One of the most exciting times for a researcher (I think) is beginning to analyze data. At this stage, you get a first peek into what your research is finding and hints at what broader patterns may be uncovered. We’re at that stage in EDLI’s blended courses grant.
Blended courses, or those that take place online and in-person, are becoming more frequent across universities (Carlton, 2023). EDLI’s blended courses grant explores how blended learning environments impact student learning in STEM disciplines. As our previous blog shared, we’re using many methods to collect data, analyze the results, and explore impacts.
This blog will dive into some of the results of these observations and initial takeaways for blended courses.
What We’re Learning
So far, the 20+ observations the EDLI team has conducted have revealed five different insights about blended courses:
1. Student interaction is a priority.
Instructors use a diversity of formats in-class (e.g., lecture, individual work, group projects, all-class discussion), but all instructors promote student interaction whether through group work or class discussions. So far, only one course was found to have a 100% of the course period spent on instructor lecture.
2. Students engage similarly – whether online or in-person.
Online and in-person students engage the same way, but vary in how often they engage. Students will engage with both peers (e.g., co-work on assignments) and instructors (e.g., answer questions), regardless of how they attend. For instance, while both groups of students asked their instructors questions, in-person students would verbally ask while online students would often ask via the online chat feature. The frequency of engagement also differed; students online engaged in these behaviors less often, with one noticeable exception – posting a Zoom or Teams chat.
3. Instructors adapt to technology challenges.
There is a big range of technology in the classroom, often depending most on the building and specific room the course takes place in. For example, classrooms with speakers and student microphones in the ceiling were less common. Instructor microphones, however, were frequently seen across courses. Despite any limitations, instructors creatively adapt to technology challenges. Sometimes, they did this by choosing platforms that were easier to use or offered different functionality. For instance, while instructors commonly used Zoom and Google Drive, Microsoft Teams was only used in a handful of courses.
4. Instructors are more visible online than students.
Instructors have a larger online presence than students. Students mainly engage online via discussion boards, while instructors engage in more diverse ways and more frequently online. For example, instructors post “about me” pages that introduce themselves to the class.
5. Students are digital tech savvy.
Students fluidly navigate digital tools, technologies, and in-person/online work. They are prepared in-class with technology–most every student had a laptop in-class that they used to engage. Additionally, students worked on the course tools and actively engaged in digital tools and resources during class. For instance, they would follow along with the lecture using slides pulled up on their screens. Lastly, students did not have big technical issues in class and could navigate small issues as they arose, such as using headphones to avoid feedback when talking to online students in class.
What does this mean?
Looking at the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison et al, 2010; Szeto, 2015) that informed this research, we can see some interesting patterns emerging. The CoI framework is a tool for designing, evaluating, and understanding online and blended courses (Figure 1). It considers three aspects of a course: cognitive (engagement with content), teaching (engagement re: goals & direction), and social (engagement with others).
The initial observations are revealing an emphasis on cognitive and teaching engagement, but room to grow in social engagement. Cognitive-wise, instructors offer ample opportunities to engage with the content in multiple formats, and students have engaged in the format(s) that work best for them. Teaching-wise, instructors’ promote engagement through in-person and online forums, and students engage in them regardless of the modality. However, social-wise, students have low engagement with others, especially across modalities. In-person students interact more with in-person peers, but in-person students and online students interact less often.
This reveals an opportunity for blended course instructors to increase student engagement with others regardless of whether attending online or in-person. As this project continues, EDLI will be able to look into this trend further and learn what instructors are doing as potential solutions.
Outcomes
The tools used to collect these data (the course observation protocol) and to share out initial results with instructors (the observation report template) are both freely available to view and download on EDLI’s Knowledge Commons page.
References
Carlton, G. (2023). By The Numbers: The Rise Of Online Learning In The U.S. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/personal-finance/online-learning-stats
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The internet and higher education, 13(1-2), 5-9.
Szeto, E. (2015). Community of Inquiry as an instructional approach: What effects of teaching, social and cognitive presences are there in blended synchronous learning and teaching? Computers & Education, 81, 191-201.