Blended Learning

A Study Based on FreshmanWriting Outcomes

Context and Background

• Brigham Young University

• Reach more students.

• Improve teaching and

learning through technology.

The Problem

•Provide more efficient use of time.

•Maintain satisfactory learning experience.

•Freshman Level ENG 115 College Writing

and Reading.

•Approximately 87 sections per semester with

20 students per section.

The Steps

• Redesigned ENG 115.

• English Department along with Instructional

Designers, programmers, editors, and artists

from Brigham Young’s Center for Instructional

Design.

• Conducted a semester long study comparing

the Blended course with the traditional course.

• Used instructor and student questionnaires.

Blended Learning Implementation and Assessment

• The traditional course met for 50 minutes 3 times per week.

• The blended course met for 50 minutes 1 time per week.

• The remainder of the blended course was online.

• Included multimedia components, discussions, and feedback via Blackboard and email.

Benefits and Success Factors

• Instructors saved 193 minutes per week.

• 80% of students felt that both courses were “good” to “excellent.”

Challenges

• Instructors felt like “graders.”

• Solution: Allow instructors to add

personalized activities.

• Instructors struggled with

technology

• Students struggled with technology

• Solution: Provide training prior to

start of blended courses.

Analysis

• UCF: Student outcomes improve in high

enrollment courses.

• UCF: Success rate similar to F2F.

• Garrison and Vaughn: Blended combines

best of traditional and web-based learning

experiences.

Lessons Learned

• Blended courses are more efficient than

F2F.

• Blended courses maintain quality and

effectiveness of F2F.

References