Blended is inseparable!

I am enjoying the Quality Matters (QM) webinars and information! The course design elements and helpful information is giving me many ideas for the BIT 295 course I am designing. Steven R. Crawford, Ed.D. presented a session earlier this month about the considerations for flipped and blended course design. Crawford had a wonderful slide with two images: a metal bolt and paints & blended colors. Crawford used this to emphasize that blended is not simply bolting content in an online learning environment. Blended learning mixes online an in-person interactions in a way that they are interwoven and interdependent. The image of blended colors was really helpful. Crawford described the history of flipped or “inverted” classrooms. I didn’t realize it started with a business school and VHS tapes that students watched before a group discussion in a classroom. Crawford also noted that circa 2007, the virtual classroom had rooms with monitors and students would connect remotely via video… The example provided was students on an aircraft carrier interacting with classrooms and students via a video connection. However, Crawford mentioned that this model was difficult to “bring to the student’s home” because of the infrastructure requirements for video interactions. One of the goals was to bring education to rural environments.

Crawford then engaged the audience to mention in the chat examples of asynchronous learning. Several of the terms mentioned I had not considered as asynchronous examples. The list included discussion forums, collaborative writing, video lectures, papers, assessments, virtual field trips, project-based learning, quizzes, peer reviews, and simulations. Crawford mentioned that asynchronous learning was the predominant modality prior to the pandemic. The next slide requested examples of synchronous learning, and the audience mentioned guest speakers (Q&A), debates, role play, polling, games, mini-lectures, study groups, office hours, presentations, coaching, problem-solving activities… and applied learning (labs!). Crawford then described formative assessments as practice or low-stakes assessments often for low or no grades and maybe multiple attempts. Crawford described formative assessments as “Where are you… ” gauge. Then, the Quality Matters Specific Review Standards related to blended learning were shown: there are four that focus mostly on clarify of information and course structure. The concept of reduction of seat time was new to me: we’ve been discussing classroom time and homework time for a couple of weeks now. The tables Crawford presented were really helpful! A traditional face-to-face 3-credit hour course may have 3 hours of class time and an expectation of 6 hours of homework time. A blended 3-credit hour course with a 33% reduced seat time) may have 2 hours of classroom time, 6 of homework and 1 of online time (maybe a recorded series o mini-lectures, for example. A comparison of synchronous and asynchronous time in which 2 synchronous time and 7 of asynchronous time creates a 3-credit hour course with 9 hours of total time and a 33% reduced synchronous time. I find this super interesting! I am planning on designing BIT 295 to be blended, and this information helps me plan the time better.

Crawford approaches synchronous time by first including pre-class preparation (asynchronous), class time (in-person, video conferencing), and a post-class wrap-up or reflection (again asynchronous). With help of a diagram depicting the flow between asynchronous and synchronous, Crawford emphasize how things come together. This is also a great way to implement case studies by providing important background as pre-class asynchronous work, challenging groups with a case study, and then doing individual reflections after the in-person session. Crawford suggested using knowledge quizzes to make sure students come prepared. Using a course planning chart with class, topic, pre-class activity, synchronous activity, and assignment deadline columns, Crawford discussed how you can plan and prepare for a synchronous activity. Communicating the structure of the course to students was emphasized and something I have to work on. Crawford described how declining enrollments and changing student needs will make online and blended opportunities more popular and that we should “meet students where they are.” One question asked was how do you hold students accountable for the pre-class work. Crawford mentioned the “ticket in concept” that requires students to come to class with information. Importantly, Crawford stressed that instructors would emphasize the importance of the pre-class work and set clear expectations. One last suggestion Crawford offered was communicating (early and frequently, particularly in 8-week courses!) to students that this is, for example, a 3-credit hour course with this amount of time that needs to be spent on classwork. I need to start doing this! The QM Standards come in by making sure the structure of the course is clearly communicated to students and instructors have a solid active learning plan. More than a checklist, QM provides a framework that allows instructor creativity while promoting student access!

White canvas with several paints blended together. Colors include orange, red, yellow, and purple.
Blended course design often interweaves synchronous and asynchronous learning opportunities. How can I use it effectively for a 200-level course-based research experience? Photo by Free Creative Stuff on Pexels.com