Case Submission

SW
by sara wernikoff0 views·Updated Apr 2, 2022
Create your own

Chapters

Audio TranscriptAuto-generated

  1. Hello.
  2. My name is Sarah Warnock off and this is
  3. my case submission on evidence-based blended learning design.
  4. A synthesis of findings from four studies
  5. Data from four studies were collected over three
  6. years during a significant redesign course initiative.
  7. The study showed student learning perceptions
  8. under different blended learning conditions.
  9. The studies were conducted at a large scale urban and diverse Canadian University.
  10. The initiative came from the work of blended learning
  11. being done at the University of central florida.
  12. All participants volunteered for the study and had a prior questionnaire
  13. and records were obtained from the Register's office which included their G. P. A
  14. blended learning is the focus of online learning initiatives.
  15. The three commonalities of blended learning
  16. they found was learning and engagement,
  17. better experience and better use of class space.
  18. The four studies were designed to display blended
  19. learning outcomes for students learning perception and engagement.
  20. What was needed to be fulfilled in their research was not whether or not students
  21. benefited from blended blended learning but how
  22. blended learning works under various online conditions.
  23. The first study showed the relationship between student
  24. perception of their blended learning courses and satisfaction,
  25. convenience, engagement and performance.
  26. In study two researchers thought about the dominant question that is
  27. asked whether students prefer blended learning or face to face.
  28. Data was collected of time being spent online in
  29. a blended course compared to students perceptions and performance.
  30. There were four categories of course is low blend, which was 27% to 30% online.
  31. That included seven courses
  32. Medium blend which was 36% to 40% online and had three courses
  33. Hi Blend which was 50% online and had five courses
  34. And supplemental blend which was 100% face to face
  35. lectures and online Tutorial sessions which was five courses.
  36. In study three students perception of blended learning
  37. was compared to their interaction learning and satisfaction.
  38. It was divided into four blended models blend cl.
  39. T. W. Included class lectures, tutorials web enhanced
  40. and had regular in class lectures and tutorials
  41. blend. C. L. O. T. Class had class lectures online tutorials
  42. and had in class lectures with online class tutorials
  43. blend. O. L. C. T.
  44. Had asynchronous online lectures within class tutorials. Em blend. C. L. H. T.
  45. Had hybrid tutorials and in class lectures.
  46. The last study study for took the U. S.
  47. National Science Foundation and classified definition of stem and non stem
  48. courses and compare students perception and
  49. performance to this blended learning format
  50. with all the studies researchers found the commonality and
  51. organize it into three questions to drive their data.
  52. Their research questions were what instructional
  53. designs tend to enhance student performance.
  54. What instructional designs do students tend to prefer
  55. and what instructional designs tend to engage students more.
  56. The first research question on whether a specific
  57. blended course design where students perform better or
  58. or perceived that they perform better is as followed,
  59. students perceive that they learn better and blended
  60. courses compared to fully face to face classes.
  61. Study one shows a huge relationship between
  62. student perceptions and their course grade.
  63. Study two's results showed that students in high and
  64. medium plans outperform those in low and supplemental plans.
  65. In study three
  66. shows blend O. L.
  67. C. T. Was the most preferred blend model of study and blend. C. L. H. T.
  68. Was the least preferred
  69. in study four.
  70. It found that stem students outperformed non
  71. stem students on their final course grade
  72. findings on design and preference showed that students prefer
  73. blended learning overtures traditional face to face learning.
  74. The most appealing aspects of blended
  75. learning that researchers found were flexibility,
  76. reduced travel time,
  77. commuting cost savings and use of international students
  78. being able to participate in activities online.
  79. Most students that performed high in their grade prefer to
  80. take online or blended learning classes again in their future.
  81. However low performing students prefer to have in person classes.
  82. The last research question on engagement showed
  83. that students perform better and blended courses
  84. when they are engaged and when they
  85. have opportunities to interact with the content,
  86. peers and instructor
  87. data shows that high achieving students engaged more than others.
  88. However low performing students seem to feel they
  89. did not have enough opportunities to connect with their
  90. peers and instructor for guidance as they would
  91. have in traditional face to face class setting.
  92. Overall no blended learning class is going to be universal.
  93. As all students have different contributions they bring to the course.
  94. What is important to remember is that there are
  95. different blended varieties that appeal to different learners.