Blended Learning at the University of Central Florida

Report
ANOTHER CUP OF THE
HOUSE BLEND
Hybrid Learning Methods and Strategies
Thomas Cavanagh, Ph.D.
Assistant Vice President, Distributed Learning
University of Central Florida
Margaret
Single mother
Coming back to college
Dropped out during first
college experience
Works as a waitress at a
chain restaurant
Wants a degree to get a
better job in Health
Science
Arthur
High School Math
Teacher
Pursuing Master’s
Degree
Limited time for
education
Family, grading,
Wrestling coach
Wants a degree to
advance in career
Carol
Full-time nurse
Limited time for
education: shift work
Only one day per week
Available for class
Wants a BSN degree to
advance in career
Jared
Full-time student
Works part time
Plays intramural sports
Member of a fraternity
Student loan debt
Wants course flexibility
to engage more in the
on campus experience
Common Thread
• Flexible
• Convenient
• Accommodating
• Quality
• Workforce-oriented
Next Generation Learning Challenges
• 4 Challenge Areas
• Blended Learning
• Analytics
• OER
• Deeper Engagement
• Under 26, low-income
• Jared and the younger Margaret
The UCF-AASCU NGLC Project
• To scale the UCF model of blended learning across the
AASCU network of institutions (and beyond).
About UCF
• Orlando, FL
• Metropolitan, suburban
•
•
•
•
•
university
58,000+ students
2nd largest university in U.S.
Carnegie classification: RU/VH Research University: Very
High Research Activity
216 degree programs across 11 colleges
11 Campuses throughout Central Florida
• Center for Distributed Learning
• Over 30% of university SCH is online
• Over half of all UCF students take at least 1 online course each
year.
• Fully Online Programs
• 5 Undergraduate
• 25 Graduate Degree
• 29 Graduate Certificates
Defining Blended Learning
Classes where a portion of the traditional face-to-face
instruction is replaced by web-based online learning.
Fully
Online



Fully
F2F
Blended
Learning
Why Blended Learning?
• Engage faculty in online learning
• First step
• Reduce delivery costs
• Maximize facility use
• Increase flexibility and convenience
• Improve student learning outcomes
• Expand access to education
Strategic Alignment
WebEnhanced
Faculty Initiative
Blended
Learning
Fully
Online
Institutional Initiative
Levels of Blended Learning
Program Level (Localness):
 Courses offered completely online
 Completely face to face
 Main campus / regional campus
 Hybrid/mixed format
Course Level (Modality)
 Temporal / spatial (classroom utilization)
 Temporal (reduce large class blocks to decrease
fatigue and increase productivity)
 Synchronous distance
Assignment Level
 Group collaboration
 Discussions
 Enhanced F2F
Time Shifting
• One day F2F, rest online
• Tues / Thurs
• Mon / Wed / Fri
• Maximize facility usage
• Long instructional block
• One 5-hour block split in have
• Reduces fatigue, improves quality experience
Ways of Blending
• Divide for quality (no loss of efficiency)
1
50
1
2
50
150
3
50
Ways of Blending
• Aggregate for efficiency (no loss of quality)
1
50
2
50
3
50
1
150
Blended Learning at UCF
• Began with an Online initiative in mid-90s
• Quickly realized that 75% of students were local
• Was the catalyst for the blended learning initiative
• Center for Distributed Learning
1,700,000
Sources of UCF Student Credit Hour Growth
1,500,000
1,300,000
1,100,000
900,000
700,000
500,000
1995-96
2000-01
2005-06
2010-11
Blended Learning at UCF
500% growth in blended courses
n Fully Online Courses
n Blended Learning
Courses
Blended Learning at UCF
Blended Learning
Sections
Registrations
Student Credit Hours
(SCH)
2009-2010
Academic
Year
681
24,241
70,438
Totals since
2002
5,031
160,860
476,823
UCF Fall 2008 Headcount
“Live” Main
Campus Students
43,466
“Live” Rosen
Campus
Students
1,301 865
2,446
2.6% 1.7%
137 111
0.3% 0.2%
33,087
65.8%
7,127
14.2%
2,847
5.7%
363
0.7% 923
1.8%
1,436
2.9%
2,046
4.1%
“Live”
Regional
Students
4,800
Web
Students
11,514
UCF Fall 2009 Headcount
“Live” Main
Campus Students
45,988
“Live” Rosen
Campus
Students
827 782
2,531
1.6% 1.5%
204
697
0.4%
1.3%
33,988
63.5%
8,593
16.1%
375
0.7% 1,030
1,497
1.9%
2.8%
1,886
3.6%
3,637
6.8%
“Live”
Regional
Students
4,809
Web
Students
14,543
UCF Fall 2010 Headcount
“Live” Main
Campus Students
47,926
“Live” Rosen
Campus
Students
695
758 1.2%
2,472
1.4%
764
1.4%
34,059
60.6%
234
0.4%
10,363
18.4%
478
0.9%
1,490
2.7%
2,049
3.6%
4,113
7.3%
1,213
2.1%
“Live”
Regional
Students
5,251
Web
Students
17,172
Regional Campuses = Blended Learning
Alignment with Regional Campuses
Fully Online
Blended
Academic
Year
2002-03
SCH
%
SCH
%
22,801
27
5,711
7
2003-04
36,840
35
7,699
7
2004-05
33,690
35
7,159
7
2005-06
48,008
41
8,806
8
2006-07
57,393
44
9,946
8
2007-08
64,843
44
17,067
12
2008-09
74,561
46
10,847
7
2009-10
88,834
51
11,383
7
2010-11
116,508
55
13,481
6
2010-11 F2F = 31% SCH
UCF Blended Programs =
Choice and Access
Fall 2010
Total UCF students
Students in Face-to-Face (F2F)
Web OR Blended
F2F + Web
F2F + Blended
F2F + Web OR Blended
F2F + Web + Blended
Web Only
56,129
49,510
23,741
12,157
8,827
18,288
2,696
4,109
(Summer 2010: 6,459)
Course Evaluation Ratings
N = 672,185
Course Modality
Blended
% Overall
“Excellent”
51.2%
Fully Online
48.3%
Face to Face
48.2%
Lecture Capture (with classroom)
43.4%
Lecture Capture (no classroom)
41.6%
Student Success Rates by Modality
F2F
(n=618,899)
100
90
87 88 88
91
Blended
(n=39,021)
95
88
87
91
Fully Online
(n=109,421)
86
88 91 88
91 94 88
Percent
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Spring 09 Summer 09
Fall 09
Spring 10 Summer 10
Withdrawal Rates by Modality
100
90
F2F
(n=551,065)
Percent
80
Fully Online (n=109,495)
Blended (n=39,769)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
4
4
5
3
2
4
3
3
4
3
3
5
2
1
4
0
Spring
09
Summer
09
Fall
09
Spring
10
Summer
10
Student Satisfaction in Fully Online and
Blended Courses
Percent
Fully online (N = 1,526)
Blended (N = 485)
39% 41%
38%
44%
9% 11%
Very Satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
9%
3%
5%
1%
Very Unsatisfied
Unsatisfied
Faculty Willingness to Teach
Web/Blended Courses in the Future
Definitely
Probably
Probably not
Definitely not
Positive
Neutral
or
negative
69%
81%
16%
10%
6%
13%
2%
4%
Online
n=71
Blended
N=53
Modality
Poll Question and Q&A 1
• Does your institution differentiate between fully online and
blended? Can you tell blended from “web-enhanced”?
• In general, how do you think your students would rate
your online offerings? Your blended offerings?
• Questions?
THE NGLC PROJECT
Expanding Blended Learning Through Tools and
Campus Programs
A UCF/AASCU Project
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)
Scale UCF Model of Blended Learning
• Across 20 AASCU institutions and 11 states
Partners
Individual Institutions
Columbus State University
State Coordinating
Institutions
Missouri
Fayetteville State University
Grambling State University
Northwestern State University
(LA)
Indiana University Kokomo
Southeast Missouri State
University
Texas A&M University-Corpus
Christi
The College at Brockport, State
University of New York
Thomas Edison State College
Alabama
University of Maine at Fort Kent
Winona State University
Troy University
Minnesota
State Participating
Institutions
 Harris-Stowe State
University
 Lincoln University of
Missouri
 Missouri Southern State
University
 Missouri State
University
 University of MissouriSt. Louis
 University of North
Alabama
 University of South
Alabama
 St. Cloud State
University
Project Administration Team
• Principal Investigators
• Tom Cavanagh, UCF
• George Mehaffy, AASCU
• John Hammang, AASCU
• UCF:
• Linda Futch
• Patsy Moskal
• Chuck Dziuban
• Elizabeth Wardle
• Debbie Weaver
• Tammy Muhs
• Kelvin Thompson
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.
• Directions for applying the toolkit to create original blended
courses.
• Train-the-trainer materials.
• Assessment and data collection protocols, including survey
instruments and standards.
Project Overview
• Virtual and in-person workshops for participating
institutions and others within the AASCU membership.
• Institutional support through existing AASCU meetings
and conferences, which will align ongoing activities in
technology and educational transformation with NGLC’s
goals.
• Clear access points for additional institution-funded
blended courses, ensuring the toolkit materials are openly
available.
Project Overview (key measures)
• 217 funded blended course sections across twenty project
institutions: target delivery of at least 85% of those
sections (185).
• Targeted low-income students under age 26 (with the total
population across the participating institutions being
187,500).
NGLC Assessment Expectations
• Outcome 1: Build a blended learning infrastructure
across the network of participating AASCU member
institutions.
• 1-a. Identify participating institutions, communicate requirements,
and gather necessary data on courses, demographics, and
assessment capabilities.
• 1-b. Develop the Blended Learning Toolkit materials and resources
(including strategies, blended models, resources, and assessment
protocols).
• 1-c. Package prototype courses in Composition and Algebra.
• 1-d. Conduct Train-the-Trainer sessions.
NGLC Assessment Expectations
• Outcome 2: Increased access to education via blended
learning (20 AASCU member institutions; 185-217 funded
individual courses) for low-income students under 26
years old. This is the most critical outcome because it
correlates directly to NGLC’s stated priorities.
• 2-a. Disseminate toolkit materials and prototype courses to state
coordinating institutions and individual participating institutions.
• 2-b. Implement courses across the AASCU network.
• 2-c. Assess project success.
NGLC Assessment Expectations
• Outcome 3: Increased student success and increased
student retention.
• This is a supplemental measure external to the grant requirements
but very much consistent with NGLC’s long-term goals. In order to
support eventual increases in student success and student
retention, we intend to build longitudinal data collection into the
project design. This data will be collected during the grant period
for later analysis and reporting.
Original Delivery Plan by Discipline
Discipline
Fall 2011
Mathematics (Algebra) Sections
Mathematics (Other) Sections
English (Composition) Sections
English (Other) Sections
Miscellaneous Sections
TOTALS
23
8
48
8
25
112
Winter/Spring
2012
23
8
38
15
21
105
Totals
46
16
86
23
46
217
Management Structure
Composition
• Coordinators: Elizabeth Wardle & Debbie Weaver
• English Composition I: Expository writing with emphasis on
effective communication/critical thinking. Emphasizes the writing
process.
• “Flexible Template” model
• Prix Fixe or A la carte
• 6-week online course for participating faculty to understand the
blended format applied to the WAW curriculum.
• Monthly webinars starting in Fall.
Algebra
• Coordinator: Tammy Muhs
• College Algebra: Algebra skills: Inequalities, high degree
polynomials, graphs, rational, logarithmic, and exponential
functions, and systems of equations.
• “Flexible Template” will allow for individualized customization.
• One or more webinar sessions for participating faculty to
understand the blended format applied to the modified emporium
model of the Algebra curriculum.
• Monthly webinars starting in Fall.
Assessment
• Coordinator: Patsy Moskal
• IRB consultation
• Assessment / Data Collection
• Centralized online form
• Student perception
• Student success
• Course retention/withdrawal
Project Team Website
• Central communications hub
• Schedule
• Contacts
• Proposal documents
• Meeting recordings archives
• Discussions
• Events
Intellectual Property
• Creative Commons
• Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license (CC BY-NC-SA)
• NOTE: Project materials produced by UCF/AASCU with NGLC
funding will be “open.” However, the courses produced at each
individual campus will be bound by their own institutional IP
policies.
Blended Learning Toolkit
Now available: www.blendedlearningtoolkit.org
BlendKit2011
• Designed and facilitated by Kelvin Thompson
• Generic instruction on blended course design and delivery
• 5 week Quasi-MOOC (facilitated for grant)
• Began 7/11/11
• “Home Base”: http://bit.ly/blendkit2011
• Also accessible via the Blended Learning Toolkit under Faculty
Development
Project Milestones
Milestone
Proposed Deadline
Project website
May 20, 2011
Toolkit website
July 1, 2011
Centralized online assessment form
August 31, 2011
Composition course template
July 1, 2011
Composition train-the-trainer
Algebra course template
Webinars/Training
July1 - August 8, 2011
July 1, 2011
July 7 & August 4
General Blended Learning Training
July 11 - August 15, 2011
Deliver blended courses
Fall 2011 & Spring 2012
IRB requirements at institutions
Ongoing
Project status updates
Periodic
General project webinars
Periodic
Functional team webinars
Monthly
NGLC Quarterly Progress: Outcomes
Quarterly progress
1
2
1a. Identify participating institutions and communicate
requirements
X
X
1b. Develop Blended Learning Toolkit
X
X
1c. Package Composition and Algebra prototype courses
X
X
1d. Conduct Train the Trainer sessions
X
X
Outcome
1: Build Blended Learning Infrastructure
2. Increased access to education via Blended Learning for
low-income, under 26 students
2a. Disseminate toolkit materials and prototype courses
to participating institutions
X
2b. Implement courses across AASCU network
*
2c. Assess project success.
*
3. Increased student success and retention
X=Completed, *=in progress
3
4
Partner Feedback
Dr. Holly McSpadden
Southeast Missouri State University
Course: Composition
Partner Feedback
“I just completed watching the final webinar. Thank you for
all your great work. The instruction, readings, content,
activities, and presentation have been extremely
beneficial… As mentioned in the webinar, I would welcome
further training and opportunities to meet and collaborate.”
Ann M. Giralico Pearlman, M.A.
Instructional Design Specialist
College at Brockport
Partner Feedback
“I missed the live session Mon. but the recorded session
was great. I got some good ideas for my fall class from the
week one readings which I had completed ahead of time as
well as the week two readings which I have only surveyed
so far. I like the style & format of the presentation and am
looking fwd to be available for week 2 and getting to
interact with other math folks. I have been able to distill my
thoughts so far into 6 outcomes/goals for this fall's class.
I'm eager to "try them out" with the group. Without your
stimulus I would not be here yet. Thx for what you do.”
Tom Goetz
University of Main at Fort Kent
Anonymous Feedback
“The DIY tasks were extremely helpful, particularly the zapt
features allowing me to turn my documents into html pages
for my course web site. Thanks so much!”
“I am VERY grateful that the content remains available
online for repeat viewing. Now that I have the bare bones
course up and running, I have more time to learn how to
make the course better.”
“I am currently participating in the Blendkit 2011 course
and have gotten some great ideas to incorporate into my
blended developmental writing course.”
SRI Evaluation
• Readiness for Scaling at Time of Site Visit: Moderate
• Key: Strong = Ready to scale to proposed number of sites/students; detailed
implementation plan including all necessary components in place.
• Moderate = Progress toward scaling to proposed number of sites/students but not
completely ready.
• Limited = Less than expected progress toward scaling to proposed number of
sites/students
• Readiness to Demonstrate Effects at Time of Site Visit: Limited
• Key: Strong = Experiment or controlled quasi-experiment planned using valid, reliable
measures and monitoring sample attrition.
• Moderate = Single-group pre/post testing or a quasi-experiment without statistical
controls for selection bias planned OR a planned experimental or quasi-experimental
design is flawed by small size and/or use of an outcome measure of limited relevance
or validity.
• Limited = No evaluation plan in place OR planned single-group pre/post testing or
quasi-experiment without statistical controls with further flaws in terms of small size
and/or use of an outcome measure of limited relevance or validity.
SRI Evaluation
• Team provided official response to evaluation
• Criteria not in alignment with RFP or funded proposal
• Scale is largest and we are on track to meet goals
Questions?
Follow Along…
@tbcavanagh
@Blendkit
www.blendedlearningtoolkit.org

similar documents