were faculty layering the
  technology on top of everything theyd always
  done and continued to do?
• 2) were we harnessing an optimal blend of
  face-to-face and tech-mediated instruction?
• Classroom space shortage

11
Blended Learning

• What is your definition?

12
Blended Learning

• combining the best features of in-class teaching
  with the best features of the online environment
  to create active, self-directed learning
  opportunities for students with added flexibility
  and a reduction of
• seat time.
• (Garnham Kaleta, 2002)

13
Evolution of Blended Delivery _at_ MRC

• Phase I
• Course Adaptation for Web-Supported Delivery
  (2000 to 2003)
• 24 course projects
• Phase IIa
• Faculty Learning Community for Blended Learning
  (2003-04)
• 12 course projects
• Phase IIb
• Faculty Learning Community for Blended Learning
• Focus on High Enrollment Courses (single
  sections) (2004-05)
• 14 course projects
• single-section focus

14
Phase I Course Adaptation Initiative for
Blended Delivery (2000-2003)

• Overriding Goal
• Redesign courses using technology to foster
  flexible yet powerful teaching-learning
  environments for students and faculty
• Deliverable hybrid courses for blended
  delivery
• 24 projects over a three-year period
• Parallel research/evaluation component
• Funding Learning Enhancement Envelope

15
Course Adaptation Initiative for Blended
Delivery - Objectives

• Foster active, interactive and collaborative
  teaching-learning approaches, both online and in
  the classroom
• Increase flexibility for students and faculty
• Provide faculty with time, training and support
  to undertake effective adaptation of their course
  to a blended model
• Assess impact of course adaptation on
  teaching-learning experience from student and
  faculty perspectives

16
Project Cycle

• Call for proposals
• Selection process
• Orientation of participants
• Project development (w. ID team)
• Project implementation
• Parallel research project

17
(No Transcript)
18
Research Project Overview

• Student surveys
• Flashlight Current Student Inventory
• Open-ended feedback
• Visible Knowledge Maps
• Evidence of student learning
• Faculty interviews
• Intake
• Post-implementation

19
Lessons Learned Phase I

• Students valued
• added flexibility
• ready access to course materials
• additional resources/activities available at
  Blackboard site
• Students reported
• enhanced understanding of course content
• development of computer literacy skills

20
Lessons Learned Phase I (contd)

• Student concerns included
• inconsistent design of Bb sites across
  instructors
• getting the bugs out before launch
• knowing in advance that a course was blended
• Overall, students
• would recommend blended delivery
• would take another blended course
• felt blended approach enhanced the course

21
Lessons Learned Phase I (contd)

• Faculty
• Significant paradigm shift
• Element of risk some retreated from original
  plans
• Need for more deliberate faculty
  development/support component throughout project
  design and during implementation
• Overall
• positive experience
• interest and engagement continues to grow

22
Phase II A Faculty Learning Community Approach
to Blended Learning
23
Issues with previous faculty development
initiatives related to educational technology

• One off workshops faculty come to a workshop
  get excited about using educational technology
  but then go back to their offices and do not have
  the time to put their new ideas into practice
• Educational technology project development work
  (semester or academic year) - lack of opportunity
  for faculty to share their ideas and concerns
  with other faculty members who are also going
  through the same development process
• Educational technology institute (5 days)
  positive in a sense that there is time to clearly
  link theory to practice (good mix of discussion
  and hands-on sessions), sense of community and
  sharing among participants disadvantage, the
  spring time frame just before summer holidays
  and the lack of follow up connections in the fall
  prevent extensive implementation of the
  projects

24
Faculty Learning Community (FLC)

• A FLC consists of a cross-disciplinary group of
  5 or more faculty members (8 to 12 is the
  recommended size) engaging in an active,
  collaborative, yearlong program with a curriculum
  about enhancing teaching and learning and with
  frequent seminars and activities that provide
  learning, development, interdisciplinarity, the
  scholarship of teaching and learning, and
  community building.
• (Cox, 2003, p.1)

25
Faculty Learning Community on Blended Learning

• The Three P Drivers
• Purpose The successful redesign and
  implementation of undergraduate credit courses in
  a blended learning format
• Process series of biweekly face to face
  sessions (discussion and computer lab) combined
  with facilitated online activities between
  sessions
• Product intended outcome of the community is
  that all members will have a fully functional
  Blackboard course site, combined with the
  necessary teaching and educational technology
  skills and experience, to support a blended mode
  of course delivery
• Funding Provincial Grant (Access Fund)

26
FLC on Blended Learning Program Outcomes
Teaching Strategies
Curriculum Design
Teaching excellence and innovation in support
of student learning
Educational Technology Integration
27
FLC on Blended Learning Program Outcomes

• Curriculum Design
• A curriculum redesign plan of an existing credit
  undergraduate course for blended learning. This
  plan involves the
• Formulation of a blended course vision and
  learning outcomes
• Development of a course syllabus
• Creation of assignments based on the identified
  learning outcomes

28
FLC on Blended Learning Program Outcomes

• Teaching Strategies
• The acquisition of effective face to face and
  online teaching skills strategies such as
• Facilitating online discussions
• Stimulating online communication
• Managing group work
• Assessing online work
• Directing students to appropriate support
  personal and/or resource documentation for time
  management and study skills

29
FLC on Blended Learning Program Outcomes

• Educational Technology Integration
• The acquisition of educational technology skills
  such as
• Managing a Blackboard course web site
• Trouble shooting basic student technology issues

30
Fall Semester - Sessions

• Focus on Course Redesign
• Identifying key learning outcomes
• Designing integrated face-to-face and online
  learning activities
• Developing a course assessment strategy
• Creating a learning centered course syllabus and
  redesign plan
• Developing a course module prototype
• Leveraging the use of digital learning object
  repositories
• Faculty outcomes completed course redesign
  plan, course syllabus (objectives, assignments,
  assessment plan, grading criteria) and a
  functional Blackboard shell with one prototype
  module

31
Winter Semester - Sessions

• Focus on Course Development Teaching Strategies
• Developing your own digital learning objects
• Advanced Blackboard Tools
• Facilitating online learning
• Integrating face to face and online activities
• Learner support strategies
• Piloting and course evaluation strategies
• Faculty outcomes - a redesigned course, a
  Blackboard web site, and the necessary teaching
  educational technology strategies and skills to
  create a successful blended learning environment
  for their students

32
Our Guiding Principles for Blended Learning

• Student engagement
• Create an environment where students are engaged
  and motivated to take responsibility for their
  own learning inside and outside of class
• Student-to-student interaction
• Use the technology to empower more student to
  student interaction and peer mentoring
  opportunities get the students to do the work
  and share their ideas with each other dont
  underestimate the power of peer pressure in group
  work to keep everyone focused, on track and
  responsible for their own learning
• Avoid the course and a half syndrome
• For every new thing you introduce in your
  existing course you have to give something up

33
Our Guiding Principles for Blended Learning

• Use technology to automate repetitive processes
• Develop online assessments and use the online
  grade book for low mark and /or self-assessment
  activities
• Focus on developing learning/assessment
  activities for your students
• Make use of existing learning objects (e.g.
  textbooks) rather than trying to develop your own
  content focus on assessment activities rather
  than on generating content
• Course organization
• Important to remember to retain flexibility
  within your course structure every student and
  class of students is unique and you need to be
  able to adjust for this uniqueness but you also
  need a clear game plan and structure

34
Comments from Faculty Participants

• This FLC experience provided me with the
  incentive, time, support and encouragement to
  re-examine and reflect on my teaching practice,
  course curriculum and use of educational
  technology.
• Prior to this FLC experience, I had been using
  Blackboard and other educational technologies to
  package and disseminate content resources to my
  students where as now I am using technology to
  create a process and structure to help my
  students become more intentional and reflective
  about their learning. In essence, to learn how
  to learn.

35
Next Steps

• FLC for Project Implementation and Evaluation
• Focus on whole course rather than single
  section redesign of large enrollment courses
  (Twigg model)

36
Questions, Comments, Discussion
37
Resources

• Building Faculty Learning
• Communities New
• Directions for Teaching
• and Learning, No. 97Milton D. Cox (Editor),
• Laurie Richlin (Editor)ISBN 0-7879-7568-0

• http//www.wiley.ca/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-
  0787975680.html

38
Resources

• Cox, M.D. (2003). Faculty Learning Communities
  What Are They? . http//www.units.muohio.edu/flc/i
  ndex.shtml
• Garnham, C. and Kaleta, R. (2002). Introduction
  to Hybrid Courses. Teaching with Technology
  Today, 8 (6). http//www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/gar
  nham.htm
• Novak, Greg (1999). Just-in-Time Teaching.
  http//webphysics.iupui.edu/jitt/what.html/
• Portland State University (2001). Classroom
  Assessment Techniques Examples.
• http//www.oaa.pdx.edu/CAE/cat.html
• Twigg, C.A. (2004). The Roadmap to Redesign
  (R2R). http//www.center.rpi.edu/R2R/R2R_PlanRes.h
  tml
• University of Wisconsin _at_ Milwaukee (2002).
  Hybrid Course Website. http//www.uwm.edu/Dept/LTC
  /hybrid.html/