Ensuring quality in blended

Editor's Notes

• #2: With the increase in the diffusion of blended and online programming across higher educational institutions, stakeholders are looking for ways to ensure the quality of the student experience. Quality of blended programs can be ensured through faculty and instructional development and training, faculty and instructor evidence of competence and recognition for excellence, constructive evaluation and feedback on blended and online course design and delivery, and community-building opportunities among instructors and staff. Blended learning is becoming a prominent mode of programming and delivery in education. It is swiftly emerging and transforming higher education to better meet the needs of our students providing them with more effective learning experiences. This movement is leading to a renovation in the way courses are taught and programs support their students. Instructional and faculty development provides the core foundation to institutional programming in providing a framework for implementing blended and online learning pedagogy in the classroom. This student-centered, active learning pedagogy has the potential to alter the traditional classroom by enhancing course effectiveness through increased interactivity leading to superior student outcomes.A recent study reported that "Respondents ... anticipated that the number of students taking online courses will grow by 22.8% and that those taking blended courses will grow even more over the next 2 years" (Picciano, Seamen, Shea, & Swan, 2012, p. 128). As the demand for blended learning opportunities increases, so does the need for development of instructors to teach and design blended courses and mechanisms to ensure the quality of courses and programs. The University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee (UWM) has been providing instructional development and blended learning opportunities to students for over a decade. Since 2001, UWM has developed 8 blended degree programs. In the fall of 2012, UWM offered approximately 100 blended courses and enrolled 7,655 students (26%) in at least one blended course. The average age of a blended undergraduate student is 24, 23% are students of color, and 64% are from the Milwaukee metro area. UWM (2012) defines blended courses as "…courses where 20% or more of the traditional face-to-face classroom time is replaced by online assignments and activities. Students spend less time in the classroom and more time working and interacting online, providing greater flexibility regarding when and where coursework can be completed" (para 1). UWM continues to see growth, as the nation does, and continues to provide opportunities for students to best meet their needs.UWM's Learning Technology Center has several measures in place for ensuring quality in blended learning on campus, including:1. UWM's Faculty Development Program for Blended TeachingThe Learning Technology Center at UWM offers a program for blended teaching providing instructional development earning an international reputation in the field. The program guides the pedagogical design to move more didactic activities online while keeping tasks that require a richer media due to equivocality and uncertainty in the face-to-face (f2f) environment. This increases the capacity for mastery of content and of deeper learning outcomes. The program is delivered in a blended format with multiple face-to-face meetings and integrated online activities. The blended format allows instructors to experience blended learning and provides the facilitators the opportunity to model good pedagogical practices in the blended learning environment. The program includes presentations by experienced blended instructors, online and face-to-face discussions and group work, creation of course materials, and peer and facilitator feedback. As part of the program, participants begin to develop their blended courses, leaving with the draft of a syllabus, a redesign plan, a learning module, and an assessment plan (Aycock, Mangrich, Joosten, Russell, & Bergtrom, 2008). The model is currently shared through the faculty development program and is being used by hundreds of faculty, teaching academic staff, and teaching assistants across many disciplines, course levels, and course sizes, illustrating its ability to scale on UWM's campus and on other college campuses.2. Certificate Program for Online and Blended TeachingThe Certificate Program requires the delivery of an online or a blended credit course at UWM; provision of a brief (2-3 pages) letter of reflection on how the instructor's pedagogy has changed; and a course evaluation by the LTC staff or by a certified mentor/evaluator through a peer evaluation checklist. In addition to the Certificate Program, the Learning Technology Center offers ongoing evaluations of blended courses.3. The Online and Blended Teaching Users GroupThe Online and Blended Teaching Users Group meets monthly to discuss challenges, exchange ideas, and share best practices for teaching online, blended, and tech-enhanced courses. Each meeting typically features open discussions as well as brief presentations by experienced UWM instructors and opportunities for networking with other teachers on campus.Format of the WorkshopThis workshop will consist of a series of group activities (5-6 participants per group) that require individuals to brainstorm potential strategies and considerations for implementation requiring that they collectively use their expertise and experiences to develop 1) criteria, knowledge and skills, needed to teach online and blended 2) methods of facilitating and delivering a faculty and instructional development program that would build these knowledge and skills 3) an evaluation instrument that would include the criteria outline in #1 4) a scalable process to implement such an evaluation 5) methods to illustrate instructor competence to others and in their tenure review, and 6) mechanisms that will provide support and community to all those involved in blended and online programming. After each group completes their activity, they will report out their group products to the larger group in order to share and gather feedback. After each activity, the UWM team will share their own considerations and examples in ensuring quality in these areas. These group activities will be documented (text, images, video) through collaborative web spaces and social media to be shared with those beyond the conference session as an open education resource on ensuring quality in blended and online courses.
• #3: ScheduleAgenda8:30 - 9:00 Welcome to session Intro presentation of UWMLTC, stats of blended and online at UWM, history of blended at UWM (Tanya)Introduction of LTC folks (Dylan, Nicole, Gerry, Matt, Bara?, Megan?, Tanya) 9:00 - 9:15 Introduction to Activity (Dylan)9:15 - 10:00 Break out (Answer 3 questions in groups)10:00-10:30 Break10:30-11:00 Question 1 Report out, LTC summary of UWM faculty incentives and awareness efforts (last 5 minutes) (Tanya)11:00-11:30 Question 2 Report out, LTC summary of UWM faculty development and support efforts (last 5 minutes) (Dylan)11:30-12:00 Question 3 Report out, LTC summary of UWM evaluation efforts (last 5 minutes) (Nicole)
• #10: “Overall, 36 percent of schools offer at least one blended program” (Allen, Seaman, & Garrett, 2007, p. 36)“Respondents…anticipated that the number of students taking online courses will grow by 22.8% and that those taking blended courses will grow even more over the next 2 years” (Picciano, Seamen, Shea, & Swan, 2012, p. 128). Colleges are delving into blended learning and many experts believe that there will be further movement to blended classes (PEW Internet, Future of Higher Education report, Anderson, Boyles, & Rainie, July 27th, 2012).  
• #11: Many grant funding agencies have identified the potential benefits and are supporting the move to blended learning in higher education.  For example, the Sloan Consortium Localness initiative and the Gates Foundation’s Next Generation Learning Challenges have and are supporting numerous universities and colleges ability to support blended learning opportunities. There is an increased commitment to blended learning efforts based on the benefits and potential identified.
• #14: The Sloan-C 2005 Workshop on Blended Learning adopted what has become a canonical definition of blended courses: first, that blended courses are designed to integrate face-to-face and online work in a pedagogically effective manner; and second, that the face-to-face time of a blended course is reduced to be replaced by online learning activities. Thus, a blended course is NOT merely a course with a Web site, which is usually termed a Web-enhanced course. A blended course is NOT a fully online course, because at least some seat time is retained. A blended course is NOT a course in which online activities have been merely added to face-to-face activities, because the two modes of learning must enhance and elaborate one another, instead of operating in parallel but having no points of contact.
• #18: Blended course definitions: A Pedagogical Model
• #21: The growing interest in blended learning and an increasing number of blended learning initiatives undertaken on campuses is due, in part, to instructors implementation of the blended model in order to take advantage of the pedagogical rewards in using two mediums, online and face-to-face (Godambe, Picciano, Schroeder, & Schweber, 2004), which includes the opportunity to make student learning more active. For example, Kaleta, Skibba, and Joosten (2007) describe that “faculty decided to try the hybrid model because of the many teaching and learning benefits…including the ability to provide more ‘active learning’ and ‘engage’ students by using technology” (p. 136). Other often cited reasons for the increased interest in blended learning relates to opportunities for improving student learning and success (Dziuban, Hartman, & Moskal, 2004), increasing student satisfaction (Dziuban & Moskal, 2001), and increasing retention and access (Picciano, 2006). For instance, Picciano (2006) explains that “well-designed blended learning environments have the potential of increasing access to a higher education because they improve retention” (p. 100).
• #24: It is critical that institution leadership support the effort – at all levels.  The effort must be part of the strategic agenda, adequate resources allocated or a revenue stream identified, messaging that consistently re-enforces the commitment. Without that support engaging the larger academic community will be challenging and once engaged, resources to follow-through with support may disappear in the absence of administrative commitment.
• #28: It is critical that institution leadership support the effort – at all levels.  The effort must be part of the strategic agenda, adequate resources allocated or a revenue stream identified, messaging that consistently re-enforces the commitment. Without that support engaging the larger academic community will be challenging and once engaged, resources to follow-through with support may disappear in the absence of administrative commitment.
• #34: Encouraging Faculty Engagement with Innovative Research and TeachingEndorsed by the Information Technology Policy Committee, May 13, 2011 New technological developments are transforming the practice of research, teaching, and administration around the University, and the ways in which we fulfill our mission in the discovery and dissemination of knowledge. Working to lead, rather than lag, in our adoption of new approaches and techniques will benefit the quality of our work, the reputation of our institution, and our ability to recruit the finest faculty, staff, and students. The Digital Future working groups convened by the Provost seek to assist UWM faculty, students, and staff in making use of recent innovations in research, teaching, and administration. The forward-looking aspects of their work should also help the University to respond with agility to future technological developments. The Information Technology Policy Committee encourages divisions and individual departments to ensure that their tenure, promotion, and merit processes value innovative forms of publication, research, and teaching, such as: • open-access, online, and other novel forms of research publication • research sharing with colleagues, students, and the public via blogging and other online tools • telematic and virtual-world participation in conferences and other research and scholarly activities • creation of and participation in interdisciplinary research working groups • the development of novel digital tools for teaching and learning, including integration of social media in the classroom and mobile e-learning tools • participation in professional development activities targeted towards the development of new online and blended courses, and the optimization of existing courses for online delivery The ITPC encourages divisional committees and departments to view such activities as meaningful contributions to the overall balance of research, teaching, and service performed by faculty. The committee urges the University as a whole to look for opportunities to incentivize faculty and staff professional development leading to innovative engagement with technology and its use in research, teaching, learning, and administration.
• #36: Welcome to the second presentation in our train-the-trainer series. In this presentation we will examine the purpose, format, and outcomes of our faculty blended course redesign development program.
• #41: Six main outcomes are highlighted as central to the faculty development program.  First, faculty start with concrete development of both broad-perspective elements of their new course, such as a course redesign plan and a syllabus, and the development of more specific features of the course such as learning modules. This is especially appropriate in disciplines or areas where “learning modules” are not typically the unit of course redesign, thus requiring faculty to re-examine their conceptual basis for instruction from the bottom up.  Second, faculty must acquire new teaching skills and knowledge appropriate to a blended learning frame, such as how to facilitate a peer learning community both face-to-face and online, and how to assess student learning in a manner that is quite distinct from the usual “three exams and a term paper” of a traditional face-to-face course. In the latter context, it is important to note that faculty are often committed to the use of summative assessments such as exams and term papers without ever having questioned previously their efficacy. The prospect of a blended course redesign thus holds out the possibility of a paradigm shift from modes of instruction that once seemed satisfactory to a model of teaching and learning that problematizes everything that has once been taken for granted. This is a source of considerable skepticism and anxiety for faculty who have been teaching for many years in a more traditional manner, often unreflectively.
• #42: http://professorjoosten.blogspot.com/2013/05/10-key-questions-for-online-and-blended.html
• #49: Nicole—faculty are given resources on our website and by consultation to ensure quality when planning their blended course. We offer planning materials (e.g., checklists, handbooks), faculty development program for transforming courses into the blended format, and certification.Tanya – I can discuss the idea of lifecycle of evaluation and the evaluation checklist development and use
• #50: Nicole: A course evaluation is not a judgment; it is a recognition and an acknowledgement of work in progress. The purposes of peer course evaluation are to highlight the positive qualities of an instructor’s design, and to offer suggestions for future improvement. This evaluation can be used before the course has run (e.g., to evaluate design) and/or after to reflect on the course. Used for peer evaluation by department colleague, LTC, or self. Step 1: Exploring the course overview materialsStep 2: Addressing the key parameters of evaluation (I. Learner support and resources;II. Organization of course materials;III. Instructional design and delivery;IV. Effective use of the online environment ;V. Assessment of student learning and course evaluation;VI. Comments and suggestions not included above)Step 3: Evaluating the key parameters of online/blended course designSample formats and timelinesTanya - Again, I can explain how it came into development, if time
• #52: Nicole—using student evaluation data to ensure course quality. Students have firsthand knowledge of the course that was provided and often have taken other blended courses. Two ways of gathering student perceptions regarding the course is through mid-semester feedback (as pictured) and at the end of the semester. Tanya - I can talk about using CATs as a way to guage course improvements needed
• #53: Nicole—The certificate programs allows us to transform the culture of our campus to promote online and blended learning, to emphasize the importance of quality teaching and sound pedagogy, and to create a community of online teachers. Components: successful completion of OBTP, delivery of a blended course at UWM, peer course evaluation by LTC staff and/or peer mentor/evaluator, 2-3 page reflection on how the instructor’s pedagogy has changed, and “paying it forward” (e.g., guidance on the listserv, syllabus added to resource repository). Over 70 faculty and instructors have been awarded the certificate represented in the Colleges of Letters and Science, Peck School of the Arts, School of Education, College of Nursing, School of Information Studies, Lubar School of Business,  and College of Health SciencesTanya – I can discuss how the certificate program came to be and philosophical debates around its development