TIPPING THE SCALESExtending Blended Learning Across 20 Institutions

Thomas Cavanagh, Ph.D.Assistant Vice President, Distributed LearningUniversity of Central Florida

The UCF-AASCU NGLC Project• To scale the UCF model of blended learning across the

AASCU network of institutions (and beyond).

About UCF• Orlando, FL• Metropolitan, suburban

university• 58,600+ students• 2nd largest university in U.S.• Carnegie classification: RU/VH Research University: Very

High Research Activity• 216 degree programs across 11 colleges• 11 Campuses throughout Central Florida

• Center for Distributed Learning• Over 30% of university SCH is online• Over half of all UCF students take at least 1 online course each

year.• Fully Online Programs

• 5 Undergraduate • 25 Graduate Degree• 29 Graduate Certificates

Defining Blended Learning

FullyF2F

FullyOnline

BlendedLearning

ì í î

Classes where a portion of the traditional face-to-face instruction is replaced by web-based online learning.

Why Blended Learning?• Engage faculty in online learning

• First step• Reduce delivery costs

• Maximize facility use• Increase flexibility and convenience• Improve student learning outcomes• Expand access to education

Strategic Alignment

Web-Enhanced

BlendedLearning

FullyOnline

Faculty Initiative Institutional Initiative

Blended Learning at UCF• Began with an Online initiative in mid-90s• Quickly realized that 75% of students were local• Was the catalyst for the blended learning initiative• Center for Distributed Learning

1995-96 2000-01 2005-06 2010-11500,000

700,000

900,000

1,100,000

1,300,000

1,500,000

1,700,000 Sources of UCF Student Credit Hour Growth

CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION

ONLINE-VIDEO

ONLINE-WEB

Blended Learning at UCF

Fully Online CoursesBlended Learning Courses

n n

500% growth in blended courses

Blended Learning at UCF

Blended Learning 2009-2010 Academic

Year

Totals since 2002

Sections 681 5,031Registrations 24,241 160,860Student Credit Hours (SCH)

70,438 476,823

UCF Fall 2008 Headcount

33,08765.8% 7,127

14.2%2,8475.7%

3630.7% 923

1.8%1,436 2.9% 2,046

4.1%

1,3012.6%

1370.3%

8651.7%

1110.2%

“Live” Main Campus Students43,466

“Live” Rosen Campus Students2,446

Web Students11,514

“Live” Regional Students4,800

UCF Fall 2009 Headcount

“Live” Regional Students4,809

Web Students14,543

“Live” Main Campus Students45,988

33,98863.5% 8,593

16.1%3,6376.8%

3750.7% 1,030

1.9%1,497 2.8%

1,8863.6%

8271.6%

6971.3%

7821.5%

2040.4%

“Live” Rosen Campus Students2,531

34,05960.6% 10,363

18.4%4,1137.3%

4780.9%

1,2132.1%

1,490 2.7%

2,0493.6%

7581.4%

7641.4%

6951.2%

2340.4%

UCF Fall 2010 Headcount

Web Students17,172

“Live” Regional Students5,251

“Live” Rosen Campus Students2,472

“Live” Main Campus Students47,926

Regional Campuses = Blended Learning

Alignment with Regional CampusesFully Online Blended

Academic Year SCH % SCH %

2002-03 22,801 27 5,711 72003-04 36,840 35 7,699 72004-05 33,690 35 7,159 72005-06 48,008 41 8,806 82006-07 57,393 44 9,946 82007-08 64,843 44 17,067 122008-09 74,561 46 10,847 72009-10 88,834 51 11,383 72010-11 116,508 55 13,481 6

2010-11 F2F = 31% SCH

Fall 2010Total UCF students 56,129Students in Face-to-Face (F2F) 49,510Web OR Blended 23,741F2F + Web 12,157F2F + Blended 8,827F2F + Web OR Blended 18,288F2F + Web + Blended 2,696Web Only 4,109

(Summer 2010: 6,459)

UCF Blended Programs = Choice and Access

Course Evaluation Ratings

Course Modality % Overall “Excellent”

Blended 51.2%

Fully Online 48.3%

Face to Face 48.2%

Lecture Capture (with classroom) 43.4%

Lecture Capture (no classroom) 41.6%

N = 672,185

Student Success Rates by Modality

Series10

102030405060708090

10087 91 87 88 9188

95 91 91 9488 88 86 88 88

Per

cent

Spring 09 Summer 09 Fall 09 Spring 10 Summer 10

F2F (n=618,899)

Blended (n=39,021)

Fully Online (n=109,421)

Withdrawal Rates by Modality

Series10

102030405060708090

100

4 3 3 3 24 2 3 3 15 4 4 5 4

Perc

ent

Spring 09

Summer09

Fall 09

Spring 10

Summer 10

F2F (n=551,065)

Blended (n=39,769) Fully Online (n=109,495)

Student Satisfaction in Fully Online and Blended Courses

39%

Fully online (N = 1,526)Blended (N = 485)

41%

11% 9%

Very SatisfiedUnsatisfiedSatisfied

Neutral

38%44%

9%

Very Unsatisfied

3% 5% 1%

Per

cent

Faculty Willingness to Teach Web/Blended Courses in the Future

Positive

Neutralor

negativeOnlinen=71

BlendedN=53

Modality

81%

16%2%

69%

13%10%6% 4%

DefinitelyProbablyProbably notDefinitely not

THE NGLC PROJECTExpanding Blended Learning Through Tools and Campus ProgramsA UCF/AASCU Project

Project Overview• Scale the proven UCF Blended Learning model via the

national AASCU network of more than 420 institutions and systems

• Starting with 20 targeted schools selected for their alignment with NGLC objectives (under 26, low income)

Scale UCF Model of Blended Learning

• Across 20 AASCU institutions and 11 states

Partners

Individual Institutions   State Coordinating Institutions

State Participating Institutions

Columbus State University   Missouri Harris-Stowe State University

Fayetteville State University  

Southeast Missouri State University

Lincoln University of Missouri

Grambling State University   Missouri Southern State University

Northwestern State University (LA)

  Missouri State University

Indiana University Kokomo   University of Missouri-St. Louis

Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi

  Alabama University of North Alabama

The College at Brockport, State University of New York

  Troy University University of South Alabama

Thomas Edison State College   Minnesota St. Cloud State University

University of Maine at Fort Kent   Winona State University

Project Administration Team• Principal Investigators

• Tom Cavanagh, UCF• George Mehaffy, AASCU

• John Hammang, AASCU• UCF:

• Linda Futch• Patsy Moskal• Chuck Dziuban• Elizabeth Wardle• Debbie Weaver• Tammy Muhs • Kelvin Thompson

Project Overview• An open educational resource (OER) Blended Learning

Toolkit containing:• Best practices, strategies, models, and course design principles.• Two OER prototype courses in Composition and Algebra. • Directions for applying the toolkit to create original blended

courses.• Train-the-trainer materials.• Assessment and data collection protocols, including survey

instruments and standards.

Project Overview (key measures)• 217 funded blended course sections across twenty project

institutions: target delivery of at least 85% of those sections (185).

• Targeted low-income students under age 26 (with the total population across the participating institutions being 187,500).

NGLC Assessment Expectations• Outcome 1: Build a blended learning infrastructure across

the network of participating AASCU member institutions. • 1-a. Identify participating institutions, communicate requirements,

and gather necessary data on courses, demographics, and assessment capabilities.

• 1-b. Develop the Blended Learning Toolkit materials and resources (including strategies, blended models, resources, and assessment protocols).

• 1-c. Package prototype courses in Composition and Algebra.• 1-d. Conduct Train-the-Trainer sessions.

NGLC Assessment Expectations• Outcome 2: Increased access to education via blended

learning (20 AASCU member institutions; 185-217 funded individual courses) for low-income students under 26 years old. This is the most critical outcome because it correlates directly to NGLC’s stated priorities. • 2-a. Disseminate toolkit materials and prototype courses to state

coordinating institutions and individual participating institutions.• 2-b. Implement courses across the AASCU network.• 2-c. Assess project success.

NGLC Assessment Expectations• Outcome 3: Increased student success and increased

student retention. • This is a supplemental measure external to the grant requirements

but very much consistent with NGLC’s long-term goals. In order to support eventual increases in student success and student retention, we intend to build longitudinal data collection into the project design. This data will be collected during the grant period for later analysis and reporting.

Original Delivery Plan by Discipline

Discipline Fall 2011 Winter/Spring 2012 TotalsMathematics (Algebra) Sections 23 23 46Mathematics (Other) Sections 8 8 16English (Composition) Sections 48 38 86English (Other) Sections 8 15 23Miscellaneous Sections 25 21 46TOTALS 112 105 217

Management Structure

Composition• Coordinators: Elizabeth Wardle & Debbie Weaver

• English Composition I: Expository writing with emphasis on effective communication/critical thinking. Emphasizes the writing process.

• “Flexible Template” model• Prix Fixe or A la carte

• 6-week online course for participating faculty to understand the blended format applied to the WAW curriculum.

• Monthly webinars starting in Fall.

Algebra• Coordinator: Tammy Muhs

• College Algebra: Algebra skills: Inequalities, high degree polynomials, graphs, rational, logarithmic, and exponential functions, and systems of equations.

• “Flexible Template” will allow for individualized customization.• One or more webinar sessions for participating faculty to

understand the blended format applied to the modified emporium model of the Algebra curriculum.

• Monthly webinars starting in Fall.

Assessment• Coordinator: Patsy Moskal

• IRB consultation• Assessment / Data Collection

• Centralized online form• Student perception • Student success• Course retention/withdrawal

Project Team Website• Central communications hub

• Schedule• Contacts• Proposal documents• Meeting recordings archives• Discussions• Events

Intellectual Property• Creative Commons

• Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license (CC BY-NC-SA)

• NOTE: Project materials produced by UCF/AASCU with NGLC funding will be “open.” However, the courses produced at each individual campus will be bound by their own institutional IP policies.

Blended Learning Toolkit

Now available: www.blendedlearningtoolkit.org

BlendKit2011

• Designed and facilitated by Kelvin Thompson• Generic instruction on blended course design and delivery• 5 week Quasi-MOOC (facilitated for grant)• Began 7/11/11• “Home Base”: http://bit.ly/blendkit2011

• Also accessible via the Blended Learning Toolkit under Faculty Development

= NGLC Institution= Non-NGLC Institution

NGLC Outcomes: Scale

• Fall 2011• 96 course sections• 2,661 students• 12 schools• 55 teachers• 46% low income

• Spring 2012• 62 course sections• 1,445 students• 12 schools• 36 teachers

NGLC Outcomes: The Student Experience

• Students in Fall sections surveyed

• 521 responses

• 84% freshmen

• 47% white/Caucasian

• 86% had never taken a blended course

• 66% had never taken a course using any web components

How satisfied were you with this blended course?

Series10

102030405060708090

100

9 8

2429 30

Per

cent

(n=520)

Very Dissatisfied

Somewhat Dissatisfied Neither Somewhat

SatisfiedVery

Satisfied

What did you like most about this blended course?

Series10

102030405060708090

100

35

8 5 5 5

Per

cent

(n=515)

Convenient InstructorEase of access

Easy to get help

Dual-learning

What did you like least about this blended course?

Series10

102030405060708090

100

9 9 8 7 7

Per

cent

(n=515)

Technology issues

Less teaching time

Lack of help

Time consuming

Poor time management

What advice would you give to a student new to blended courses?

Series10

102030405060708090

100

26

7 6 6 5

Per

cent

(n=515)

Stay on task Use tutoringReview on own time

AttendClass

Better time management

NGLC Outcomes: Student success• Define student success as A, B, C• Collect grades from each campus• Aggregate all data into one file• Maintain anonymity• Examine success by

• Low income• Discipline• Gender• Ethnicity

NGLC Outcomes: The Faculty Experience

• Faculty in Fall sections surveyed

• 28 responses

• 54% math, 32% English, 14% other

• 75% white/Caucasian

• 48% had taught a blended course

• 45% had taught a course using any web components

In the future, if you had a choice, would you consider teaching a course in the blended format?

Definitely

not

Probably not

Not sure Probably Definitely0

102030405060708090

100

07

24 21

48

Per

cent

(n=28)

What are the positive aspects of teaching a blended course?

Series10

102030405060708090

100

24 24 2110

3

Per

cent

(n=29)

Best of both worlds

IndividualizedInteraction

Better use of F2F time

Reduced contact hours

What are the negative aspects of teaching a blended course?

Series10

102030405060708090

100

2110 10 7 7

Per

cent

(n=29)

Less F2F time

Online assignments

Lack of preparation

Undisciplined students

Technology Issues

How has teaching this blended course changed your F2F teaching?

Series10

102030405060708090

100

21

7 3 3

Per

cent

(n=29)

Enrich technology Plan better

Differentiate between modes

Slow down F2F teaching

NGLC Evaluation Issues• Kindness of strangers for responses• Different contexts• Local buy-in unknown• Granularity of evaluation• No budget for site visits• Cross organization evaluation UCF-AASCU• Unable to assess learning outcomes• Diseconomy of scale

NGLC Evaluation Issues• Excessive resources for start up• Technology issues• Very short grant period• Blended learning – a boundary object• Difficult to remove obstacles over distance• Grant participation negotiated by provosts

Questions?

Follow Along…

@tbcavanagh

@Blendkit

www.blendedlearningtoolkit.org