Kaleta, Robert, Karen Skibba, and Tanya Joosten. "Discovering, Designing, and Delivering Hybrid Courses." Blended Learning: Research Perspectives. Eds. Anthony G. Picciano and Charles D. Dziuban, eds. Needham, MA: Sloan-C, 2007. Print. 111-143Note: "Hybrid" teaching and learning is the same as "blended"... just a different term scooting around in this literature. This study does a helpful job of examining the process of adoption, development and execution, using the Diffusion of Innovation Theory as a framework for analysis and discussion. Lots of emphasis is made on core issues such as the need to consider the relationship between course goals, FtF vs. online environments and learning activities carefully, as well as the (sometimes radically) changing roles that new hybrid teachers must navigate.
Besides providing insights to faculty who might potentially adopt hybrid teaching, this chapter is really useful in providing guidelines for faculty development programs that institutions need to adopt in order to motivate and prepare faculty to adopt blended/.hybrid course (re-)design. The authors repeatedly emphasize the need for institutional support through an awareness and faculty development initiative... I guess we're starting that now? Anyway, the guts of this program were developed by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee's Learning Technology Center -- you should find a link to their blended/hybrid learning resources on the bar on the right of your screen, actually.
Lots of nifty chapter summary after the break.
Chap. 6: “Discovering, Designing and Delivering Hybrid Courses” – Kaleta, Robert, Karen Skibba, and Tanya Joosten
· Qualitative study of the “hybrid teaching experiences of 10 faculty from three universities” (111); used to report “recommendations for fostering interest in hybrid teaching and for supporting faculty in their efforts” (111).
· Because developing new skills and courses is challenging, and poorly executed experiments can have “disastrous” results, many faculty avoid the risks and thus miss out on potential benefits. So, this study is intended to provide faculty and institutions with appropriate guidance.
Opportunities and Challenges of the Hybrid Course Model
· Replaces reduced in-person classroom meeting time with online activity
· “[H]ybrid courses can incorporate the best instructional methods from both traditional and virtual environments”, leading to potential benefits for all involved (111), particularly student learning outcomes, increasing accessibility and convenience for students, flexibility for faculty, and increasing available classroom space for institutions (112)
· “two major implementation issues: 1) how to foster faculty awareness and interest in hybrid teaching, and 2) how best to prepare faculty to teach hybrid courses” (112)
· Two key goals of the study – to examine why faculty choose to adopt hybrid courses, and to examine how faculty experiences change when they adopt
Faculty Adoption of Hybrid Courses
o Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation theory: 5 stages over time: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, confirmation; “the first three stages . . . are particularly important in understanding why someone tries an innovation for the first time” (113); the fourth is useful to look at faculty experiences, and the last helpful regarding the decision to continue adoption or not.
Instructor Roles Are Transformed
o Changing a FtF course to a hybrid course involves transforming approaches to course goals, activities, assessment, integration of online and FtF work, and faculty/student interaction, requiring new skills and the assumption of multiple roles (114)
o The four roles examined in this study come from Berge’s (1995) framework “for enhancing online courses” (114)
o Pedagogical Role: “includes both the design and the delivery of instructional learning activities for the in-person and online environments” (114)
o Social Role: “involves creating a friendly and nurturing environment that supports a community of learners” and “communication between [and among] instructor and students” (114)
o Managerial Role: “relates to overseeing course structure and tasks” (114)
o Technological Role: involves “instructors easily utilizing a course management system to organize course content and assisting students with user or system technology issues” (114)
Preparing Faculty for Hybrid Teaching
o “faculty development programs to guide faculty as they redesign their courses and get ready to teach” them (115) is crucial for institutions to adopt, given what faculty must do to adopt and implement
Research Questions
· Overarching question: “What are faculty experiences while discovering, designing and delivering a hybrid course?” (115)
· Sub-question: “Why did instructors choose to adopt the hybrid model?” (115)
· Sub-question: “How did instructors’ roles change as they implemented the hybrid model?” (116)
· Sub-question: “What are the implications for hybrid faculty development programs?” (116)
Methodology
· Study took a qualitative interpretive approach, for rich description of how subjects interpret their experiences
· Sample: 10 interview participants from three institutions (one associate degree, one comprehensive bachelor’s/master’s university, one Ph.D. institution), who had participated in faculty development programs designed by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee;s Learning Technology Center and taught a hybrid course; a range of academic rank and academic disciplines represented; most had only taught one or two hybrid courses, most had over 10 years teaching experience, but the participants ranged in these areas as well; for most participants 40% to 60% of course activities were online
· Data Collection: “in-depth, semi-structured telephone interviews” (117) followed surveys on demographics and hybrid teaching preparation and experience; questions on the decision process, development experience, and perceptions of their roles
· Data Analysis: “inductive analytic process” to “extract themes from the Rogers and Berge frameworks without imposing preexisting expectations on the data” (117); computerized data analysis to code on the frameworks, then individual analysis of each interview, then comparative analysis to distill the themes; member checks and peer reviews for quality control
Findings Summary
· “Willingness and ability to change is critical for faculty who choose to decide to teach hybrid courses” (118); faculty must “modify familiar roles and learn new ones” (118)
· Findings on faculty experiences follow the stages of Roger’s Diffusion of Innovation Theory
Innovation-Decision Process: Knowledge Stage
· “begins when an individual ‘is exposed to an innovation’s existence and gains some understanding of how it functions’” (118)
· Usually involves a “change agent” that “creat[es] awareness and motivation to adopt an innovation” (118)… for most of the participants, the change agent was “an institutional intitiative that provided information . . . and offered . . . support” (118)
Innovation-Decision Process: Persuasion Stage
· “the individual ‘forms a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the innovation;” (119)
· The participants received “grant funds or stipends” as incentive to join the development program and develop courses (119); however, more important was “the teaching and learning benefits described in the communication” they received (119)
· “the ‘flexibility’ and ‘convenience’” for students and themselves was also attractive (119), and some cited the importance of incorporating computers to “‘reach this generation’” (119)
· The key communications were the presentations at development workshops that convinced them that “the student learning benefits were real” (119)
Innovation-Decision Process: Decision Stage
· “when a person ‘engages in activities that lead to a choice to adopt or reject an innovation’” (119)
· Key concerns were “substantial time commitment” and “the fear of losing ‘connection’ with students” (119).
· Since “ ‘try[ing] out the new idea on a partial basis’” is key to an affirmative decision, the faculty workshops “included presentations, demonstrations, group discussions, face to face small group work, course redesign assignments, online small group work, and facilitator and peer feedback on assignments” (120) on all facets of design and implementation, so that faculty could “actually start to design and develop their first hybrid course” (120)
· Kaleta and Garnham (2001) argue that faculty need to experience hybrid courses as students do before they teach them; the UWM program was “taught in the hybrid format” by “experienced hybrid instructors” (120)
· Many participants identified “learning from other faculty who had gone through the process” as the most valuable part of the program, and they explained that the program was essential – without it, they couldn’t have done the development work on their own without being overwhelmed; some actually desired more development programming; less important for the experienced hybrid teachers than for those converting a course for the first time
· Key to development is not only providing the skills, but also “the structure, dedicated time, and motivation to try this new learning model” (121)
Innovation-Decision Process: Implementation Stage
· “when an individual puts an innovation into practice” (121), which still involves some uncertainty on the part of the adopter
· “the individual continues to ‘re-invent’ the innovation” as challenges are met through trial and error (e.g., things that weren’t covered in the development program) (121)
Hybrid Instructors Assume Multiple Roles
· “hybrid instructors’ roles changed week to week as they traverse the in-person and online environments”, and more decisions about instructional strategies are required (122)
Pedagogical Role
· Need to go beyond providing information, to guide students through using technology and engagement of the course material in more complex ways, and to leverage the strengths of both online and face-to-face environments in the course redesign
· Both “instructional design and teaching style” are key to the pedagogical role (123)
o Teaching Transformed: all participants reported significant change in how they taught; “learner-centered instruction” was key – teacher as “facilitator” and “guide”, giving students more control (123)
o Teacher-Learner Relationships: ceding more control to students harder for participants who were transitioning from traditional lecture courses; requires approaching communication with students in new ways, even for experienced teachers; students are challenged to take more control, especially those who think the course will be easier because it meets face-to-face less often
o Advice for Faculty Preparation: the most important skill for instructors to learn is how to facilitate online interaction, as it is essential to effective pedagogy and yet is the area where instructors have the least experience; elements like posting and responding to discussion assignments need to be required and built into course assessment, and clear expectations (including rubrics for evaluation) are important; instructors also need to remember that teaching-as-facilitation is very different, and it’s easy to slip back into a traditional mode
o Instructional Re-design is Critical: The participants observed that (re-)design of course goals, activities and assessments took longer (sometimes much longer) for a hybrid course than for a traditional course, but that extra time is hard to estimate, especially in advance; re-examination for a course redesign, maximizing the potential of the two learning environments, and the tendency to over-program the course with “too much content and activities” were common risks (125)
o Re-examining Course Goals and Objectives: even if the same course has been taught before traditionally, re-examining course goals is important because content and activities need to be considered in “two different learning ‘spaces’” (125); the process is time-consuming but essential
o Online or Face to face: “Instructors tended to use the online environment for work that students could do ‘on their own,’ such as assessments, tutorials, readings, and quizzes. . . . [and] saved activities for the in-person class that required ‘interaction’ and to address ‘issues or misconceptions that popped up in the online discussion’”– particularly “information needing context and interpretations” for students to understand (126); however, those with more experience “included more critical reflection and interactive discussions online” (126) to enable more student time for deeper thinking and accommodating different student approaches to participation
o The Course and a Half Syndrome: “the tendency for faculty to be unable to give up any material from their face to face course and simply add additional online content and activities to an existing course when they transition to the hybrid model” (127); even though development warned against it, instructors often went too far with content and activities, creating too much work for themselves and students
o Advice for Faculty Preparation: enabling reflection on course goals in the faculty development program is really important – provides a structure for faculty to consider goals for the course and how to best meet them; most instructors used the online environment for lower-level activities, failing to leverage the interactive potential of that environment… so the development program should emphasize these opportunities to faculty; seeking feedback from experienced faculty, as well as from students, is helpful to determine what kind of activities might best be done online; faculty need to consider essentials to include carefully to avoid overload, and integrate the online and in-class activities so they don’t feel like “two parallel but unconnected courses” (128); finally, the development program needs to stress the importance of significant time devoted to the instructional design process
Social Role
· Creating a “community of learners,” which requires “establishing ‘social presence,’ also known as a feeling of connection and community among individuals” deemed important by many of the participants (128); “when a positive climate is created, hybrid environments have the potential to increase and extend connectivity and to build relationships even more so than in traditional or online courses” (129)
o Connectivity Challenges: biggest concern was “the potential of losing the connection they had with students” (129); less experienced instructors said they need “more experience creating interactive discussions” to avoid having students disengage online; more experienced instructors had fewer problems encouraging students to engage and get involved with online discussions, etc. – while in-person contact is important, effective online connections can enhance communication in the class, even better than traditional classes
o Community Building: Most participants reported that “students were more conversational ‘and more open’ online than they were in the classroom”, including students who “normally did not speak up in class” (129); conversations were frank, and often led to friendships; online discussion often led to more active in-class discussions; group work also enhanced a sense of community
o Advice for Faculty Preparation: Faculty need to be guided “on how to increase communication and personal connections” in the hybrid mix (130); building student comfort and trust is important; “fostering ‘immediacy’ of responses” to student questions and concerns is also important… which can include extra opportunities to interact, as well as an active, conversational tome when interacting with students (130)
Managerial Role
· “managing hybrid courses forced instructors and students to become ‘more organized’ and ‘prepared’ than they had to be in a traditional course” (130); while flexibility can increase, the challenge may be to keep from getting confused as to scheduled activities
o Course Scheduling: deciding how often, and when, to schedule FtF and online activities is important; frequency and pattern of scheduling for the participants varied depending on issues such as content, accommodating other obligations, and providing opportunities for student project work; participants observed that the online workload felt excessive, and that it was hard to find the devoted time to do the work; with time and experience, scheduling difficulties eased
o Course Organization: Many participants were enthusiastic about the effects of course management systems on increasing efficiency of organization; that said, “instructors said that managing a hybrid course was still ‘more time consuming’ than a traditional course” (132)
o Student Time Management: as with faculty, students benefited from flexibility but still found it difficult to devote time to online work, and some felt that the in-class components were the only “real” part of the class; some faculty observed that online plus in-class activities provide a lot for students to keep track of; others observed that such a challenge can teach students “‘important life skills’ of time management, self-discipline, and organization” (132), and that clarifying the importance of student responsibility is key; participants also reported that online work prepared students for more serious in-class work
o Advice for Faculty Preparation: faculty development needs to emphasize the “importance of planning, scheduling, and being flexible in managing their hybrid courses” (132), as well as the benefits of CMS in managing time and effort; faculty also need to carefully consider how much time is needed to prepare and administer activities and assignments, take care not to take on too much work (and fall prey to the “course-and-a-half syndrome”), and devote time to online course work; faculty development must also emphasize how to communicate clear expectations and guidance for students to manage their own course responsibilities, which includes balancing flexibility with the need to “follow the schedule outlined in the syllabus” (133)
Technological Role
· While participants were enthusiastic about getting involved with interactive technology, they often didn’t anticipate the dual need to become fluent with the tech themselves and then assist students with their technological problems;
o Familiarity with Technology: faculty expressed their newness and discomfort with having to learn unfamiliar systems, and one worried that students would pick up on this apprehension; participants also observed that student comfort with technology can’t be taken for granted, and that inability to use the technology “not only negatively affected their course learning experience but it also adversely affected some faculty because of the additional challenges and responsibilities it placed on the instructors” (134)
o Reliability of Technology: while faculty felt their training and tech support was adequate, they didn’t always believe “students were receiving the same kind of support” (134); tech failures upset students and faculty alike, and tech problems were often used as excuses by students for incomplete work; faculty emphasized the need not only for faculty to get familiar with the technology, but also to enable students to get familiar with it as well.
o Advice for Faculty Preparation: “new hybrid instructors [should] ‘start small,’ and don’t try to incorporate too much technology all at once” (135); “when the technology is transparent, then the focus can be on learning” (135), so faculty need on-campus support resources to deal with tech issues and boost the transparency for themselves and their students; planning for “plan B” is important, since tech can and will fail from time to time (e.g., copies of files to e-mail to students if the CMS is down); in terms of student tech failures, faculty need to decide how much flexibility is reasonable, and to “teach them [students] to be proactive” in addressing problems (135); student tech orientation activities such as “scavenger hunts” can be used early on to familiarize students with the tech, and help documentation needs to be freely available
Innovation-Decision Process: Confirmation Stage
· In this stage, one “‘seeks reinforcement of the innovation-decision already made or reverses a previous decision to adopt or reject the decision if exposed to conflicting messages’” (136)
· Here, participants reassessed the propriety of the hybrid format and how to improve it – all considered plans for improvement
· All planned on continuing to teach hybrid courses, and see such courses as “the way of the future” (136); one deemed the format inappropriate for one class, which she would switch back to face-to-face, and one planned to include more FtF work
Conclusions and Recommendations
Encouraging Adoption of Hybrid Courses
o While the participants were initially interested in the benefits of hybrid teaching, none decided to try it until institutional development assistance was provided to generate “the motivation or opportunity to try [it]” (136). Recommendations from the UW-Milwaukee Learning Technology Center:
1. “Launch a hybrid course initiative” to inform and encourage the faculty (137)
2. “Create a faculty development program” for information and faculty preparation (137)
3. “Offer a stipend to attract and compensate faculty for the challenging effort” (137)
4. “Ensure that ongoing pedagogical and technical consultation is available to support [faculty]” (137)
Preparing Faculty for Hybrid Teaching
o Since teacher roles transform in this process, and those closest to the “traditional role of teacher as lecturer” has the most transitional difficulty (137), faculty who try hybrid learning need to be prepared how their work roles will change, sometimes radically
o “[F]aculty preparation for hybrid teaching should address the challenges and opportunities presented in their new . . . roles” (137). Recommendations for faculty development programs:
1. Provide at least 6 months lead time from start of development program to course launch
2. The development program should “[u]se the hybrid format” so faculty can “experience the advantages and challenges” of the model (138)
3. Provide frequent opportunities for interaction with experienced hybrid instructors
4. “Ensure that participants leave with the start of their hybrid course and with a plan for continuing the redesign process” (138).
5. Give faculty “opportunities to learn and practice the teaching skills needed for hybrid instruction” (138)
6. “Have faculty work in small collaborative groups” during the course development process to provide support
o Primary topics/issues to provide the core of a hybrid teaching development program:
1. “re-examining course goals and objectives” and how a hybrid format can achieve (138)
2. “Develop new learning activities that capitalize” on FtF and online environments (138)
3. “Integrate face to face and online learning activities” in the course (138)
4. “the transition from a lecture-centered teaching approach to a more learner-centered teaching focus” (138)
5. Avoid the “course-and-a-half” syndrome due to over-programming content and activities
6. “skills to effectively manage and facilities online discussion and interaction (139)
7. “create an online community of learners” that is “inclusive, positive, and friendly” (139)
8. “Keep technology use simple . . . and gradually add more advanced technology” (139)
9. Back-up plans for activities “when technology fails” (139)
10. “Manage student expectations regarding the hybrid format and course workload” (139)
11. Develop strategies “to help students with the technology and time management challenges” (139)
12. Use CMS tools “to get organized and stay organized” (139)
Implications of the Hybrid Model
o While everyone involved seems to “like hybrid courses” and the associated benefits, the potential to “transform faculty’s teaching in all of their courses” to take “a more learner-centered approach” is an “‘unanticipated good consequence[]’” (139) – but more research is needed to examine whether such a transformation is actually happening after adoption (140)
o Those with prior online teaching experience have different kinds of development issues when going hybrid, and so further research is needed to locate their special needs, and faculty development programs need to address them
o Need to anticipate and provide special attention in faculty development to “late adopters” of technology – in this study, “70% of the research participants had no or limited experience using technology for teaching” (140) – but the benefits of hybrid teaching provided the motivation to learn these technological applications. More research is needed to study this implication more completely
No comments:
Post a Comment