Blended Learning From Design to Evaluation: International Case Studies of Evidence-Based Practice
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i3.1252Keywords:
blended learning, institutional vision, pedagogical framework, reflective practiceAbstract
This study compares and contrasts four international faculty development programs for blended learning in order to understand the benefits, challenges, lessons learned, and recommendations from such initiatives. The benefits identified for faculty members, who participated in these programs, were that they became more reflective of their teaching practice and began to make a role adjustment from being a content provider to a designer and facilitator of learning for students. The biggest challenge appeared to be a lack of common institutional definition and understanding of blended learning as well as a lack of time and resources to support faculty in the redesign of their courses. With regards to lessons learned, each program emphasized the need for all institutional stakeholders to be involved in supporting the initiative and that blended learning does not simply imply adding digital technologies to an existing face-to-face course. The key recommendation from this study is that a faculty development program for blended learning needs to be clearly aligned with the institution’s vision and mission.
References
Cher Ping. L., and Libing, W. (2016). Blended learning for quality higher education: Selected
case studies on implementation from Asia-Pacific. Bangkok, Thailand: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved online from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002468/246851E.pdf
EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. (2017). The 2017 key issues in teaching and learning.
Retrieved online from:
https://library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2017/2/eli7141.pdf
Garrison, D. R. (2016). Thinking collaboratively: Learning in a community of inquiry. London:
Routledge
Kenny, R.W. (1998). Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America's
Research Universities. Stony Brook, NY: University of New York at Stony
Brook.
KTH. (2017). KTH Vision 2027. Retrieved online from: https://www.kth.se/en/vision2027
Murray, J.P. (2002). Faculty Development in SACS – Accredited Community Colleges.
Community College Review, 29 (4), 50 – 66.
Picciano, A. G., Dziuban, C. D., Graham, C. R., & Moskal, P. D. (2016). Conducting research
in online and blended learning environments: New pedagogical frontiers. New York, NY: Routledge.
Picciano, A.G. (2009). Blending with purpose: The multimodal model. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 13 (1). Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium. pp. 7-18.
Porter, W. W., & Graham, C. R. (2016). Institutional drivers and barriers to faculty adoption of
blended learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 748-762. doi:10.1111/bjet.12269
Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. A., & Welch, K. R. (2014). Blended learning in
higher education: Institutional adoption and implementation. Computers & Education, 75, 185–195. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.011
Rice, R., Sorcinelli, M., & Austin, A. (2000). Heeding New Voices: Academic Careers
for a New Generation. Working Paper Inquiry #7. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
Siemens, G., & Dawson, S. (2015). Preparing for the digital university. Athabasca University.
Retrieved online from: http://linkresearchlab.org/PreparingDigitalUniversity.pdf
Sriarunrasme, J., Techataweewan, W.,Mebusaya, R.P. (2015). Blended learning supporting self-
directed learning and communication skills of Srinakharinwirot University’s first year students. Journal Social and Behavior Science. 197(2015) 1564-1569.
Trowler, P., Ashwin, P., & Saunders, M. (2014). The role of HEFCE in teaching and learning
enhancement: A review of evaluative evidence. Heslington York: The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved online from:
Twigg, C.A. (2003). Improving Quality and Reducing Costs: Designs for Effective
Learning. Change, 35 (4), 23 – 29.
University of Ottawa. (2017). Destination 20/20. Retrieved online from:
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.
Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions