August 30, 2014

A new MOOC on how to do blended learning

Listen with webReader

UCF BlendKit

Kelly, R. (2014) EDUCAUSE and UCF launching blended learning MOOC Campus Technology, 3 April

EDUCAUSE and the University of Central Florida are offering a free MOOC called ‘BlendKit2014 – Becoming a Blended Learning Designer‘, which will run initially from April 21 to May 27.

It is aimed primarily at faculty and instructional designers, will come away with best practices for developing design documents, content pages and peer review feedback tools. In particular it will offer:

  1.  a consideration of key issues related to blended learning and
  2. practical step-by-step guidance in producing materials for a blended course (e.g., developing design documents, creating content pages, and receiving peer review feedback at one’s own institution).

The course was developed and will be taught by two staff members from the UCF Center for Distributed Learning: associate director Kelvin Thompson and department head Linda Futch.

Participants may also choose to pursue an official “UCF/EDUCAUSE Certified Blended Learning Designer” credential. Those who choose this more rigorous option will submit the materials they develop as part of the free MOOC for a portfolio review. This portfolio review is available for a  US$89 fee.

Registration for BlendKit 2014 is open on Canvas Network for the class that begins April 21. Details can be found at www.canvas.net and on Twitter at #BlendKit2014.

It should be noted that UCF has a great deal of experience in this field, having offered blended and fully online courses for many years.

 

 

Teaching assistants, adjunct faculty and online learning

Listen with webReader

Lecture to hybridI am struggling these days with the issue of who should teach online courses, in terms of qualifications and status, and in particular, the issue of how to scale up credit-based online courses while maintaining or improving quality.

These questions are coming to the forefront because, through blended learning, practices that are common in face-to-face teaching come head to head with quite different practices in online learning.

What has made this an issue for me

Recently I’ve been involved in assessing proposals for funding for large-enrollment online credit courses. Most of the proposals have focused on using several/many teaching assistants working under a professor to provide the learning support. I’m also finding this model being increasingly used where institutions are moving to a hybrid model, combining both online and face-to-face components, especially where a former very large lecture-based course is being redesigned for hybrid learning. Even including the TAs, the instructor/student ratio is often 1:100 or higher for these large enrollment courses (in other words, the same ratio more or less as when the course was delivered solely through large lectures.) In the proposals, and in the reports I am receiving, there is usually no additional training for TAs about how to teach online, although in many – but by no means all – cases, they do get some kind of training in teaching face-to-face.

This is a problem for me, because I have always worked with a model for online courses where the instructor: student ratio has been under 40 for undergraduate courses, and under 30 for graduate courses. Scaling up has been handled by hiring on contract additional part-time adjunct or associate professors, either with a doctoral degree in the subject area, or with strongly related work experience. The adjuncts would be paid to take a short online briefing course on teaching online which sets out the expectations for online teaching. This was an affordable model because the additional student tuition fees would more than cover the cost of hiring additional contract instructors, once the course was developed.

However, this has been possible because most of the online courses I have been responsible for have been aimed mainly at higher level undergraduate students or graduate students. With both blended and online courses now being targeted at large first and second year classes, new models are being developed that I fear will not have the same level of quality as the ‘best practice’ online courses I have been working with.

Why this is not an easy issue for me

This is a particularly difficult issue for me to discuss for several reasons:

  • most of my experience is with fully online courses; when I have taught face-to-face, it’s usually been me on my own, and generally with relatively small groups of between 25 to 200 maximum
  • practices both for dealing with large face-to-face classes and with online classes vary considerably within each form of delivery, and from one institution to another, so making generalizations is fraught with danger
  • decisions about whether to use teaching assistants or part-time, contract instructors, are driven more by financial considerations than by best pedagogical practice, although institutions do their best to make it as effective educationally as possible once a model for TAs and/or adjuncts has been decided on
  • there are other factors at work besides money and pedagogy in the use of teaching assistants and adjunct faculty, such as the desire to provide financial support to international and graduate students, the idea of apprenticeship in teaching, and the supply and demand effects on the employment of doctoral graduates seeking a career in university teaching and research
  • there is no golden mean for instructor/student ratios in either blended or online learning. In the mainly quantitative/STEM subjects, much higher ratios are sustainable without the loss of quality, through the use of automated marking and feedback
  • MOOCs (rightly or wrongly) are giving the impression that it is possible to scale up even credit-based online learning at lower cost.

What follows then is tentative, and I’m ready to change my views especially on the evidence of others who have grappled with this issue.

My concern

My real concern is that the over-reliance on teaching assistants for online and blended courses will have three negative consequences for both students and online learning in general:

  • As with the large face-to-face classes, the pedagogy for online or blended courses will resort more to information transmission.
  • however, for the online or hybrid courses, student drop-out and dissatisfaction will increase because, especially in first and second year teaching, they will not get the learning support they need when studying online.  As a result, faculty and students will claim that online learning is inferior to classroom-based instruction
  • faculty will see online learning and blended learning being used by administrations to cut costs and over time to reduce the employment of tenured faculty, and will therefore try to block its implementation.

Why can’t TAs provide the support needed online if they can do this for face-to-face classes? First, I’m not sure they do provide adequate support for students in large first year classes, but I’m not in a position to judge. But in online courses in subject domains where discussion is important, where qualitative judgements and decisions have to be made by students and instructors, where knowledge needs to be developed and structured, in other words in any field where the learning requires more than the transmission and repetition of information, then students need to be able to interact with an instructor that has a deep understanding of the subject area. For this reason, I am more than happy to hire adjunct faculty to teach online, but not TAs in general (although there will always be exceptions). Furthermore this kind of teaching and learning (‘the learning that matters most’) is very difficult to do with a very large instructor/student ratio, although with good design and faculty training, we could possibly push numbers higher than 1/40.

One possible solution

I’m not sure there is an easy solution to this problem. Whether online or face-to-face, large numbers of students per instructor limits what is possible pedagogically.

Furthermore, in my view online learning works better for some kinds of students than others. Students in their first year of university or college are not the best target group. They are often young, have little experience of independent learning, lack confidence or discipline in their study habits, and indeed expect to be in a face-to-face teaching environment and want the social and cultural milieu that a campus provides. What we should be doing though in their first and second year is gradually introducing them to online components so that they slowly develop the discipline and skills required for successful online learning. This still doesn’t resolve the issue though of very large classes.

So here’s my suggestion for these large introductory courses of 1,000 students or more (this is not new – see the National Center for Academic Transformation‘s course redesign):

  • create a team to design, develop and deliver the course. The team will include a senior professor, several adjunct professors, and two or three TAs, plus an instructional designer and web/multimedia designer.
  • The senior professor acts as a teaching consultant, responsible for the overall design of the course, hiring and supervising the work of the adjuncts/TAs, and the assessment strategy/questions and rubrics. This though is done in consultation with the rest of the team.
  • Most content is provided online.
  • Students work in groups of 30, and each of the adjuncts is responsible for several student groups. Students do both individual and group work (e.g. projects, problem-solving),
  • Students participate in ongoing online discussion forums, under the moderation of an adjunct or TA
  • The senior professor meets for one hour a week three times face-to-face or synchronously with  a group of 30 students; this brings the professor in face-to-face contact with just over 1,000 students a semester; adjuncts where possible meet once a week with a group on campus or synchronously.
  • Adjuncts and TAs mark assignments, and the senior professor monitors/calibrates the marking between instructors
  • Now think of what could happen if this course was shared with other universities. Savings could be made on course development, but the delivery of the course would still need instructors at the other universities. So there would be some economies of scale from sharing, but not a very large saving, because the development cost is a small proportion of the overall cost. This does not mean that institutions shouldn’t co-operate and share resources, but this will not bring the large economies of scale that are often claimed for sharing online courses.

Whatever detailed design is done, these large courses should have a clear business model to work with, which basically provides an overall budget for the course, that includes the cost of tenure track and adjunct faculty and TAs, and takes account of the students numbers (more students, more budgeted money), but allowing the senior professor to build the team as best as possible within that budget.

The two elephants in the room

The above scenario works with the current system of allocating resources to different level of courses. But there are two factors that lead to the very large class sizes in first and second year that no-one really wants to talk about:

Elephant in room

  • the starvation of first and second year students of teaching resources; senior faculty concentrate more on upper level courses, and want to keep these class sizes smaller. As a consequence first and second year students suffer
  • teaching subsidizes research: too often tuition revenues get filtered off into supporting research activities. The most obvious case is that if teachers spent more time teaching and less doing research, there would be more faculty available for teaching. Teaching loads for experienced, tenured faculty are often quite light and as stated above, focused on small upper level classes.

Do a simple calculation: divide the total number of students by the number of tenure track instructors  in your institution, and that will give you an overall average instructor/student ratio for the university as a whole. So if you have 40,000 students and 2,000 full-time instructors , you have an overall instructor/student ratio of 1:20. However, then deduct 40% of their time for research, so that equals 1,200 full time equivalent, or a ratio of one instructor for 33.3 students. Then deduct another 20% of their time for administration and public service and that leaves 800 FTEs, or a ratio of one instructor for every 50 students. Even with this fairly generous allowance of 60% of their time for other activities, and WITHOUT adjuncts or TAs, in this large university there should be enough instructors to teach without having the absurdly large first and second year classes commonly found in such large universities. Add in adjuncts and TAs, and this ratio drops even further.

So don’t expect online learning to solve this problem on its own.

Your turn

I would particularly like to hear from the relatively rare instructors who have taught large classes both face-to-face and online. Do you share my concern about using TAs for distance or hybrid courses?

I’d also like to hear in general about experiences with TAs or adjunct/contract instructors as well on this topic.

Thinking about the design of the ‘flipped’ classroom

Listen with webReader
Image: © University of Washington CTL

Image: © University of Washington CTL

Barnett, P. (2014) Let’s scramble, not flip, the classroom, Inside Higher Education, February 14

University of Washington (undated) Flipping the classroom, Seattle: University of Washington Center for teaching and Learning

This blog post by Pamela Barnett, the Director of the Teaching and Learning Center at Temple University (USA), looks at a number of ways to re-design teaching to incorporate both online and classroom teaching that goes way beyond the ‘standard’ flipped classroom model (if such a thing exists – see the U of Washington post for excellent resources on the flipped classroom).

Dr. Bartlett’s post is well worth reading for ideas on how to make the most out of hybrid learning. I think we will see more and more papers and posts on this topic as more and more instructors move to hybrid learning.

But while I agree with the spirit and the intent of Pamela Barnett’s post, there is still the assumption that all such decisions will be taken by the instructor working in isolation, on a case-by-case basis. I’m wondering how long it will take to move:

(a) away from every individual instructor making their own decisions about the right mix of online and face-to-face learning, on a course-by-course or just a lesson-by-lesson basis, to a program approach of looking at the needs of a program – and its students – as a whole, in deciding the right mix of online and campus-based teaching

(b) to a team approach, involving an individual instructor working with an instructional designer, to determine the right mix of online and face-to-face teaching within a particular course or program

(c) to developing clear guidelines or principles on what is best done online and what on campus. (What? A theory in educational technology? What was I thinking?)

Until now the argument has been: ‘Online learning OR classroom instruction’. Now we need to look at the best ways to combine them. I will be very surprised if the flipped model as practiced today survives once we have that knowledge. But we lack the science or experience to guide us on the ‘what’s best done online and what face-to-face’ discussion. We are still very much in the cottage industry stage of higher education teaching – all craft and no science. We need both theory, and evidence from practice to support or challenge the theory. Until then, anything goes with hybrid learning, and maybe that’s not a bad thing. It allows for innovation and challenges to our existing ideas in this area.

MOOCs, Norway, and the ecology of digital learning

Listen with webReader

© Ron Niebrugge MOOCs are just one species in the online digital forest - and a big and clumsy one

© Ron Niebrugge, 2013 MOOCs are just one species in the online digital forest – and a big and clumsy one

Earlier this week I was in Washington DC, at a conference called Transatlantic Science Week, aimed at promoting collaboration between research, innovation and educational institutions and organizations in the U.S.A, Canada and Norway. The main themes for the conference were International Security, Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Cyber Security and Education Policy/Education Research. (No prizes for guessing which theme I was invited to contribute to, although I have to say the others looked more interesting.) This year’s conference was organized by the Norwegian Embassy in Washington, with guidance from the Research Council of Norway.

The focus in the education theme is the digitalization of higher education, although in practice the focus is almost entirely on MOOCs. One reason for this is that Norway has set up a public commission ‘to inquire into the possibilities and challenges that accompany the development of MOOCs and similar offers.‘ The conference provides an interesting way to examine the current thinking on MOOCs of policy makers both in the U.S.A. and in Norway.

Because this is a rather long post, I’m posting the conclusions first, with more details about the conference which I hope will justify my conclusions.

Main take-aways

The value of this conference is that it brought together politicians, policy wonks, researchers and educational practitioners to share ideas and experiences. In particular, it gave me an insight into why MOOCs have resonated so much with policy-makers and others who are not embedded within the higher education system. It was clear from questions and discussions outside the sessions that policy makers remain convinced that MOOCs do offer the possibilities of lowering the cost of post-secondary education. At the same time, I find myself at conferences about MOOCs like the small boy running around shouting ‘The emperor has no clothes’ – and about as effectively.

So here are my main take-aways from the conference.

  • Houston, we have a problem – ‘we’ being universities and colleges. Publicly funded post-secondary institutions are perceived by important policy-makers as being unnecessarily expensive and perhaps even more importantly, not adapting fast enough to meet the demands of the 21st century
  • as a result, politicians and policy-makers are only too willing to grasp at anything that might disrupt the perceived complacency within the system. MOOCs fit this requirement to perfection
  • there is a growing tendency to conflate MOOCs with online learning in general. This suits of course the elite universities who have come 20 years late to the party – they are re-defining online learning according to their own interests
  • even re-designing a large class in a highly selective institution is now considered to be a MOOC, so as well as the conflation with online learning, MOOCs are now being equated with any large class delivered online. The concept of open-ness runs the risk of being lost, with the focus switching to free or cheap
  • if they can get past the hubris, Ivy League universities have a lot to offer online learning. There were several examples in the conference of innovative approaches to online learning from some of the top universities in the USA, but they weren’t MOOCs as most of us would understand the term. We need to bridge the gap between the Ivy League newcomers and those who have been working in online learning elsewhere. We will all benefit from this
  • as a profession we have failed miserably to disseminate best practices in online learning to busy practitioners/instructors. This is not entirely our fault. If there is no requirement for pre-service training to teach in a university, there is no opportunity to bring these best practices to the attention of all faculty. Training new faculty in modern teaching methods, including online learning, based on good pedagogy and cognitive science, is the best way to address the perception that universities and colleges are failing to adapt to the 21st century.

Above all, universities need to be more cost-effective, and if they aren’t, they are going to have methods forced on them that may not have the best outcomes, either for the institutions, or for the rest of us. How each country responds to MOOCs could well define which countries will end up more equal than others, and which will succeed or fail economically and socially in the latter part of this century.

The digital democratization of universities

This was the topic of the first parallel session in the education theme . The first speaker was Norway’s new Minister of Education and Research, Torbjørn Røe Isaksen, who has been in the job for less than one month, and is the youngest member of the cabinet, at 35. In his speech he demonstrated that he was well briefed on MOOCs and their potential, and is therefore looking forward to the Commission’s report (even though the commission was set up by the previous government). He raised some thoughtful questions about MOOCs, which makes me think he is keeping an open mind on the issue, in the best sense of the word.

The Rector of the University of Bergen gave a straightforward talk about the pros and cons of MOOCs, which would come as no surprise for anyone familiar with MOOCs, but was essential for providing a common understanding among all participants. There was the usual American hyperbole about MOOCs from no less than a representative from the American Science Foundation, e.g. ‘the important thing about MOOCs is they allow for the quantifiable measurement of learning on a massive scale‘. This from an electrical engineer, the world experts on educational measurement. I’m sorry, but qualitative assessment is not ‘bad’ but essential in many areas of higher education. There is more than one epistemology.

The most interesting presentation in this session came from Cathy Sandeen, the VP, Education Attainment and Innovation, at the American Council of Education. She reported that currently 18-24 year olds constitute less than 25% of all post-secondary students in the USA. Students aged 24-34 constitute 65% of all students now, most of whom are working at least part-time, and many of whom have children. Even more importantly, the U.S.A. participation rate in post-secondary education is now only 42%, putting it in the bottom quartile of OECD countries, whereas 20 years ago it was top. To catch up, it would need to add another one million places. She ended with a brief account of ACE’s efforts at accrediting MOOCs (for my take on this, see an earlier post.)

In short, I didn’t hear anything in this section that suggested that MOOCs or online learning were doing anything to ‘democratize’ higher education – they may be, but no evidence came out of this session.

MOOCs and the re-inventing of higher education

I was on a great panel, with Chris Dede, from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and one of the best researchers in educational technology, taking the lead. The other panelists were Berit Kjelstadt, the chair of Norway’s public commission on MOOCs, and Wendy Newstetter, a cognitive scientist/engineer from Georgia Institute of Technology. Wendy got our panel organized. The whole day to date had been wall-to-wall presentations with no time for questions even, so we organized the session with plenty of time for questions and discussion.

Chris Dede was the lead speaker. He argued that high quality teaching required at least three conditions: cognitive knowledge, situated learning (learning embedded in context), and a community of learners (social learning). He pointed out that most MOOCs were able to scale only the cognitive knowledge element effectively (as he put it ‘old wine in new bottles’). He argued that virtual immersive environments or virtual worlds allowed for the other two elements to be scaled, and showed a video of EcoMUVE, a virtual reality eco pond,  a multi-user virtual environment in which students are immersed in a virtual environment and interact with avatar-based identities to investigate an ecosystem. More can be found on this approach here.

In my presentation I thought it important to place MOOCs within the broader framework of online learning, because it was clear that many participants seemed to be equating MOOCs with all online learning. I briefly summarized what was happening in credit-based online learning (high completion rates when best practice is used), hybrid learning, mobile learning, OERs, virtual worlds, remote labs, social media and learning, etc., and then argued that xMOOCs were re-inventing the wheel, and so far the wheel is square. Conclusion: MOOCs are just one species in the online learning forest, and a big and clumsy one at that.

More provocatively, I also argued that xMOOCs are more likely to increase inequality, by undermining publicly funded education, leaving an elite of campus-based universities for the very rich, resulting in high paid knowledge-worker employment for them, and massive information transmission delivered to the rest, who will be confined to low-wage service jobs because of their lack of high-level critical thinking skills. (For a copy of the slides, send me an e-mail (tony.bates@ubc.ca) and I will send an invitation to download them via Dropbox).

Berit Kjelstadt gave a brief summary of her commission’s mandate, then Wendy responded to the three presentations, with a particular emphasis on the need for problem-based approaches to education, particularly in science and engineering. The following questions and responses were lively, with a focus on the high costs of post-secondary education, and whether MOOCs will be a means by which to drive down costs.

The Gatsby curve - will MOOCs increase or reduce inequality? (© Globe and Mail, 2013)

The Gatsby curve – will MOOCs increase or reduce inequality? (© Globe and Mail, 2013)

Is blended learning the future in academia?

The program framed ‘blended learning’ as follows: ‘MOOCs provide an opportunity to …combine different learning practices, for instance, classroom instruction in Oslo, supplemented with streamed lectures from Stanford and online interaction with other students on and off campus.’ However, the speakers in this session didn’t quite see it this way.

Glynda Hull, of the University of California, Berkeley, described a really neat multimedia platform for collaborative learning designed and developed at UC Berkeley, linked to a Canvas LMS. This enables students to create and share multimedia objects and work collaboratively on projects. This looked a nice software development based on sound educational principles (although I suspect the same could be done, perhaps less elegantly, with a combination of WordPress, Mahara and Moodle), and the presentation was marred only by the usual hubris from faculty from elite universities and their re-writing of online learning history (‘Online learning to date has failed to enable effective collaborative learning…‘. Roll over Turoff, Hiltz, Scardamalia, Harasim, Pratt and Paloff, Salmon, etc. – and of course cMOOCs never existed. I was too transfixed with absorbing this to ask whether this tool was an open educational resource.

Bent Kure from the University of Oslo described how they have redesigned a first year philosophy class (mandatory for all students) into a MOOC-like course for the 2,000+ students a year who had previously studied this as self-directed learning ( ‘Here’s the textbook – turn up at the exam.’), because there was no way to fit them all into a lecture hall. The new version consisted of 8-10 minute videos+textbook+online discussion+mobile app+online tests. Well, ANYTHING would be better than the previous arrangement, wouldn’t it? And surprise, the other students who were privileged to attend the lectures also were using the stuff. But is this a MOOC? (and does it matter?).

The last session was about how George Washington University was designing its MOOC on the history of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, and especially how they were using professional-standard video rather than talking heads (probably wise since the participants include Bernanke, Greenspan and Volker). It seems to me that this will be one of the new generation of MOOCs in that it has involved instructional designers and a team approach that is often found in credit-based online courses.

Yes, blended learning is the future in academia, especially for very large first and second year classes. However, the external MOOC integrated into local teaching is probably not the model that will dominate. I suspect experience will show that better results can be obtained by careful re-design, including the flexible incorporation of a wide range of OERs, not only MOOCs. In particular, copyright issues need to be recognized, since Coursera and Udacity MOOC materials are not open for re-use without permission.

Technology-enhanced learning: what do we know and what is yet to be learned

The Research Council of Norway issued a contract for a complete review of the literature on technology-enhanced learning (the European term for information and communications technologies in education) over the last 20 years, covering the whole range from pre-school to post-secondary education to lifelong learning. This involved a trawl of over 1,000 journals (an example of how scattered the research is in this area), using the Thomson Reuters and Google Scholar indexing databases. The aim was to do an objective review of the research, based on a quantitative count of citations used.

Barbara Wasson and Konrad Morgan, the two contractors, gave a detailed presentation of the methodology and preliminary findings. This report when published will be extremely useful, but because of their desire to be totally objective, they were reluctant to ‘editorialize’. However, it is clear that a number of conclusions can be drawn already from this study:

  • there is a long history of research in this field, dating back over sixty years
  • some themes, such as computer aided instruction/CBL, collaborative learning, and robotic intelligent tutoring, have continued right through to today
  • just counting citations has its limits: for instance an ‘in-group’ can boost its count by cross-referencing each others’ work, without really impacting on practice or even the dissemination of knowledge to a wider group
  • the great majority of research is extremely short-term, with low samples: funding agencies should concentrate on more longitudinal studies and bigger samples
  • researchers are often isolated, working alone or in small groups, and therefore have little overall impact
  • a great majority of research is tool-based which goes quickly out of date as new tools arrive; researchers fail often to learn from earlier research on similar tools
  • there is a huge problem with aggregating, summarizing and disseminating the often very useful research to practitioners: it is largely inaccessible

As readers will know, I am not afraid to editorialize, summarize or disseminate, so I ended the session with my take on how prior online learning research could inform and improve the design of MOOCs (the same presentation I made to the MIT LINC conference.)

Where was Canada?

The conference attracted over 300 participants, two government ministers from Norway, including the Minister of Education and Research, one congressman from the USA, the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Education, and leading academics from some of the USA’s most prestigious universities and higher education organizations, with of course heavy representation from the Ministry of Education and Research, the Research Council, and universities in Norway.

By contrast, Canada was virtually unrepresented. From the participants list, it appears that only two Canadians attended, myself (invited by the Research Council of Norway), and Barbara Wasson, a Canadian researcher living and working in Norway. Where has the Canadian Embassy in Washington been on this event? There were as many representatives listed from the  Macedonian and Serbian embassies as from Canada, and I never found the Canadian Embassy person. No doubt Washington Canadian Embassy staff have been working to rule, as part of a widespread industrial dispute in Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs, but since the conference next year is scheduled to be held in Toronto, the lack of Canadian representation at this conference was shocking, especially since Canada has some of the most knowledgeable people on MOOCs (and I’m not one of them), cyber security and emergency preparedness. It is Canada’s loss that we were not better represented at this most valuable conference, which is why I have spent so much effort on this post.

 

A blended learning toolkit from the University of Central Florida

Listen with webReader

UCF campusUCF Campus

Blended Learning Toolkit

The University of Central Florida has been doing blended learning for at least 15 years, long before video capture and flipped classrooms came on the scene. Based in Orlando, it is the fastest growing university in the USA. It was unable to build campus facilities fast enough to keep up with the demand, so started early in offering both blended and online courses to take up the slack. The result is that as its campus has grown and developed, its design has been influenced by the need to provide for both face-to-face and online learning. Because UCF has built up a lot of experience in doing blended learning, and has carefully evaluated its programs, it has fine tuned its design models and the resources needed to support blended learning.

The web site contains the following main areas, each with several sub-pages:

Process

Building Your Course

Examples of Approaches

Institutional capacity and readiness

Model courses

Effective practices

Design and delivery principles

Student success strategies

UCF’s Teaching Online Pedagogical Repository

Evaluation resources

Faculty development

Research

The Blended Learning Toolkit then is a very useful resource for faculty who are considering a blended learning approach. Highly recommended.

Thanks to Richard Elliott’s eLearning Watch for directing me to this.