best instructional design, development and delivery practices blended learning symposium

Best Instructional Design, Development and Delivery Practices

Blended Learning Symposium

Best Practices

1. Good practice encourages contacts between students and faculty. Faculty are able to communicate both F2F and online with

students. F2F time can be used to clarify ideas, instructions, etc.

that are more difficult for the faculty member to convey in written form online.

Online communication between the students and faculty can help prevent redundant, administrative questions freeing up faculty member’s time for quality interactions.

F2F meetings with faculty provide opportunities for teacher immediacy behaviors, which may improve students’ motivation and learning (Christophel, 1990; Richardson & Swan, 2003)

Best Practices

2. Good practice develops reciprocity and cooperation among students.

Combined format of F2F and online activities provides opportunities for pre-work, continued discussions and access to resources that can enhance, build on and extend F2F discussions (Martyn, 2003; Sands, 2002).

Through blended learning, face-to-face activities can be used to create social presence among students and then online activities can be used to sustain it and use it to support collaboration (Garrison, in press).

Best Practices

2. Good practice develops reciprocity and cooperation among students (continued).

According to Media Synchronicity Theory (Kerres & DeWitt; 2003):

Online activities may be better for exchange of information and the creation and distribution of knowledge due to low feedback and low parallelism.

Face-to-Face meetings may be better for shared information and convergent learning tasks (communication establishes a common ground for sharing knowledge and therefore narrows misinterpretations of information) due to high feedback and low parallelism.

Task and communication requirements of learners are not static so the longer the group exists, the less they will rely on high synchronous media.

Best Practices

3. Good practice uses active learning techniques. F2F meetings should be combined and sequenced with online

elements in a manner that permits students to talk about what they are learning, write reflectively about it, relate it to past experiences, create projects and apply it to their daily lives (Sands, 2002)

Blended learning should create a shift from lecture- to student-centered instruction where the students become active and interactive learners in both the online and F2F versions (Dziuban, Hartman, & Moskal, 2004).

Students report that they become more active in their learning and gain technological empowerment that expands beyond the confinement of a traditional course (Dziuban, Hartman, & Moskal, 2004)

Best Practices

4. Good practice gives prompt feedback. Hybrid courses permit many different means of providing

feedback to students, as in a fully online course (Martyn, 2003).

Teacher immediacy behaviors displayed in F2F meetings may lessen misinterpretation of feedback by students.

Best Practices

5. Good practice emphasizes time on task. Initial F2F meeting provides opportunity for instructor to

emphasize the need for time management skills. F2F meeting can serve as anchor for students’ learning

experiences, as they attempt to deal with the increased level of engagement and connectivity required by a blended learning format (Dziuban, Hartman, & Moskal, 2004) .

Time flexibility of the blended learning format is ideal for students who work, have children, etc. (Aycock, Garnham & Kaleta, 2002; Martyn, 2003).

Best Practices

6. Good practice communicates high expectations. Holding first F2F session permits instructor to clearly state

course format, learning outcomes, expectations, time requirements and means of assessment (Martyn, 2003).

Online feedback reinforces what was discussed in F2F meeting.

Best Practices

7. Good practice respects diverse talents and ways of learning. Initial F2F meeting permits instructor to get all students to the

same level in terms of required technology (Martyn, 2003). Students can communicate in the medium that they are most

comfortable (Martyn, 2003). Opportunities to bridge generations; it provides the F2F

contact requested by the baby boomers, the independence preferred by the Gen-Xers, and the interaction and sense of community desired by Net Geners (Hartman, Moskal & Dziuban, 2005).

Blended Learning provides a means for lifelong learning (Bleed, 2001).

Blended Learning Do’s…

1. Redesign your courses to integrate the face-to-face and online learning. (Aycock, Garnham & Kaleta, 2002; Sands, 2002)

• Emphasize pedagogy over technology.• Match learning objectives with learning activities, and then

determine if F2F or online will give the best results.• Identify what isn’t working in the current F2F version and

determine if there is way to do it better in an online environment.

• See Garrison and Archer (2000), Kerres & DeWitt (2003) and Troha (2002) for models.


2. Make information about the course available at the time of registration and include a detailed description about what a hybrid course entails (Aycock, Garnham & Kaleta, 2002).

Give a clear explanation about the model and why it was chosen for this particular course.

Post the syllabus on ANGEL under the Syllabus tab, where potential students can see it.

Create a link off the online schedule of courses or your department’s site to a web page with information about the course.


3. Hold an initial, kick-off meeting that will serve the following purposes (Kerres & DeWitt, 2003; Martyn, 2003; Bersin, 2004):

Build a sense of community that will continue throughout the course.

Familiarize students with the technology. Present a course overview (syllabus, learning outcomes,

assessments, assignments and projects.) Review the expectations of course and ensure the students

know that online courses are more convenient, not easier. Go through the consequences of not completing the

required work.


4. Stress the importance of time management skills in a hybrid course (Aycock, Garnham & Kaleta, 2002; Sands, 2002).

Provide resources for those students who need assistance in time management skills.

Survey students about their perceptions and address any misconceptions.

Provide a detailed syllabus or course schedule which clearly indicates whether activities are online or face-to-face along with the specific due dates and times.


5. If using teams, do the following:• Use early F2F meetings to build rapport among team

members, and decrease these meetings as semester goes on. (Kerres & DeWitt, 2003).

• Create an introductions message board and have the students respond to questions that will help build rapport among group members.


6. Always remember that F2F is “expensive” (in terms of travel, work commitments, child care, time, etc.) to learners and continually ask yourself the same question as the learners: “Was it necessary that I came here to participate in this F2F activity?” (Kerres & DeWitt, 2003).

…and Don’t’s

1. Simply “tack on” online content to existing course; instead, be sure to redesign and integrate. (Aycock, Garnham & Kaleta, 2002; Sands, 2002).

2. Hold F2F meetings that have no clear purpose. (Aycock, Garnham & Kaleta, 2002)

3. Assume that the students understand what a blended/hybrid course entails. (Aycock, Garnham & Kaleta, 2002; Sands, 2002)

4. Overwhelm students with combined requirements of F2F and online activities because this interferes with the inquiry process and will prevent a deep and meaningful learning experience. (Aycock, Garnham & Kaleta, 2002; Sands, 2002; Garrison, in press)

F2F and Online Activities

Examples of what to do during a F2F session: Deliver basic information about the course and the used technology/tools. Get to know each other. Establish learning groups and rules for group work. Present group work. Carry out exams and evaluations. Attend a performance, presentation, training session by an expert in the

field. Assess practical skills such as counselor-client or nurse-patient interactions.

Examples of what to do online: Create a threaded discussion for learners to access after training lets them

stay in touch with classmates to ask questions, share insights, and post resources.

Provide a list of available resources for additional information. Access experts (via video, podcast, chat, etc.) who are unable to attend a

classroom session. Use blogs to reflect on learning experiences. Complete “pre-work” (readings with quizzes, case studies, team discussions,

I-study modules, etc.) to prepare students for F2F sessions.

Examples in Blended/Hybrid Courses in the Corporate Environment

The Thomson Job Impact Study – Microsoft Excel Training (2002)

Two-year study launched in 1999 compared learning outcomes of 128 learners completing Microsoft Excel training in either a blended learning group, online group and control group.

Components of the blended course included: Five increasingly challenging, scenario-based exercises with real

world contexts. Stand-alone learning objects that are tied to individual’s specific

needs, and located through a “Training Matrix.” Integration of Actual Software along with feedback in the online

environment. Access to a mentor in an online forum (24/7). Authentic Assessment where learners’ skills are assessed using

real-world tasks performed with the actual application.


The Thomson Job Impact Study (cont’d)

Results of the study showed that the blended learning group: Performed tasks with 30% more accuracy than the group that

received online instruction and with 159% more accuracy than the control group (no training).

Performed real-world tasks 41 percent faster than the e-learning group.

For more information see White Paper located at: http://www.delmarlearning.com/resources/job_impact_study_whitepaper.pdf


Toshiba Corporation – Sales Program (2003)

Special weekly Training Program, an eight-week training initiative introduces new dealers and their sales representatives to their new office products, was adapted into a new blended format, called “Training to Go.”

The new format consisted of: Self-paced online self-study modules. Module tests that must be passed with a score of 80% or

better before taking the final exam. Online activities combined with downloadable worksheets to

be completed and reviewed by the manager. Downloadable manager’s guide allowing managers to quickly

chart the progress of participants. A two-day, F2F, hands-on seminar.


Toshiba Corporation (cont’d)

Follow-up studies showed: Increased enrollment (16%). Improved learning that impacted performance (the company

using the blended format archived 100% transition to its product line within 6 months; whereas the company using the old training format took 10-12 months to complete the transition.)

Better retention employee rates under the old format were 83% at 3 months, 72% at 6 months and 60% at 9 months; compared to the blended learning format which was 94% at 3 months, 92% at 6 months and 92% at nine months.

For more information see: http://www.learningcircuits.org/2005/nov2005/0511_Toshiba_Harris.htm

Examples in of Hybrid/Blended Courses in Higher Education

Baldwin-Wallace College, Cleveland Ohio (2003)

First Class was a four-hour F2F meeting for the purpose of orientation and included:

Introduction to and hands-on practice of course management system. A take-home “quick tips” sheet that explained how to download course

materials from home. Outline of the course along with learning outcomes, assessments and

projects. Refreshments and socializing to build a sense of community.

Last Class was a F2F meeting for the purpose of closure and included: Taking final exam. Opportunity for students to resolve problems with faculty, give

feedback or ask questions. Opportunity for faculty to return papers and projects.


Baldwin-Wallace College (cont’d)

Between the first and last class meetings, students worked online and communicated with the faculty and other students via chat, email, and online threaded discussions. More specifically:

Course management system’s email for student-student and student-faculty communications.

Weekly 1-2 hour chat with the faculty to clarify course concepts where students read text, reviewed chat outline and took a quiz to prepare to respond to thought-provoking questions asked by faculty.

Weekly timed online quizzes with immediate feedback for students to test their understanding of the material and keep up with the pace of the course.

Discussion board for discussions about course material (application to work, real life and the news) and to handle student questions (technical, content-oriented, and related to assignments) – also serves to build community.


Baldwin-Wallace College (cont’d)

During a 2-year period, eight classes using the hybrid model were offered: Retention rate was a near 100% (only 1 of 107 students dropped the

course). Students in the hybrid course achieved learning outcomes at a level

equal to or higher than the traditional F2F classes. Projects completed by the students in the hybrid sections were

assessed by outside assessors using a blind process received scores that averaged between 10-12% higher than those written by students in the traditional lecture format.

For more information see:

http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0313.pdf


Brigham Young University – Introductory Instructional Design Course (2003)

Introductory course with no prerequisites served as a core requirement for graduate students but frequently undergraduates and graduates from other departments or non-degree-seeking students enrolled in the course.

Traditional F2F Format: Textbook readings. Written assignments or participation in online discussions about key

ideas. Synthesis of course objective through completion of a final course

project. Course meetings that took up approximately 6 hours per week.


Brigham Young University (cont’d)

After a needs assessment and topical analysis, redesigned course to create a hybrid course using constructivist pedagogy.

Blended Course Redesign: Course project drives each student’s personal curricular agenda

throughout the course. Students identified and designed a solution to a problem and

created a prototype or storyboard for a typical component or lesson.

Students compiled a personal instructional design handbook by creating an annotated list of articles, examples, design tools, and other reference tools.

Students completed 14 assignments to provide scaffolding to guide students in achieving the course goals.



Blended Course Delivery: Students met F2F for approximately 25% of the course (90 minutes

per week). F2F time was spent on introductions and review of course procedures;

discussions about assignments and projects; responding to students’ questions; and making final project presentations.

Online was used for individual and group communication in forums; presenting and defining course assignments and projects; and providing resources, tools and examples.



Results showed that all students marked “agree” or “strongly agree” to the following statements:

I found the course to be interesting and motivating. The course projects were meaningful in achieving their

personal goals. The time spent on the computer was worthwhile.

With regard to rather the right amount of time was spent in the F2F portion of the course, students varied in their responses from disagree to strongly agree.

Concluded that a blended course was an effective strategy when trying to implement constructivist pedagogy; however, it placed high demands on the instructor’s time.

End of presentation

best instructional design, development and delivery practices blended learning symposium

Documents

f2f time

f2f meetings

students motivation

best practices

online activities

online communication

good practice

learning christophel