Issues and Practices

Ronald D. Owston, D. Randy Garrison, Kathryn Cook

here is a growing recognition and belief that the quality of higher education cannot be ensured by continuing with the current models of instructional de­sign and delivery. Extrapolating from current practices reveals a downward spiral of compromised quality due to larger classes and less interaction (Pocklington & Tupper, 2002). To compound this, university higher education faculty and ad­ministrators have resisted innovation and change in terms of adopting new meth­ods and technologies that, ironically, they have been instrumental in creating. Moreover, arguments about preserving the ideals of higher education as well as limited resources have fallaciously been used to resist change. Preserving the val­ues of higher education and limited resources, however, are the very reasons that we need to reconceptualize the teaching and learning transaction. Without doubt, the redesign approach with the most promise to maintain and enhance the ideals of higher education in a resource-restricted context is blended learning.

Canadian universities realize that they are vulnerable to global competition for the best faculty and students. A group of eight research intensive universities from across Canada, known as COHERE (Collaboration for Online Higher Education and Research), have recognized that communication and information technologies are a serious catalyst for change and the solution to the challenges facing them in order to be innovative and competitive. The COHERE institu­tions have begun to focus on blended learning and have taken the lead to understand the policy and practical implications of this approach and to promote

Blended Learning at Canadian Universities

its application. The theoretical and case study research reported here reveals the progress and challenges faced by most Canadian universities.

Blended Learning Rationale

On the surface, blended learning is an intuitively obvious design approach that combines the appropriate capabilities of both face-to-face and online learning to meet the particular needs of a course or program of studies. Educationally, blended learning has the potential to integrate immediate, spontaneous, and rich verbal communication with reflective, rigorous, and precise written commu­nication, as well as visually rich media and simulations. Such capabilities help meet the disciplinary demands and needs of learners in particular disciplinary contexts. Most important, the designation of a blended learning approach is reserved here for those (re)designs that are more than add-ons or enhancements of tradi­tional face-to-face classroom experiences. They will eventually represent signifi­cant redesigns where faculty consider disciplinary and student needs from a fresh perspective of communication technology as an enabler. Inevitably this means traditional class contact hours must be rethought and restructured with the integration of meaningful online access to information and reflective discourse.

We can attribute the great potential for blended learning in Canadian universities to the transformative potential of blended learning to support the traditional ideals and values of a higher education learning experience. Univer­sities are defined by their research as well as their inquiry approaches to teach­ing and learning. These approaches have been described in terms of the ideal community of inquiry comprising open and sustained discourse dedicated to developing competencies such as critical and creative thinking, written and verbal communication skills, and interpretive and evaluation abilities. However, this higher learning experience is seriously compromised with the persistent reliance on the lecture. The existing situation, in fact, is being made worse by increasing demands and expectations resulting from societal transformations and innovation of information and communication technologies.

Interaction is the key element and quality standard of a quality learning experience in higher education. Sustained interaction between and among faculty and students leading to knowledge construction and validation will require an opportunity to share and test ideas in a secure environment and with a manage­able number of students. Communication and Internet technology is not only capable of supporting and enhancing this engagement, but has the capacity to extend the learning experience to critically consider the technology itself and critically access and assess the virtually limitless information at one's fingertips.

The Handbook of Blended Learning

If Canadian universities are to remain relevant and competitive, they must embrace the reality that communication and information technologies are both the catalyst and solution to many of the quality and resource challenges they face.

While enhancing the quality of the learning experience must always be at the forefront for Canadian universities, this does not mean that costs can or will simply continue rising. Without technological innovation and redesign, there is a zero-sum game between quality and cost. Blended learning has the very real poten­tial of avoiding the false choice of having to decide between effectiveness and efficiency. The reason is that blended learning represents and necessitates a fundamental redesign of a course or program. It provides an opportunity to aban­don flawed approaches to teaching and learning, gives faculty the chance to play a more effective role, and demands less of classroom and laboratory facilities. There is considerable support for the cost-effectiveness of blended learning (Heterick & Twigg, 2003) and emerging evidence of improved student achieve­ment (see Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness, 2004). Not only are there higher completion rates, but both faculty and students gain considerable convenience. However, notwithstanding these early successes, considering the con­textual contingencies and complexities of implementing blended learning course redesigns, there is much to be learned institutionally, pedagogically, and techno­logically to advance blended learning in the Canadian context.

Pedagogically, an important contingency in designing blended learning is that inquiry approaches vary across disciplines. Differences in the nature and structure of knowledge across disciplines require specific thinking processes and skills. For example, the social sciences tend to be more inductive in terms of making sense of ill-defined knowledge, while the sciences tend to be more deductive in finding solutions to well-defined problems within accepted theories and laws (Donald, 2002). The flexibility of blended learning in being able to address the varying design needs is both a strength and challenge.

Blended learning in the Canadian university context will initially have its greatest impact on increasing effectiveness and efficiency with first-year high-enrollment and high-demand courses. The reason is that large lectures are not very effective at facilitating a quality (higher levels of learning) experience. More­over, first-year high-enrollment courses are often offered in multiple sections, which reduces efficiency. There are also high-demand courses that faculty cannot effectively offer in a large lecture format, and where blended approaches could expand enrollment. Considering that large enrollment courses are the foundation for more advanced courses, they are not particularly cost-effective in ensuring students are well prepared for advanced courses requiring deep understanding and critical thinking skills. Finally, because of generally recognized deficiencies of high-enrollment and -demand courses, there is a real opportunity to implement and innovate with blended approaches to learning.

Blended Learning at Canadian Universities

Another challenge is at the strategic and institutional level. Some of these challenges relate to policy, planning, resource, scheduling, and support issues (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004). Considering the decentralized nature of most large universities, institutional policy is essential to communicate priorities and provide the incentives, recognition, and rewards necessary to initiate and sustain action. An essential component of policy is to develop concrete operational plans that define specific goals and responsibilities. Financial, human, and technical resources must also be provided, although this can be modest, with a recommended grad­ual implementation plan. One major barrier for blended learning in many large universities is resistance to breaking with the traditional scheduling format, and this is a prime example of the need for operational plans that enable educators to move forward. Finally, faculty will need sustained support to reconceptualize how they approach and redesign their courses.

Blended Learning Practices at COHERE Universities

To increase our understanding of the policy and practical implications of blended learning, we conducted case studies of how blended learning is being implemented by instructors at COHERE member institutions (For full details on the study, read­ers are referred to https://www.yorku.ca/irlt/pubs.html/.) With the help of con­tact persons at each of the eight COHERE universities, we selected one blended learning course at each institution to study from a list of two to three courses nom­inated by the contacts. The criteria for nominating a course were that (1) online learning replaces some face-to-face time or classroom activities and (2) the instructor was willing to participate voluntarily. We made our final selection of the course to study from each institution by attempting to get a variety of acade­mic disciplines represented in the national sample. We then interviewed all eight instructors and asked them to invite their students to complete an anonymous on­line survey. The survey consisted of fourteen Likert items, six background ques­tions, and four open-ended questions. Table 24.1 lists the pseudonyms used for each university, a brief description of each blended learning course, the number of survey responses, the number of students enrolled, and the student response rates for the online survey.

How Instructors Blended Their Courses

The blended learning class studied at Albatross U is a third-year nutrition course with content at an advanced science level. The course consisted of traditional lectures twice a week and a one-hour tutorial; classroom time did not change

The Handbook of Blended Learning

TABLE 24.1. CASE STUDY DESCRIPTIONS AND SURVEY RESPONSE RATES.

compared to a traditional format. Online weekly group discussions were worth only 5 percent of the students' final grades; however, both students and the in­structor valued the online interaction. In addition, the instructor said that online participation helped students " get it" and that they seemed " more excited to come to class" because of prior exposure to the issues in the online discussions.

The introduction to computers course at Eagle U is a large-enrollment first-year university course that the instructor developed as a fully online course but has now converted to a blended format. Students can attend the weekly lectures in person, participate in the lecture real time over the Web using the collaborative software application HorizonLive, or watch the recorded lectures online for a lim­ited time. Students can choose to take the course fully online, but the option to at­tend face-to-face lectures or talk to the instructor during office hours was also available to them.

The instructor said the face-to-face contact was necessary for some first-year university students who need more direction, and that was the reason for chang­ing the course from fully online to a blended format. The instructor also said that the blended format improved " my capacity to deal with a lot more students... in a way that I get to know them well." In addition to their support and satisfaction

Blended Learning at Canadian Universities

with the discussion tool, students benefited because " the archived lectures help by allowing students to refer back to the lecture if they do not understand a con­cept." As another student wrote, being able to listen to the lecture more than once " is such an important point for the international student." Finally, this instructor was technically very skilled, and students enjoyed being " exposed to cool things." In addition, students appreciated that the blended format helped them " by applying their understanding of the technology."

The blended learning course in the Heron U case study was a large-enrollment first-year chemistry course. Students at Heron U could optionally attend face-to-face lectures in a five-hundred-seat hall and listen to e-lectures online. The e-lectures consisted of audio narration by the instructor and static screens with text and graphic formulas; the instructor recorded the e-lectures in a studio. Some of the lab assignments and all exams required face-to-face atten­dance by students. The instructor believed " that the justification for that [blended learning] was it would make scheduling a little easier." In other words, students' timetables had more flexibility if attendance at the lecture was not required. Although the instructor believed that the e-lectures " were just as effective as the [face-to-face] lecture, " the instructor was dissatisfied that the administration would offer only the blended version as an option. The instructor observed that " the university did not want to face the fact of, perhaps, parents saying, 'I didn't send my kid to university so that they could sit in front of the computer. They should be in front of a real lecturer.'" In addition, the instructor said, " in some ways I feel it [e-lectures] would probably be even more effective because the student actually is the participant."

The purpose of the Kingfisher U course was to familiarize third-year students with the main concepts, viewpoints, and research findings in the field of organi­zational communication. This large-enrollment course consisted of streamed audio and video lectures with accompanying slides using Mediasite Live. There were no face-to-face lectures, but there were mandatory tutorials one hour per week con­ducted by teaching assistants. The weekly online lecture was available for a lim­ited time. One of the benefits for the instructor with the blended format was that it was " a focusing technique for me." The instructor explained, " My lectur­ing now is much more coherent; that is, it is a one-hour piece. It's canned; it has to make sense." In addition, the instructor said, " I think it offers some choices to me professionally, but also to the department." However, the instructor recognized that teaching a course without being there—by using prerecorded lectures—was potentially controversial.

The U Nuthatch course was an upper-level class in contemporary feminist theories offered to about sixteen students. The instructor omitted one face-to-face lecture as compensation for student participation in online discussions, which

The Handbook of Blended Learning

accounted for 20 percent of their grade. The idea behind the online responses was to promote dialogue, but students had the option of submitting a response privately to the instructor if the subject was too personal. Although this course was mostly face-to-face, the students and instructor supported the online components very much. Most students valued the online discussions, and the instructor believed that the blended approach " raised the bar, and was good pedagogy." The only notable limitation for these students was their access to and familiarity with com­puters. However, the advantage of increased student interaction, students' improved computer skills, and more freedom for both students and the teacher justified the use of technology.

The Oriole U senior-level course examined current molecular techniques used to study plant development physiology. Students earned 50 percent of their course grade by completing a thesis proposal that they posted online. Groups of two to three students worked together on the thesis proposal, and each student com­mented on the other groups' proposals within the Angel course management system. The instructor reported many benefits with the blended format, and said, " It's absolutely the most satisfying teaching I do." However, both the instructor and the students indicated that the blended format took more time; for example, all but one student agreed with the statement on the online survey that this course required more time and effort. The instructor also acknowledged that answering the students' critiques " took me ages." In spite of the extra work, the thesis proposal and critique was a " thinking assignment" according to the instructor, where students were " learning how to critique, " and they were " very proud of how well they can do that."

The course at Redwing U introduced first-year university students to foun­dational studies in teamwork and communications; the course has been in the blended format since its inception about five years ago. Face-to-face classes alternated weekly with online conferencing, so the mix was half online and half face-to-face course activities. The instructor interviewed enjoyed the " flexibility of the blended learning model, " and said, " I absolutely love this course.... I feel like I'm always learning from students that are coming in." Recent institu­tional changes, as well as only just offering the course to students in a variety of different programs, may have had an impact on the range of responses from students. For example, technology students in previous years knew how to build a Web site before taking this course, but " now we have students coming in that are transferring to other programs that the only Internet experience that they've had is searching the Web or using e-mail, and they have no idea how to set up a Web site." Thus, the instructors were coming to grips with changes in students' backgrounds and the varying level of integration with other courses in the students' programs.

Blended Learning at Canadian Universities

A social work practicum seminar was the focus of Yellowlegs, the eighth university in our study. Students from three remote areas participated in both face-to-face and online discussions related to their field practice experiences in social work. Participation in the class discussions accounted for 40 percent of the course grade with 20 percent face-to-face and 20 percent online interaction. The course was thirty-six hours in total, with twelve hours devoted to online interaction and twenty-four hours to face-to-face activities. The main purpose for using blended learning in this case was to enable students to interact with their peers at a distance, where previously they could interact with peers only in their own practicum loca­tions. This blended learning course combined the advantages of distance learning for remote students with the benefits of reflection in asynchronous discussions for students who are beginning practitioners in social work, adding to the depth of interaction and range of experiences for students in this class. This case study was a particularly good marriage between face-to-face and online components and is well suited to the social work discipline, according to the instructor.

Technology Used in Courses

Five of the universities used WebCT to support the e-learning components of their blended learning courses. One university used Blackboard, another used Angel, and one developed an in-house course management system (CMS). Both Angel and Blackboard are competitive with WebCT, and all three are commer­cial products. Thus, all eight universities had some type of CMS. In addition, three instructors developed animated learning objects, and another instructor had on­line video demonstrations of the assignments. Two instructors used traditional Web sites to house course outlines, syllabi, assignments, and other course mate­rials and resources, in addition to the CMS. These instructors did this partly because they developed their Web sites before the university adopted a CMS, but also because the CMS did not provide the functionality they wanted. One tech­nically skilled instructor used server log files to track attendance and participation, as well as to script birthday announcements posted daily on the course home page. Finally, all but one instructor posted course documents and resources online, although the technology used ranged from static document files to streamed high-end audio and video presentations. The instructor who did not post any course documents online believed that it was simpler and safer for students to have that information in a printed source.

Eighty percent of all students disagreed that technology interfered with their learning, and this survey question had the least variation among the Canadian universities in this study. In addition, 77 percent of all students agreed that their course made excellent use of Web resources. Again, there was no statistically

The Handbook of Blended Learning

significant difference on this question among the eight universities, despite the wide variation in technologies used by instructors. Although there were a few open-ended comments by individual students about bandwidth, downtime, or incom­patibilities, these comments made up less than 6 percent of coded statements written by students. In general, technological problems did not trouble students very much, and no type of technology emerged as burdensome to students.

Online Pedagogy

Online discussions were a primary part of the e-learning components for five of the blended learning courses. Most instructors awarded 20 percent of the course grades for online discussion activities; however, one instructor awarded only 5 per­cent for online discussions. Five percent was probably not sufficient, and 42 percent of these students wrote that the online discussions were too much work for a small amount of credit. In addition, one instructor did not grade the online discussions, but participation in them was a component of a team presentation grade worth 30 percent. In addition to the use of online discussions, one university had online labs and online quizzes (17.5 percent of course work), and another had online thesis proposals worth 50 percent of the students' course grade. Only one instructor did not award any grades for online activities; nevertheless, the lectures for that course were available only online (no face-to-face lecture).

Encouraging higher-order thinking skills among students was a pedagogical goal mentioned by six of the instructors. Both students and instructors saw the online components as a means to encouraging critical thinking. Flexibility and freedom were also important goals for both students and teachers. Students were especially happy with the ability to schedule course work when it was convenient for them, and in the case of courses with online lectures, students liked being able to " fast-forward or rewind" the instructor. In addition, although there was wide variation in the elements that were blended, nearly 70 percent of all students agreed that the balance between face-to-face and e-learning components was about right. There were no statistically significant differences across universities on the survey item asking this question. Moreover, students appreciated the traditional values (such as face-to-face discussions) that the blended format supported. One student wrote, " I could work out the problems online, but if I had trouble there was always the face-to-face contact that could enhance my understanding."

Five instructors said that the online component of their course enabled them to get to know their students better than in a traditional face-to-face class, and they saw this as a major benefit of blended learning. In addition, all eight instructors enjoyed the blended format and said they would teach in that format again.

Blended Learning at Canadian Universities

Instructors mentioned other benefits of blended learning, such as being able to track students' progress more closely, having the opportunity to be creative, and a perception that students were learning more.

Instructor Challenges

The challenges facing the instructors were often dependent on the size of the class. Two instructors of large-enrollment lecture courses believed there was no realistic way to incorporate online discussions, yet another instructor of a large-enrollment first-year course did this quite successfully. A slight majority (55 per­cent) of all students agreed on the survey that it was easier to relate to other students' viewpoints than in a traditional class. However, there were strong sta­tistically significant differences [p =.000) in means across universities to the survey question that asked students if online interaction with other students contributed to their understanding of course materials. Interestingly, removing the two large-enrollment courses with the least amount of online student-student interaction from the ANOVA calculations reversed the results and produced no significant differences among the means (p =. 980). Approximately 72 percent of students in these remaining six universities agreed that online interaction with other students contributed to their understanding.

According to our survey, students who did not regularly see their professors (at Kingfisher and Heron, for example) and students whose instructors took a less active role in online discussions (at Yellowlegs and Redwing, for example) were significantly less likely to agree that the amount of online interaction with their instructor was appropriate. In other words, students were attentive to the amount and quality of interaction with their instructors as well as with their peers. Finally, the correlation coefficients between survey items about students' general satis­faction with their course and the amount of online and face-to-face interaction with other students were significant at the.01 level. Thus, the amount and qual­ity of interaction among students and with their instructors, whether online or face-to-face, was a statistically significant factor in students' overall satisfaction with their courses.

Finally, 57 percent of all students agreed that the blended learning format required more time and effort than traditional on-campus courses. However, there were statistically significant differences among the eight university means; for example, only 10 percent of students at Yellowlegs agreed the course took more time and effort, but 94 percent of students at Oriole agreed with this statement. All instructors said the blended learning format took more time and effort on their part, but none objected to the extra work or indicated they would abandon the blended learning model.

The Handbook of Blended Learning

Policy and Support

All of the instructors had access to some type of technical or teaching support at their university for their blended learning courses. However, five of the instruc­tors observed that their peers were not supporting their efforts with blended learn­ing; for example, when describing a technical problem, one instructor said, " It's disheartening, and my colleagues who can't get motivated to do things [with blended learning] just look at me and say, 'See! '" Even students wrote that their blended learning course " receives hardly any attention or funding from the university." Only three of the instructors were able to get some funding or release time to develop their blended learning courses. Such findings highlight the need for universities to continue to develop support policies.

Conclusions

Instructors blended their courses to put together a more flexible, efficient, acces­sible, and varied learning experience for their students. However, student satis­faction seems highly dependent on the level of interaction with instructors and other students. This is consistent with previous research (Swan, 2001). It strongly suggests that online interaction should be a core issue when designing blended learning courses, not only for student satisfaction but because both instructors and students saw online discussion as a means to encourage critical thinking and con­tribute to their understanding. This might also partially explain why some students viewed blended learning as requiring more time and effort. Finally, the success of online discussion in one large-enrollment class suggests that student interaction can enhance large-enrollment classes with proper design.

From an institutional perspective, it is essential that there be clear policy, direction, and support of blended learning if the positive benefits are to be real­ized. In addition, there must be incentives, such as release time, as well as recog­nition and rewards for creating innovative blended learning course designs. In other words, university administrators need to recognize this work as a scholarly activity. More specifically, administrators need to create an institutional action plan with the explicit and sustained commitment of senior administration. The plan should ramp up the redesign process by targeting a select few courses that will ensure success and provide the best exemplars and prototypes. Formal systematic and sustained design support is also a necessity. It is essential to study and evalu­ate progress and outcomes to not only improve the design but provide the infor­mation that will keep senior administration committed. A steering group of representatives across the institution may be essential to get buy-in and feedback in order to learn and adjust.

Blended Learning at Canadian Universities

Blended learning offers a thoughtful redesign of courses consistent with the traditional values of a university, such as engaging in interaction and discourse, as well as a means to address quality and diminishing resource issues. In the con­text of the challenges facing universities from a funding, expectation, and tech­nological perspective, there is a pressing need for change and leadership to reposition Canadian universities to remain competitive globally. Scholars must di­rect inquiry to teaching and learning as much as to research. The efforts reported here represent an exploration of new approaches and technologies to enhance the quality of the learning experience in Canadian universities. Such a thoughtful response will also be a sign of the creative and bold leadership that is required to meet the educational challenges of a society in transformation.

References

Donald, J. G. (2002). Learning to think: Disciplinary perspectives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative

potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105. Heterick, В., & Twigg, G. (2003, February). The learning marketspace. Retrieved December 5,

2003, from https://www.center.rpi.edu/LForum/LM/Feb03.html. Pocklington, Т., & Tupper, A. (2002). No place to learn: Why universities aren't working. Vancouver:

UBG Press. Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness. (2004). Distributed learning impact evaluation.

Retrieved June 30, 2004, from https://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~rite/impactevaluation.htm. Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and

perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306-331.

CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE