1

Large Classes and Blended Learning: What Makes It Work

Mark A. Laumakis, Ph.D.

San Diego State University

Lecturer, Department of Psychology

Faculty in Residence, Instructional Technology Services

laumakis@sciences.sdsu.edu

2

What I Teach: Mega Courses

• Two 500-student sections of Psychology 101 (Introductory Psychology)– One fully face-to-face (traditional)– One in a blended learning format (45% online)

3

Setting the Stage

• Spent Summer 2006 redesigning Psych 101 for a blended learning format– Blended learning integrates online and face-to-face

activities in a planned, pedagogically valuable manner (Sloan-C Workshop on Blended Learning, 2005)

• Utilized fundamental principles of instructional design

• Employed scholarship of teaching approach

4

• Extensive use of CPS clickers– ConceptCheck questions– Attendance– Demonstrations– Anonymous polling– Predicting outcomes– Peer instruction (Mazur)

• Extensive use of multimedia– Videos, demonstrations, and simulations from text

and web

Face-to-Face Classes

5

Clicker ConceptCheck Question

6

Clicker Results Chart

77

Clicker Data: Spring 2008

Question % Agree or Strongly

Agree

Class clicker usage makes me more likely to attend class. 92%

Class clicker usage helps me to feel more involved in class. 84%

Class clicker usage makes it more likely for me to respond to a question from the professor.

92%

I understand why my professor is using clickers in this course. 94%

My professor asks clicker questions which are important to my learning.

92%

8

Online Sessions

• Delivered via Wimba Live Classroom• Live sessions were archived for later

viewing• Sessions included

– Mini-lectures– Demonstrations– Polling questions– Feedback at the end of each session via

polling questions

9

Wimba Live Classroom Interface

10

Polling Question in Live Classroom

11

Review of Key Tools

Face-to-Face Classes

• PowerPoint

• CPS clickers

• Tablet PC

Online Sessions

• Wimba Live Classroom

12

Fall 2006-Spring 2007 Evaluation

• Evaluation led by Marcie Bober, Ph.D. (Educational Technology)

• Efforts supported by Academic Affairs, Instructional Technology Services, and College of Sciences

• Initial evaluation is part of ongoing evaluation process– Course (re)design is an iterative process– Focus on continuous improvement

13

Evaluation Tools and Strategies

• Multimethod approach included the following:

1. Week 7 “How’s It Going?” Online Survey2. In-class Observations3. IDEA Diagnostic Survey4. Student Focus Groups5. Departmental Course Evaluations6. Course Grades

14

Evaluation Findings: IDEA Diagnostic Survey

15

Evaluation Findings: IDEA Diagnostic Survey

Fall 2006 Blended

Fall 2006 Traditional

Spring 2007

Blended

Spring 2007

Traditional

Progress on objectives

70 73 77 77

Excellent teacher

65 68 69 68

Excellent course

62 72 73 71

Note: Top 10% = 63 or more

16

Evaluation Findings:Departmental Course Evaluations

17

Evaluation Findings: Fall 2006 Course Grades

Fall 2006 Grade Distribution

43

8.1

13.5

14.7

35.3

7.9

7.5

33.4

32.9

3.7

0 10 20 30 40 50

F

D

C

B

A

Gra

de

% in Category

Fall 2006 Blended

Fall 2006 Traditional

18

Evaluation Findings: Spring 2007 Course Grades

10.8

13.7

31.7

34.6

9.3

13.6

14.8

28.4

33.6

9.6

0 10 20 30 40

F

D

C

B

A

Gra

de

% in Category

Spring 2007 Blended

Spring 2007 Traditional

19

Evaluation Findings: Course Grades Fall/Spring Combined

8.7

10.8

32.6

38.8

8.7

13.6

14.8

31.9

33.3

6.7

0 10 20 30 40 50

F

D

C

B

A

Gra

de

% in Category

Blended

Traditional

20

Evaluation Findings: Fall 2007 Course Grades

Fall 2007 Course Grades

12.8

15

34.6

35.8

3.9

15

12.1

33.1

31

8.9

0 10 20 30 40

F

D

C

B

A

Gra

de

% in Category

Blended

Traditional

21

Evaluation Findings: Spring 2008 Course Grades

Spring 2008 Course Grades

14%

13%

29%

32%

13%

16%

28%

13%

30%

14%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

F

D

C

B

A

Gra

de

% in Category

Blended

Traditional

22

Summary of Course Grade Data

Traditional vs. Blended Learning Course Grades:Fall 2006 through Spring 2008

(traditional n= 1941, blended learning n = 1981)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Course Grade

% in

Ca

teg

ory

F2F

BL

F2F 8.48% 36.17% 31.96% 12.51% 10.89%

BL 8.64% 30.98% 31.36% 14.57% 14.46%

A B C D F

2323

The Learning Continuum

20% 40% 60% 80%

EntirelyOn-lineClasses

ConventionalFace-to-Face

Classes

2424

Blended Learning = “The Sweet Spot”

20% 40% 60% 80%

EntirelyOn-lineClasses

ConventionalFace-to-Face

Classes“The Sweet Spot”

25

What’s the Latest?

• Introduction of more blended learning courses at SDSU– Students now seek out the blended learning section

• Continued evolution of online sessions– Less lecture– More demonstrations, simulations, and polling questions

• Fully online Psych 101 course in Summer 2008– Course enrollment of 66 students vs. average of 46 in previous 5

years (traditional face-to-face course)– D/F rate dropped from 14.1% to 11.0%

26

Lessons Learned

• Yes, you can do blended learning in a mega course!• Course redesign takes time and effort• Support is key• Moving to blended learning format does NOT mean

moving your face-to-face course online– You must change the way you teach

• Provide rationale to students– Why you’re doing what you’re doing

• Predict problems with technology