Book Report 1: Picciano and Dziuban, Introduction

OK, gang, part of what I want to do on this blog is to share what I'm learning in my reading of the relevant literature on blended/hybrid learning.  In the near future I will have a student research assistant reading and annotating a good bit of this literature; I may have her posting her research summaries to this blog.  For now, I want to do some of this myself.

Part of my work in the BLI right now involves reading what looks to be an important first step in grasping the current work-to-date on blended learning SoTL research:

Picciano, Anthony G., and Charles D. Dziuban, eds. Blended Learning: Research Perspectives. Needham, MA: Sloan-C, 2007.




Picciano, Anthony G., and Charles D. Dziuban, eds. Blended Learning: Research Perspectives. Needham, MA: Sloan-C, 2007.

Chap. 1: Introduction – Picciano, Anthony G., 5-18

• Starts with descriptions of four scenarios under which blended learning has been developed; two involve injecting face-to-face elements into an online course or program in order to meet student needs and improve the program, two involve injecting online elements into face-to-face programs to leverage technology and use campus resources more efficiently (5-6)
• Definition: “The term ‘blended’ refers to . . . instruction that combiones online instruction with traditional face-to-face instruction. Also known as ‘hybrid’, ‘mixed-mode’, and ‘flexible learning’, blended learning appears to be gaining in popularity” (7).
• Online learning has been studied in the past decade; work on blended learning has appeared more recently, but “most of the published work on blended learning is based on case studies and best practices rather than on empirical studies” – less than twenty [as of book’s publication in 2007]… = purpose of the project from Sloan-C resulting in this book (7)

“Defining Blended Learning” (8-10)

• “The word ‘blended’ implies a mixture or combination. . . . [I]f the new paint is mixed well, neither of the original colors will continue to exist” (8)
• “The mix can be a simple separation of part of a course into an online component. . . . The two modalities for this course are carefully separated and while they may overlap, they can still be differentiated. In other forms . . . the modalities are not so easy to distinguish [e.g., an online course that includes a collaborative project involving frequent face-to-face collaboration and instruction]. . . . Add to this, the increasing popularity of integrating videoconferencing, podcasting, wikis, blogs, and other media into class work and the definition of blended learning becomes very fluid” (8). 
• Discussions of Sloan participants = blended learning difficult to define; vacillation between broad and narrow definitions. Resulting definition: “1. Courses that integrate online with traditional face-to-face class activities in a planned, pedagogically valuable manner; and 2. Where a portion (institutionally defined) of face-to-face time is replaced by online activity. (Laster, Otte, Picciano, and Sorg, 2005).”

“What We Know and Don’t Know” (10-11)

• “[M]any faculty in American colleges and universities are willing to incorporate blended learning into their pedagogical repertoire. However, the extent, the basis, and the nature of this willingness have not been well established for several reasons” (10).
• General belief : “blended learning has reached well into the mainstream of American higher education”, but we don’t have data to back this up; it’s not being systematically collected (10).
• There is no widely accepted conceptualization of blended learning for higher ed administrators; “a generally accepted taxonomy [for different types and labels of learning modes] does not exist” (10-11).
• “[T]here is little reason to believe that faculty are identifying themselves as teaching blended learning courses”; younger faculty in particular are comfortable with incorporating online technology, so they “do not necessarily see themselves as doing something unique and special” (11).

 “Organization of this Book” (11-17)

• Book generated from the work of the 2005 Sloan Workshop on Blended Learning held at UIC.
• As labeled; pages of abstracts/precis of the book chapters – I will summarize these later, but here are the highlights:

 Chap. 2, Shea: “conceptual framework”; questions:

• “What is the problem to which blended learning is the solution?" (12)
• "Why would we want to move instruction out of the classroom and put some, but not all of it into an online format?" (12)
• "What are the benefits? What are the losses?" (12)
• "What happens to cognition, motivation, and affect when learning occurs partly in the classroom and partly online?" (12)
• Drawing on multiple theorists, “Learner centeredness emerges as an important element within all of these frameworks. Shea also emphasizes the role of community, collaboration, and cooperation” (12)

 Chap. 3, Vignare: literature review (on online learning in general, as well as blended learning)

• “using the Sloan Consortium’s Five Pillars quality framework for inline asynchronous learning networks” (12-13)
• Is this “truly a unique learning environment or just a simple combination” of approaches? (13)
• A conclusion: “the early research indicates that blended learning can be as successful as either online or face-to-face instruction, but that there is a great need for more study” (13)

Chap. 4, Allen and Seaman: surveys of chief academic officers from 2004-2005 on the “extent and nature of fully online and blended courses and programs” (13)

• “the majority of all higher education institutions were offering some form of both fully online and blended learning courses by 2003” (13)
• Comparisons drawn by institution type, disciplines, and faculty
• Opinions from CAOs on the future of online and blended learning for their institutions

 Chap. 5, Graham and Robison: “transformational potential of blended learning at Brigham Young University” (13)

• Identification and discussion of “three major categories of blends”, and discusses how faculty perceive and use, and whether pedagogy is being transformed at BYU:

1. Enabling blends – focus primarily on providing access and convenience to students;
2. Enhancing blends – focus on increasing instructor or student productivity (e.g., increasing the amount of information students are able to cover or increasing the richness of the material covered); and
3. Transforming blends – focus on facilitating an improvement in pedagogy by moving from a more information transmission focused pedagogy to a more active learning pedagogy (13).

Chap. 6, Kaleta, Skibba, and Joosten: hybrid course design and delivery

• “to understand why faculty adopt and implement the hybrid instructional model” (14); used qualitative interview methodology
• “including how faculty development can be used as a change agent” (14)
• “also investigated how faculty roles expand when teaching hybrid courses” (14)

 Chap. 7, Brown, Smith, and Henderson: student perceptions of assessment efficiacy

•  Study of instructor and student perceptions re: assessment activities in online and blended environments
•  “Significant differences in preferences for assessment activities were found depending upon the age of the learners” (14); novice learners preferred multiple-choice questions as “best reflect[ing] their learning” compared to older learners; novice learners also liked individually-completed activities (e.g., essays, homework, etc) “associated with ‘school’” (14); more experienced or older learners preferred “‘community’ assessment activities” over “‘school’ assessment activities” (14)

Chap. 8, Starenko, Vignare, and Humbert: student interaction and faculty instructional innovation

• 2 year pilot study at RIT; mixed-method data collection on course design and faculty experiences
• “sustainable faculty instructional innovation and student interaction were specifically considered as important variables for the pilot program’s success” (15)
• Satisfaction of deaf/hard of hearing students also considered

 Chap. 9, Dziuban, Moskal, and Futch: student evaluation of blended learning

• Multiple methods, but key =- survey of students who had taken at least three blended learning courses 
• “satisfaction with their blended learning experiences mediated by the political, economic and social influences of the time period in which they passed from early childhood into adulthood” (15)
• “The majority of students had mixed feelings”; “[t]he smallest number of students expressed outright dissatisfaction” (15)

Chap. 10, Woods, Badzinski, and Baker: student perceptions “in a traditional undergraduate environment”

• “examined students’ patterns of use, perceptions of usefulness, and outcomes” re: blended learning environment including a “web-based course management system” (15)
• Mixed-methods; convenience sample of students in a media literacy class using Blackboard CMS
• Included content analysis of “frequency and patterns of use” of Blackboard course features

Chap. 11: Welch, “Educational Equivalency”

• Examines “the educational equivalency of a ‘contact hour’ in courses where students do not meet in a particular place and time” (16)
• Questions the “contact hour”, suggests that a “Competency Based Education Equivalent (CBEE)” based on “academic achievement rather than time” is a “more practical instrument” (16); recommends that CBEE is better, as the Carnegie Unit “does not measure learning based on goals or results” (16)

Chap. 12, Albrecht and Pirani: “development of blended learning in two very different organizations” – IBM and ASU (16)

• “managing blended learning and incorporating it into the strategic goals of the organization presents challenges for an entity of any size” (16)

Chap. 13, Dziuban, Hartman, and Moskal: concluding chapter

• “framing the issues raised in the earlier chapters within broader organizational concepts and ideas” (17)
• “what may appear as soimpler technical issues on the surface relate to complex institutional processes, attitudes, and culture” (17)
•  “concludes with a call to readers ‘to sustain the inquiry base’ on blended learning” and provides research questions for future work (17)

“A Final Comment on Educational Research” (17)

Researchers for this project were “free to develop any research methodology that would best meet the needs of their study”; therefore, book reflects a wide range of qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method approaches (17).