Graham, Charles R., and Reid Robison. “Realizing the Transformational Potential of Blended Learning." Blended Learning: Research Perspectives. Eds. Anthony G. Picciano and Charles D. Dziuban, eds. Needham, MA: Sloan-C, 2007. Print. 83-110The study is particularly useful for two primary emphases: its approach to understanding institutional and course-level adoption of blended learning in terms of three key variables (scope of use, purpose of use, nature of use), and its distinction between blended learning strategies intended primarily for convenient access, strategies that enhance traditional pedagogy, and strategies designed to transform pedagogy. The researchers have an admitted bias in favor of pedagogy that moves away from a traditional "information transmission" paradigm to an active, engaged learner-centered paradigm (one involving interaction, engaged participation, frequent feedback, and connection to real world contexts).
Graham and Robison conclude that, while examples of truly transformative blended pedagogies are out there, and may evolve from less aggressive enhanced learning strategies, an initial emphasis on convenient access and greater productivity in traditional pedagogy might provide barriers to the kind of paradigm shift required for genuinely transformative uses of educational technology.
Enjoy the summary, after the jump!
Chap. 5: “Realizing the Transformational Potential of Blended Learning” – Graham, Charles R., and Reid Robison
· Introduction broadly defines blended learning as “integrat[ing] distributed (or technology-mediated) instruction with traditional face-to-face instruction” (83), describes predictions by other scholars that blended learning is growing, points out that “blending can occur at several different levels: the institutional level, the program level, the course level, or the activity level” (83), and that “[t]he salient research issues at each of these levels can be quite different” (83).
Context
· This study “explores the use of blended learning at a traditional undergraduate university campus” (83) – Brigham Young University. A large private university with a Doctoral/Research Carnegie classification, BYU has an expanding Independent Study outreach program that includes online courses.
· BYU’s Center for Instructional Design (CID) has been developing blended learning opportunities (both technology and faculty support) – first with courses that include online learing modules and reduced FtF meeting times, and then adopting the Blackboard CMS. “By the end of [2003], approximately 2,000 of the 6,000 course sections offered each semester at BYU were using Blackboard” (84).
“[T]his paper attempts to establish a broader picture of faculty use of blended learning across the entire BYU campus” (84).
“[T]his paper attempts to establish a broader picture of faculty use of blended learning across the entire BYU campus” (84).
Literature Review
· Bonk and Graham (2005) point out that “some blends seem to transform the instruction while other blends just seemed to enhance existing instructional practices” (85, emphasis in original).
· “[T]hree major barriers” limiting the impact of technological innovations on education (Salomon, 2002) – one is the tendency to “assimilate[e] . . . new technologies into existing instructional practices” (qtd. in Graham and Robison 85).
· In higher education today the “transmission” model still dominates over “interactive” strategies, even in distance education. “The possibilities of blended learning have the potential to help instructors re-conceptualize the teaching and learning relationship” and move teaching “to a more active learning centered model” (85). Or, blended learning may just be used to “perpetuate current practices by increasing the productivity or convenience of instructors and students” – e.g., online “course-casting” that enables students to skip FtF lectures (85).
Methodology
· 2 research questions (86):
1. “How prevalent is blended learning at BYU?” Answered via faculty survey data collection.
2. “How is blended learning changing instructional practices at BYU?” Answered via analysis of faculty interviews.
Faculty Survey on Blended Learning
3. E-mail and paper mail survey to BYU faculty; 471 out of over 1,600, 28.5% response rate. 38.2% reported using a blended learning course, 61.8% responded negatively.
4. Some problems with data collection: e-mail and paper surveys sent to all faculty; while blended learning was defined for the survey, a number of respondents (including about one-fourth of the electronic respondents) indicated they did not know what it was – and everyone that was confused about the definition responded that they did not use blended learning, “even though a few made mention of their use of online learning in their courses,” which may mean the survey under-reports the actual use of blended learning (87).
Faculty Case Interviews
5. 72 interviews taken from faculty across 12 of BYU’s 13 colleges, “all related to how technology was being used by faculty in their instructional practice” (87).
6. Three sources of interviews – one source included faculty “recommended . . . because of his/her experience and passion for blended learning” ( 87-88); another involved faculty identified by chairs and the CID as “‘innovative’ users of technology in teaching” (88); a third involved a random selection of faculty in interviews regarding using Blackboard in their courses
Data Analysis
· ON RQ1, descriptive statistics used to examine “faculty adoption of blended learning . . . based on several demographic variables such as age, rank and status, and gender” (88)
· Analysis of interviews used a framework from Graham (2005) “to identify examples of transforming blends, enhancing blends, and enabling blends” (88-89). Three criteria for selecting interview examples in this chapter [Table 2, page 90, charts out each type of blend in terms of these three criteria; the chapter does not include cases in which blends resulted in improvements]:
1. Scope of the Blend: “how significant the blend is in the context of the course . . . . [T]ransforming blends need to impact a significant portion of the course activities” (89).
2. Purpose of the Blend: “We looked for evidence of a focus on improved pedagogy, increased productivity (or cost effectiveness), and improved convenience or access. . . . A strong focus on improved pedagogy was a requirement for identifying transforming blends” (89).
3. Nature of the Blend: “how the blend is being used in a particular educational context” (89); “how the blends take advantage of the strengths of the computer-mediated environment as well as the strengths of the face-to-face environment” (90); “What learner activity does the technology allow that would be difficult or impossible without the use of the technology?” (90).
§ “increased access or convenience” = enabling blend (90)
§ “increasing instructor or student productivity [amount of information, richness of material]” = enhancing blend (90)
§ “moving from a more information transmission focused pedagogy to a more active learning pedagogy” = transforming blend (90)
· Effective learning environments, according to Roschelle et al. (2000) involve: “(1) active engagement, (2) participation in groups, (3) frequent interaction and feedback, and (4) connections to real world contexts” (90).
Researcher Bias
· The blended learning categories follow Graham’s (2005) discussion, “follow[ing] patterns that were originally observed in the dozens of cases documented in” Bonk and Graham’s handbook (91)
· “We have a clear bias toward the preeminence of the first goal of improved pedagogy” (91)
Findings
· Prevalence of Blended Learning: Survey question: “Have you ever taught a blended learning course?”
o 38.2% yes, 61.8% no
o blended learning users “come from a broad range of demographic backgrounds” (91); no “big differences . . . except that adjunct professors were more than three times more likely to uses [sic] blended learning as a strategy than not”, and female faculty were more likely than male faculty to use blended learning (91).
o Scope of use: “the clear majority of faculty are substituting very little online instruction for face-to-face instruction in their implementation of blended learning” (94); Figure 4, page 95:
§ 77% of respondents taught mostly “in class with very little online instruction substituting for class time”;
§ 10% -- about 25% online
§ 6% -- about 50% online
§ 2% -- about 75% online
§ 5% -- mostly online
· Cases of Blended Learning: authors did not categorize all seventy cases they identified; “the categories represent archetypes of blends that we have widely observed” (95); “much greater prevalence of enhancing blends than transforming blends among the cases” (96)
o Transforming Blends: criteria – (1) large scope; (2) purpose = improved pedagogy; (3) nature of blend = move toward active learning pedagogy
§ Case A1: Instructional Simulations – Virtual Audiometer & Virtual ChemLab
· In an Audiology course, the challenge of providing students with practice at clinical hearing tests was answered by using a “virtual audiometer” to simulate “both the patient and the expensive testing equipment” (97); shifts the course to a problem-solving mode, and enables “layered scaffolding [of examples] from extreme procedures to less extreme textbook examples” (97); enables student self-paced work, and “more detailed and timely feedback” from the instructor (98); led to “big improvements” in exam performance (98)
· In a Chemistry class, the challenge of “moving from memorizing and conducting cookbook solutions” to “problem-solving, creative-based activities” given cost and safety limitations was met by Virtual ChemLab, which “doesn’t replace the hands-on experience they get in the lab,” but simulates a lab environment for working on open-ended problems in a flexible way (98); students able to see the effects of using equipment on chemicals, and can speed up the time frame to focus on the problem moreso than the lab technique
§ Case A2: Just-in-Time Teaching – Physical Science 100
· An effective lecturer for a large enrollment class wanted to “do online the things that we could never do in a class” (99); “just-in-time teaching . . . allows him to provide instruction that is targeted immediately and directly to student needs and misconceptions” (99); online reading quizzes before class ensures that students read the material, and then quiz responses “‘shape’ the discussion and learning activities for that day in class” (99); in-class clicker response system enables instructor to adjust class discussion based on student responses to questions; “online interactive animations and simulations [are used] to help students visualize relationships” (100); he has tried and rejected other online resources (e.g., asynchronous discussions) because they didn’t meet his particular goals
o Enhancing Blends: two types discussed here – a blend similar to transforming but small in scope, and blends that focus on improved productivity in the traditional paradigm (rather than a shift to active learning)
§ Case B1: Asynchronous Discussion Activity
· In a History of Civilization course with 100+ student enrollment, an asynchronous discussion assignment is used to enable increased engagement from students who otherwise wouldn’t speak in class; discussion groups of 25, with no instructor intervention and feedback until the discussion time is over, and then oral feedback based on her notes; students like the assignment due to convenience and to the ability to read others’ points and carefully compose responses; students think about topics and interact with other students outside of class time, for improved engagement and learning
§ Case C1: Small Scope Enhancements: most blended learning adopters are engaged in small scale uses for improved productivity, mostly involving three types:
1. “Providing more content” (101)
2. “Increased communication [between faculty and students]” (101)
3. “Saving class time” (102) on matters such as exams and quizzes, and “access to course content, grades, frequently asked questions, and announcements in one place” (102)
· “One irony mentioned in the interviews was the idea that sometimes faculty inadvertently decrease student productivity in their attempt to increase it” (102)… the convenience of providing students with easy access to extra content resources that may not be essential can result in overloading students’ attention and workload
§ Case C2: Face-to-face Seat-time Reduction in Accounting
· Lectures for a course are video recorded and then combined with visual presentation materials; “The instructional package is burned onto CDs and purchased by students at the beginning of the semester. Then, during the semester, instead of attending a face-to-face lecture session twice a week, they might only be required to attend once a week” (103); faculty have expressed frustration at presenting the highly informational, technical, computational lectures in a traditional format – students at different levels together, so students who struggle often don’t get it and don’t ask questions; in the blended system, students work at their own pace, can repeat sections as needed, and have access to them at all times; “Ideally class time is spent in doing application and discussion. The mastering of the technical material is a prerequisite for being able to do that effectively” (103); key goal is to “go beyond the technical material to judgment, decision making, and application” (103-104); biggest challenge to faculty is to shift into approaching classroom teaching differently, rather than just lecturing content and going over homework
o Enabling Blends: “focus primarily on providing access and convenience to students” (104)
§ Case D1: Online Course with Optional Face-to-face Sessions
· A research course in nursing is scheduled during a semester with intensive clinical work commitments, causing significant scheduling problems; a “predominantly online class” that introduced students to the research was “designed to be predominantly self-paced,” with deadlines for work to prevent procrastination (104); course includes online Blackboard quizzes on textbook readings, and journal articles and an asynchronous discussion forum for critiques that includes instructor responses to all postings to engage student activity; a face-to-face meeting option was provided for students who might want to learn in that setting, but it is unused, as students appear to prefer online convenience; faculty benefit from working at anytime and in any place; initially required face-to-face orientation and last-day meetings have been replaced by online modules in subsequent iterations
Discussion
· Cases A1, A2 and B1 involve moving from transmission to active engagement; the simulation cases particularly involved “active inquiry and problem solving skills and dramatically increased student opportunities for practice and feedback” (105); C2 remained in a traditional paradigm but boosted productivity by rethinking how to use class time; C1 blends were “small scale course enhancements that often had minimal overall pedagogical impact on the learners” (106); D1 focused more on access and convenience than on pedagogical outcome changes
· National initiatives for promoting blended learning have had differing outcomes; one program involving course redesign projects reported achievement increases and cost reductions, while another study of technology use in higher education “found a gradual ‘stretching the mold’ scenario” to be the primary model (106)
· Three barriers to transformative change:
o Barrier 1: The Proliferation of Superficial Blends: blends that “aren’t adding anything significant to the instruction” (106) show that faculty are willing to incorporate technology, but “the time costs for a implementing [sic] a superficial blend can easily outweigh the instructional benefits” (107)
o Barrier 2: A Focus on the Scope of a Blend: focusing on how much of the course is online vs. face-to-face, while easier for administrators to control, is less important than “the purpose and nature of the blend” (107)… so need to focus on pedagogy rather than just injecting online activities
o Barrier 3: A Focus on Efficiency and Productivity: using technology to do work more efficiently “may distract many from considering blended options that could change their pedagogical paradigm” (107); it is possible to use tech for increased productivity so that one can pursue “more active and innovative face-to-face experiences” (107); we should explore o what extent such opportunities are actually pursued
· From Enhancing to Transforming Blends: Cases B1 and A2 provide examples of blended activities with small scope gradually expanded to involve more course work over time. In these cases the focus was on improved pedagogy, rather than improved productivity; faculty don’t often have “ready access to effective mental models of blended learning”, which provides a challenge to adoption (108), so consideration of more cases and models are a good start.
Conclusion
· At BYU, while there has been widespread adoption of blended learning, most use enhances traditional pedagogy rather than transforms it; while the potential to move from enhancing to transforming remains to be seen, there are examples of transformative blends that provide helpful exemplars
· For greater adoption, we need to “develop[] cases and models that can help faculty see what the possibilities are and how to achieve those possibilities within the resource constraints of their institutions” (108).
No comments:
Post a Comment