Blended Instructional Models and Faculty Development

Classes at many colleges and universities today span a continuum of  models ranging from fully "in-class" and involving limited uses of technology to those that are fully online. Bonnie Mullinix and David McCurry have proposed the following terminology and models:

The above distinction is made using three principal criteria: primary mode of interaction, interaction frequency ratio - ratio of time in-class to online, and contact hour ratio - compares time spent in classrooms to time spend online. (E.g. semester hours in campus classroom to participation online.)

For most faculty members, courses fall somewhere along the continuum. Although there are many different ways to organize these categories, the matrix uses current definitions to provide a point of reference for reflection and discussion. Faculty members and institutions should carefully consider the most effective combinations of the modes outlined above . In hybrid courses, instructors blend in-class experiences with the online delivery of course materials in order to manage their total time spent preparing for the class, as well as to balance the two learning environments. Such combinations challenge the Carnegie unit paradigm that traditionally equates in-class contact hours with quality of instruction. In turn, this situation reminds us that assumptions about what constitutes an "effective" course mode are influenced by a variety of interests and expectations: the instructor's, which derive from departmental/school standards and regulations; the learner's, which derive from a combination of career orientation and personal interest; and the institution's, which derive from budgetary concerns, market competitiveness, and internal pressures for innovation.

The Teaching, Learning, and Technology Group

The Teaching, Learning, and Technology (TLT) Group is a nonprofit corporation and an affiliate of the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE). In addition to helping more than 500 U.S. institutions of higher education organize TLT Roundtables (diverse groups that discuss and develop recommendations related to technology issues), the Group provides a number of interesting references and links. One notable link is to an online reprint of the Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) article that describes how technology can reinforce the seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education. Also worth checking out is the Flashlight Program, which focuses on assessment; it helps institutions improve educational uses of technology by providing investigative tools (such as Web-based surveys) as well as analysis support, training, and consultation.

Centers that Support Teaching and Learning

Over the past three decades, institutions of higher education have increasingly developed their own centers for teaching and learning to promote excellence in these areas and to actively support faculty development. There are distinct advantages to faculty members beginning their exploration of technology innovation close to home: They have easy access to experts; they can take advantage of face-to-face tutorials and workshops; and their accomplishments are generally applauded as examples for others to follow. Many institutions also have a virtual Teaching and Learning Center that offers Web-based references and materials to help instructors develop useful skills and an understanding of effective technology integration. The Center for Teaching Excellence at the University of Kansas maintains one of the most comprehensive and up-to-date lists of links to virtual CTLs.

The Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education

The Professional and Organizational Development (POD) Network is a professional association of educators, CTL directors, and scholars who are actively engaged in supporting teaching, learning, and technology in higher education. POD's listserv archives contain discussions, information, and resources on topics of practical interest to faculty members and faculty developers.

Resources for Course Sharing

CourseShare offers higher education institutions, corporations, instructors, and students support for the global sharing of course information and online evaluation, access to 21st-century teaching and learning techniques, and tools for assessing how well they are performing in an online marketplace. The company is guided by the belief that "once instructors and institutions fully take advantage of sharing knowledge related to teaching and learning, entirely new ways of thinking about courses and course offerings will explode" (Bonk, 2003).

The Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) accepts, archives, and disseminates lesson plans contributed by educators based in higher education as well as those working in pre-K-12, vocational, and adult education settings. The World Lecture Hall, developed at the University of Texas at Austin, publishes links to course materials (in 83 major subject areas) created by faculty members worldwide. Some tools are discipline-specific, such as the Syllabus Finder offered by the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University.

OpenCourseWare at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is a notable higher education initiative that features institution-wide online course sharing. In September 2002, the program released representative MIT course content and information to educators and learners worldwide. The University plans to expand the pilot over the next 5 years to encompass all institutional course offerings, and it hopes to be joined by other institutions of higher education in creating "a global web of knowledge that will enhance the quality of learning" on an international level (Vest, 2003).

Learning Object Repositories

Among the noteworthy recent innovations in education are learning objects: short, focused, interactive learning activities that can be used to create responsive, flexible, and learning-centered sessions within courses. (Learn more through the National Learning Infrastructure Initiative.) Merlot is perhaps the best-known repository of such materials. A number of higher education institutions have begun to develop their own learning object repositories that will make materials automatically available to their own faculty members and to others with permission or login registration. See, for example, the Maryland Faculty Online and LangNet, both developed at the University of Maryland, as well as the Wisconsin Online Resource Center, developed by faculty members from the Wisconsin Technical College System.

Professional Development and Collaboration

Tapped In is designed to offer educators online space to collaborate, carry out projects, and participate in topical discussions. K-12 teachers, librarians, professional development staff, teacher education faculty and students, and researchers are afforded free membership and a supportive environment in which to explore new ideas. Site members can access a variety of professional development programs, informal activities, and resources; can facilitate or attend courses; and can consult with experts and other educators.

Best Practices in Electronic Learning

On October 18, 2001, the Louisiana State Board of Regents hosted a webcast entitled "Best Practices in Electronic Learning" for the provosts, faculty, and staff of Louisiana educational institutions and other institutions worldwide. The webcast includes studies that highlight how educational uses of technology can improve academic programs while controlling costs; it also addresses the ways in which the Flashlight Program's tools and services can be used to help carry out such studies. Other topics include learner characteristics, teaching and learning strategies for electronic education, delivery of instruction, interactive learning, managing the electronic classroom, pre-planning and preparing for the electronic classroom, Web-based instruction, multimode presentation skills, and copyright in the digital millennium.

Sharing Experiences and Moving the Field Forward

As the thoughts, experiences, and instructional models of educators expand, the possibility of sharing them within and beyond individual departments or universities is worth exploring. Through such exchanges, we build our collective understanding of technology-supported teaching and move closer to discovering how best to balance the learning equation. Internal newsletters are often a good first step in pursuing current scholarship on teaching and learning. In addition to in-house faculty forums and informal departmental presentations, educators often have the opportunity to discuss their successful innovations at intra-university forums. CTLs frequently sponsor or facilitate such exchanges. These localized exchanges of scholarship can in turn be expanded to national and international audiences. Professional associations and traditional journals across disciplines are beginning to solicit and accept more presentations and articles on teaching and learning, especially in connection with technology. Journals that focus specifically on the instructional use of technology are emerging as well.

In the field of educational technology, researchers and practitioners often voice a cautionary note: It is not only about the technology (Carroll, 2000). Using new technologies merely to replicate traditional pedagogical approaches does not provide any benefit beyond moderate gains in attention generated by the novelty of the media itself. We should remember McLuhan's (1964) maxim that "the medium is the message." To effect a true educational transformation, we must challenge our current systems of learning by recognizing that innovative approaches to instructional technology take place on a very local and personal level. For many institutions, large-scale technology initiatives may necessitate the development of support systems to encourage the efforts of small, diverse cohorts of teachers as they explore new horizons in their teaching.

In our future, we can envision the emergence of "intelligent" simulations and 3-dimensional learning environments as new frontiers for transforming the university experience. Good teaching, however, even in technology-rich environments, will still reflect current models for teaching excellence (Testa, 2000). Experience tells us that when faculty members add their "personal touch" to a learning experience, students respond. The power of new technology as a tool for building knowledge will not replace the need for faces, voices, and shared experiences in the traditional boundaries of four classroom walls; rather, it is these voices, faces, and minds that must determine the appropriate mix of technology and class-based instruction to catalyze meaningful, long-term learning.

Remember the bold predictions made a few years ago that technology would radically change education as well as save money? In reality, technology has had a relatively modest impact in recent years (most classes are still taught in a traditional classroom) and has not resulted in costs savings at institutions of higher education (some might argue that it has actually increased costs). But there is a future for technology yet: certain strategic uses of digital technology are in fact beginning to show potential for educational transformation as well as for cost containment. The most obvious impact that technology has made on higher education in the past five years has probably been the wide adoption of course management systems, such as Blackboard, which offer new and improved services to students and instructors. Although these enhancements, such as online syllabi and lectures notes, electronic grade submission, and virtual office hours, are valuable in streamlining the administrative functions of courses, they alone will not fundamentally transform the university's core missions of teaching and learning. That's not to say that individual faculty are ignoring the ways in which technology can be used to improve how teachers teach and students learn. As we've described in previous issues of the TLtC webzine, many instructors in the UC system are supplementing their courses with computer simulations and online exercises to give students more time on task, immediate feedback, and richer learning environments. To have a truly revolutionary effect on instruction in general, however, requires that these innovations be scalable to other instructors and courses, and that they be strategically implemented to meet pedagogical goals. A new strategy is afoot at UC and beyond that may make such a transformation possible. Faculty and administrators are targeting certain courses, namely lower-division introductory courses, for technology intervention not only to improve learning but also to contain costs. They have chosen introductory and general education courses because they enroll very large numbers of students, are expensive to offer in the traditional classroom setting, and their content is sufficiently standard so that it can be taught by a number of instructors.

The strategy being considered - one that has existed for a few years but without a name until recently - is "hybrid" instruction. Hybrid (also known as "blended") is the label commonly used to describe courses that combine face-to-face classroom instruction with computer-based learning in a way that moves a significant part of the course online and, as a result, alters the way classroom seat time is used.

What sets a hybrid course apart from the more common use of technology as a course supplement, or add-on to an existing course, is that it is redesigned to maximize the advantages of both face-to-face and virtual modes of instruction. For example, activities in which students previously engaged in a classroom or laboratory, such as quizzes or pre-lab assignments, are done online instead. This substitution has the potential to lessen faculty and teaching assistant workloads, accommodate various learning styles, personalize the undergraduate experience, and require fewer hours of classroom time.

The national leaders in the hybrid movement, such as the Pew Grant Program in Course Redesign, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and the University of Central Florida, have found that students in hybrid courses do better than students in traditional face-to-face or totally online courses. Instructors at UW-M have reported that students in their hybrid courses write better papers and are capable of more meaningful discussion of course material.

Hybrid or Blended Course Faculty Development:

Typically, faculty have to

A list of all the possible topics for an effective faculty development program would be very long. However, based upon experiences of the UWM Learning Technology Center, the following is a short list of a dozen primary issues and topics, which should form the core of any program preparing faculty for hybrid teaching. This list is written for faculty developers but it can also be a helpful guide for faculty who are preparing to design and teach their first hybrid course.

1. Begin the course redesign process by re-examining course goals and objectives and by considering how they can best be achieved in the hybrid environment. We have developed Ten Hybrid Course Planning Questions for faculty self-reflection. These ten questions identify areas where such re-examination must occur.

2. Develop new learning activities that capitalize on the strengths of the online and face-to-face learning environments. In particular, online learning activities should ideally meet course goals and objectives more effectively than is possible in a face-to-face learning environment alone.

3. Integrate face-to-face and online learning activities to avoid teaching two parallel and unconnected courses. The employment of online learning activities as "add-ons" or "icing on the cake" typically suggests that an instructor is still oriented to traditional means of instruction, making it more difficult to take advantage of online learning practices.

4. Learn to make the transition from a lecture-centered teaching approach to a more learner-centered teaching focus. Since this may require instructors to move out of their "comfort zone" particular attention must be given to suggesting sound pedagogical examples of learner-centered activities.

5. Avoid the common tendency to cover too much material and include too many activities in the redesigned course that result in a "course and a half." As a rule, the emergence of the course-and-a-half syndrome indicates that full integration between online and face-to-face learning activities has not yet been achieved.

6. Acquire and practice the skills needed to effectively manage and facilitate online asynchronous (i.e., anytime, anyplace) discussion. Together with online discussions, effective use of small group interactions online are often areas of particular vulnerability or insecurity for beginning hybrid instructors. Successful management of small group activities will help create an online community of learners by providing an inclusive, positive, and friendly learning environment where students feel safe sharing ideas.

7. Keep technology use simple in order to avoid turning the course into a support nightmare and add more advanced technology only very gradually. However, it is valuable for instructors to be aware of typical means of online content delivery that are low-risk and do not require substantial investment of resources. Voice-over PowerPoint is an example of a simple technology that can be readily adapted to a hybrid approach.

8. Develop a plan for conducting course activities when technology fails, as even very simple technologies are wont to do. An instructor should check out the viability of course technologies on a routine basis, and develop a network of contacts who can assist when things go wrong.

9. Manage student expectations regarding the hybrid format and course workload, starting very early in the course and repeatedly as needed throughout. Redundancy is a key asset in hybrid instruction.

10. Identify and develop plans, materials, and activities to help students with the technology and time management challenges many encounter. A simple instance of this is to break up longer, higher-stakes assignments into smaller "chunks" that can be submitted throughout the course for instructor feedback and awarding of course credit.

11. Use the tools in the course management system to get organized and stay organized when teaching hybrid courses. Successful documentation of all aspects of student learning cannot be overvalued in hybrid instruction.

12. An online learning environment lends itself readily to shorter, low-stakes assessment of student learning. Instructors should be strongly encouraged to discover alternative methods of student assessment, and modify more traditional approaches such as high-stakes exams and lengthy term papers.

References

Bonk, C. J. (2003). CourseShare.com: Welcome. Retrieved August 30, 2003, from http://www.courseshare.com/Welcome.php

Bonk, C. J., Cummings, J. A., Hara, N., Fischler, R. B., & Lee, S. M. (2000). A ten level web integration continuum for higher education: New resources, activities, partners, courses, and markets. Retrieved August 30, 2003, from http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk/paper/edmdia99.html

Carlén, U. (2002, November). Typology of online learning communities. Paper presented at the NetLearning2002 conference, Ronneby, Sweden. Retrieved August 30, 2003, from http://www.learnloop.org/olc/typologyOLC.pdf

Carroll, T. G. (2000). If we didn't have the schools we have today, would we create the schools we have today? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(1). Retrieved August 30, 2003, from http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss1/currentissues/general/article1.htm

Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996, October). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 3-6. Retrieved August 30, 2003, from http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html

Lago, M. E. (2000, November). The hybrid experience: How sweet it is! Converge. Retrieved August 30, 2003, from http://www.convergemag.com/Publications/CNVGNov00/hybrid/index.shtm

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Stammen, R. M. (2001, January). Basic understandings for developing learning media for the classroom and beyond. Learning Technology, 3(1). Retrieved August 30, 2003, from http://lttf.ieee.org/learn_tech/issues/january2001/#18

Testa, A. M. (2000). Seven principles for good practice in teaching and technology. In R. Cole (Ed.), Issues in web-based pedagogy: A critical primer (pp. 237-245). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Vest, C. M. (2003). MIT OpenCourseWare: A message from the president. Retrieved August 30, 2003, from http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Global/AboutOCW/presidentspage.htm