PROJECT INFORMATION ProjectTitle:DoesHybridStructureMatter?AComparisonofStudentApproachestoHybridCoursesfromDifferentDisciplinesTotalFundingRequest:$1000ReasonforApplying(400WordsMax):AftercreatingmyfirsthybridcourseinBiology,Iobservedthatseveralstudentswhowatchedalltherequiredonlinevideolecturesstilldidpoorlyontheassociatedexams.Lookingfurtherintothis,Ifoundthatthesestudentstendedtowatchthevideosclosertothedeadline.Thisledmetohypothesizethat*when*astudentaccessestheonlinematerialisasimportantas*if*theyaccessthematerialatall.DiscussionswithacolleagueintheSchoolofCommunications,LauraBethDaws,ledtoamorerobustIRB-approvedstudyinwhichwecomparedhowstudentsapproachedasynchronousonlinelecturesfromtwodifferentupper-levelcourses,eitherinBiologyorCommunications,thatwetaughtlastsemesterusingasimilarformat.WecollecteddatafromD2LBrightspacethatshowedwhenstudentsfirstwatchedtheonlinelecturesandhowmuchtimetheyspentoneachlecture.FromYouTube,wecollecteddataonhowmanytimesandforhowlong(retentionrate)eachvideolecturewaswatched.Wealsocalculateda“procrastinationscore”foreachstudentthatcomparedhowclosetothedeadline(s)hewatchedtheassignedvideos.Incontrasttopreviousresearchsuggestingthat8minutesisthelongestvideolengththatshouldbepresentedtostudentstomaintaintheirattention,wefoundnocorrelationbetweenvideolengthandretentionrateforvideosupto25minuteslong.Wealsofoundnotabledifferencesinhowstudentsapproachedthebiologyorcommunicationsmaterial:thebiologystudentsweremuchmorelikelytowatcheveryvideo,whereasthecommunicationsstudentshadamuchlowerrateofvideowatchingafterthemidtermexam.The“procrastinationscore”correlatedwithexamgradesonlyinthebiologyclassbutnotinthecommunicationsclass.Ourresultshighlightthathybridcoursesarenotallapproachedsimilarlybystudents,andthatdisciplineandcontentshouldbetakenintoaccountwhenconsideringhowtopresentasynchronousvideolecturestostudents.WearecurrentlywritingupourresultstosubmittoaSoTLjournal,butwewouldliketogetfeedbackfromothersinthefieldbeforedoingso.Towardsthisend,ourproposaltopresenta20-minuteconcurrentsessionwasacceptedbytheLillyConferenceon"InnovativeStrategiestoAdvanceLearning,”anationalmeetingintheLillyConferenceseriesforthescholarshipofteachingandlearninginhighereducation.

CETL Teaching Conference Travel Funds Program Cover Sheet 

INSTRUCTIONS:   Type in your responses below, print the completed form, and sign the printed form.  Create a single PDF that includes (a) this cover sheet, (b) proof of acceptance (letter or email) if delivering a presentation or invited to participate, and (c) a letter of support from your immediate supervisor (Chair, Director, or Dean). 

NOTE:  Only one faculty member of a multi‐authored presentation or only one member of a team attending 

the same conference may apply for funding. 

First Name  _______________________________  Last Name  ______________________________________ 

College   __________________________________   Department   _____________________________________ 

KSU Phone  _______________________________  Email  __________________________________________ 

Name  of  Conference:  _______________________________________________________________________ 

Location:  ________________________________  Travel Dates:  ____________________________________ 

Purpose of Travel:   _________________________________________________________________________ 

Presentation Title (if presenting):  _____________________________________________________________ 

Name(s) of KSU co‐author(s) (if any):   __________________________________________________________ 

     I have informed all KSU co‐authors that I have applied for funding, and they are aware that I will be the only author eligible to receive funding to deliver this presentation. 

Travel Budget/Projected Expenses (NOTE:  CETL will fund a maximum of $1000 for Travel Award recipients) Expense (e.g., air fare, miles if driving, ground transportation, accommodations, meals, etc.) Total Cost

Total Expenses Requested from CETL (maximum of $1000): 

      I understand that I must create and upload a single PDF that will contain this cover sheet, proof of acceptance (letter 

or email) if delivering a presentation or invited to participate, and a letter of support from my immediate supervisor 

(Department Chair, Director, or Dean.) 

__________________________________________  __________________ 

Applicant Signature          Date (mm/dd/yyyy) 

1

Lilly Conference Submission: Abstract

Contact Info Jennifer Louten, Associate Professor of Biology, Kennesaw State University, Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, 370 Paulding Ave, MD 1201, Kennesaw, GA 30144. 470-578-7757. jlouten@kennesaw.edu

Laura Beth Daws, Associate Professor of Communication, Kennesaw State University, School of Communication & Media, 402 Bartow Ave, SO 5112, MD 2207, Kennesaw, GA 30144. 470-578-7208. ldaws@kennesaw.edu

Track Effective Online/Hybrid Environments

Title Does Hybrid Structure Matter? A Comparison of Student Approaches to Completing Content in Hybrid Courses from Different Disciplines

25 word summary We will talk about the relationship between the structure of hybrid courses, completion of asynchronous content, and student achievement in the course.

Abstract (100 words)

We will present the results of a study that explored how students performed on exams in senior-level hybrid classes in Biology or Communication, focusing on the impact of online lecture videos, whether or not they completed the content before an exam, and how close to the deadline students watched the required lecture videos. Although the hybrid courses were structured similarly, there were key differences between the courses that seemed to influence how students performed and how they approached the asynchronous materials required in the course. In both courses, the length of the videos did not correlate with viewer retention rate.

Presentation outcomes At the end of this session, participants will be able to: (1) Recognize discipline- and course-specific variables that might influence how students approach asynchronous content in hybrid classes, (2) Identify ways to edit their own hybrid and online classes to maximize the possibility that students will watch them, and (3) Learn about methods of tracking student interaction with online material using YouTube analytics or the D2L Brightspace learning management system.

Session description (500 words max) The presenters are professors in Biology or Communication at a large southeastern university. We observed that students in our hybrid classes who accessed online lectures sooner, rather than later, for each unit seemed to have better grades in the class than those who accessed

2

videos closer to or even past each week’s deadline. This prompted us to scientifically investigate the factors of video length, number of videos per unit, retention rate, and how close to the deadline students watched videos, compared with their exam grades.

During the Fall 2018 semester, we conducted IRB-approved research on two senior-level hybrid courses, one in Biology and one in Communication, that relied heavily on online lectures delivered asynchronously before a face-to-face class that built on the lecture material. From our online learning management system, D2L Brightspace, we collected data about if and when students watched the asynchronous lectures. We noted when students first accessed each lecture video and assigned each student a “procrastination score” for each video that indicated how close to the deadline they watched the video. We then compared that data with exam grades, finding a correlation between the two variables. Additionally, all our lecture videos were hosted on YouTube, which provided analytics on retention rate and number of views. We compared this information with exam grades, along with the runtime of each video.

Interestingly, our data revealed similarities but also stark differences between the two courses. There were clear correlations in the Biology class related to the variables of completion and procrastination, but that was not the case for the Communication class. We conclude that the discipline, course content, and purpose of asynchronous materials may all have an influence on exam grades and how students approach the content.

Participants will come away with an appreciation that students do not approach all hybrid courses in the same way, and the format and intention of the asynchronous material may influence student involvement. Participants will also learn that procrastination with watching online lecture videos, rather than lack of completion, can negatively impact exam grades. This is information they can share with their students in hopes of encouraging them to complete the online content of a hybrid course sooner, rather than later. Additionally, we will talk with participants about the relationship we found between the length of videos and retention rate, which will allow us to discuss the implications of using longer, rather than shorter, lecture videos in hybrid classes.

Presentation timeline: 3 minutes: We will open our presentation with a think-pair-share activity to generate discussion about the participants’ experiences with hybrid courses. Specifically, we will ask participants to think about some of the challenges they have faced with getting students to complete asynchronous content and the assumptions they make about how best to present asynchronous content. This will create a discussion that introduces our current study.

5 minutes: We will explain our methodology for the current study, explaining the structure of our hybrid courses, their similarities and differences, and the data we collected from each student.

3

10 minutes: We will discuss the results of our study, presenting the correlations we found between the different variables we examined, as well as how session participants can apply the results of our research in their own hybrid and online classes.

2 minutes: We will allow 2 minutes for audience questions and further discussion.

Presentation activities We will do one three-minute think-pair-share activity at the beginning of the session to help contextualize our research.

References Beheshti, M., Taspolat, A., Kaya, O. S., & Sapanca, H. F. (2018). Characteristics of instructional

videos. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 10(1), 61-69. Boeve’, A. J., Meijer, R. R., Bosker, R. J., Vugteveen, J., Hoekstra, R., & Albers, C. J. (2017).

Implementing the flipped classroom: An exploration of study behavior and student performance. Higher Education, 74(6), 1015-1032. doi: 10.1007/s10734-016-0104-y

Borup, J., West R. E. & Graham, C. R. (2012). Improving online social presence through asynchronous video. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 195-203. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc2011.11.001

Bowers, J. & Kumar, P. (2015). Students’ perceptions of teaching and social presence: A comparative analysis of face-to-face and online learning environments. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 10(1), 27-44. doi: 10.4018/ijwltt.2015010103

Bosshardt, W. & Chiang, E. P. (2016). Lecture capture learning: Do students perform better compared to face-to-face classes? Southern Economic Journal, 82(3), 1021-1038. doi:10.1002/soej.12084

Cabi, E. (2018). The impact of the flipped classroom model on students’ academic achievement. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 19(3), 202-221. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v19i3.3482

Chitiga, M., Kaniuka, T. & Ombonga, M. (2019). How do millennials learn? Implications for higher education pedagogy. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 15(1), 29-41. doi:10.4018/IJICTE.2019010103

Comer, D. R., Lenaghan, J. A., & Sengupta, K. (2015). Factors that affect students’ capacity to fulfill the role of online learner. Journal of Education for Business, 90, 145-155. doi:10.1080/08832323.2015.1007906

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6

Kegley, M. D., Toteva, M. T., & Wolf, J. S. (2016). Hybrids, hassles, and hiccups: Interdisciplinary perspectives on the challenges and advantages of hybrid classes. Association for University Regional Campuses of Ohio, 22, 111-133.

Masland, L. & Gizdarska, S. (2018). “Then what am I paying you for?” Student attitudes regarding pre-class activities for the flipped classroom. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 30(2), 234-244.

4

McNally, B., Chipperfield, J., Dorsett, P., Del Fabbro, L., Frommolt, V., Goetz, S., Lewohl, J., Molineux, M., Pearson, A., Reddan, G., Roiko, A., & Rung, A. (2017). Flipped classroom experiences: Student preferences and flip strategy in a higher education context. Higher Education, 73, 281-298. doi:10.1007/s10734-016-0014-z

O’Flaherty, J. & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85-95.

Shiau, S., Kahn, L. G., Platt, J., Li, C., Guzman, J. T., Kornhauser, Z. G., Keyes, K. M., & Martins, S. S. (2018). Evaluation of a flipped classroom approach to learning introductoryepidemiology. BMC Medical Education, 18, 63-?. doi:10.1186/s12909-018-1150-1

Stromie, T. & Baudier, J. (2017). Assessing student learning in hybrid courses. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 149, 37-45. doi:10.1002/tl.20225

Tiahrt, T., & Porter, J. C. (2016). What do I do with this flipping classroom: Ideas for effectively using class time in a flipped course. Business Education Innovation Journal, 8(2), 85-91.

Todd, E. M., Watts, L. L., Mulhearn, T. J., Torrence, B. S., Turner, M. R., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2017). A meta-analytic comparison of face-to-face and online delivery in ethicsinstruction: The case for a hybrid approach. Science & Engineering Ethics, 23, 1719-1954.

Visser, L., Korthagen, F. A. J., & Schoonenboom, J. (2018). Differences in learning characteristics between students with high, average, and low levels of academic procrastination: Students’ views on factors influencing their learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1-15. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00808

Session Format 20-minute concurrent

5

1

Jennifer Louten

From: Lilly Conferences <registrar@lillyconferences.com>Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 1:00 PMTo: Jennifer Louten; Laura Beth DawsSubject: Congratulations! Your proposal for Lilly-Asheville 2019 has been accepted

Dear Jennifer and Laura Beth, Thank you for your proposal submission to the Lilly Conference on Innovative Strategies to Advance Learning. On behalf of the conference selection committee, I offer you sincere congratulations! Following the blind peer-review process, your proposal “Does Hybrid Structure Matter? Comparing Student Approaches to Completing Content ” has been accepted as a 20-minute concurrent session.

To assist us in program planning, please respond to this email by May 6th acknowledging your acceptance as a conference presenter and confirming your intent to attend and present at Lilly-Asheville 2019. Lilly Conferences are committed to creating events that build community among its participants. In order to accomplish this, it is expected that presenters participate in the whole conference, sharing with and learning from one another.

Please Note: As this conference is a self-supported event, all presenters must register and pay the registration fee. To ensure accuracy of the conference program, all presenters must be registered by June 3rd. Registration is currently open and can be accessed through the conference website. The early registration rate is valid until May 3rd.

As a reminder, the conference will be held August 5-7 at the DoubleTree Asheville-Biltmore in Asheville, North Carolina. If you are coming from out of town, we suggest making reservations as soon as possible. More information on registration, lodging, etc., can be found on our website.

Again, congratulations on being selected as a presenter. With sessions such as yours, I anticipate Lilly-Asheville to be an exceptional conference.

Respectfully,

Todd Zakrajsek

______________________ Todd Zakrajsek, PhD, President ITLC Laura Czerwinski, VP Programming and Public Relations Deb Van Etten, Office Manager

6

ARIZONA UNITY CHURCH

Home About Registration/Lodging Proposal/Presentation Program Institutions Archive Contact

About Lilly-AshevilleFor nearly 40 years, Lilly Conferences have provided opportunities for the presentation of the scholarship of teaching andlearning. Conference participants are made up of faculty and administrators at various stages in their academic careers thatcome from across the United States, representing nearly every discipline found in higher education. The Asheville conferencemaintains the same overall theme: “Innovative Strategies to Advance Student Learning” while tracks and subthemes vary by year.We always offer a variety of sessions so that participants can match their learning preference to the presentations formats:traditional plenary addresses, 20- and 50-minute concurrent presentations, 30-minute round table discussions, and postersessions. Conference presentations are selected through a blind peer-review process.

MissionThe mission of the Lilly Conferences is to provide a forum to share and model a scholarly approach to teaching and learning thatreports quality student learning outcomes while promoting professional development of faculty.

Core ValuesCommunity is a cornerstone to improving student learning.Participants are life-long learners.Everyone responsible for teaching has the ability and desire to learn to be a better teacher.Scholarly, evidenced-based teaching improves student learning.Advancing education is a fundamental need in every society.

Lilly SpiritLilly Conferences are committed to creating events that build community among its participants.Scholarly activity in the absence of a shared vision and community support cannot be successful inbuilding the highest level of effective learning for our students. Effective faculty development doesnot occur in a vacuum. It requires a community of scholars sharing, discussing, critiquing and reflectingupon what constitutes good teaching and learning and identifying how each of us can improve our craft.At Lilly Conferences, every individual is valued for her or his perspective with the belief that all facultymembers are life-long learners who benefit from interacting with one another, our students, and ourmentors. The designed purpose of each conference is to create a community where we share scholarlywork, network, and promote collaborations that extends the professional interactions forged atconferences into lifelong collegial friendships.

HistoryThe Lilly Conference Series has its origins in a Lilly Endowment 3-year grant awarded to Miami University in 1979 to enhance theteaching of early-career faculty. A new model, a faculty learning community (FLC), was developed by Milton Cox and colleagues todo this. To provide a venue for the classroom research produced by the FLC members, Milt founded the Lilly Conference onCollege Teaching in 1981. The Lilly  Conference gradually brought faculty from across disciplines and institutions together todiscuss, critique,  and improve teaching and learning on their campuses. The FLC concept and Lilly Conference grew from acollaborative effort on a single college campus to a series of conferences with that same commitment to  community, evidence-based teaching and learning, and the scholarship of teaching and learning.

Lilly-Asheville Participants

7

Today the Lilly Conference on College and University Teaching and Learning is a self-supported conference series at severallocations with approximately 2,000 participants annually. The Lilly Conferences partner with three peer-reviewed journalspublishing about teaching and learning in higher education.

Lilly-Asheville Conference DirectorDr. Todd Zakrajsek, Ph.D., is the former Executive Director of the Academy of Educators in the School of Medicine and an Associate Professor in the Department of Family Medicine at UNC-Chapel Hill.  Dr. Zakrajsek is the immediate past Executive Director of the Center for Faculty Excellence at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and prior to his work at UNC, he was the Inaugural Director of the Faculty Center for InnovativeTeaching at Central Michigan University and the founding Director of the Center for Teaching and Learningat Southern Oregon University, where he also taught in the psychology department as a tenured associateprofessor. Dr. Zakrajsek also sits on two educational related boards and several editorial boards forjournals in the area of teaching and learning, is an international speaker requested regularly for keynotepresentations and campus workshops, and has published widely on the topic of effective teaching andstudent learning.

Hosted by: The ITLC|International Teaching Learning CooperativeThe Lilly-Asheville Conference is hosted by the International Teaching Learning Cooperative. The ITLC was created to bring facultymembers and future faculty members together to advance student learning. To learn more about the ITLC, click here.

Privacy PolicyWe have always valued our customer's privacy.  We do not sell or trade contact information with other businesses/entities, nor dowe print contact information on any conference related materials. We do purposefully send emails to our subscribers aroundonce a month (more frequently as an event approaches). We also offer the opportunity to unsubscribe within the monthlynotifications.

Todd Zakrajsek, Conference Director

8

April 15, 2019

Dear Members of the SoTL Funding Committee,

I am writing this letter to support Dr. Jennifer Louten’s application for CETL’s Teaching Conference Travel Funds Program. Dr. Louten is an Associate Professor in the Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology and this award would provide $1000 to support her travel to the Lilly Conference that will be held in Asheville, NC, in August 2019.

The Lilly Conference Series provides opportunities for the presentation of the scholarship of teaching and learning. The theme of the 2019 meeting to be held in Ashville is “Innovative Strategies to Advance Student Learning.” Dr. Louten has received confirmation that her request to give an oral presentation on completed research has been accepted. The research that will be presented is from a collaborative project with Dr. Laura Beth Daws, Associate Professor in the School of Communications at Kennesaw State University. These two researchers examined how their students approached upper-level hybrid courses in their respective disciplines (biology and communications). Online lecture videos are a crucial part of many hybrid classes, particularly when students are expected to watch a foundational video before coming to a face-to-face class session that builds on that topic. Data collected by Drs. Louten and Daws suggests a correlation between test grades and how close to a deadline students watch online lectures. They also found a connection between video length and retention of the video topic and exam scores, as well data that suggests the number of videos used in a hybrid environment may influence the likelihood of students watching the videos.

In closing, I enthusiastically support Dr. Louten’s attendance at the Lily Conference in Asheville and her application to CETL’s Teaching Conference Travel Funds Program. This award will be a welcome contribution to the Department’s support of this travel request. Good luck in your review of applications.

Sincerely,

Dale Lynn Vogelien, Ph.D. Professor and Interim Chair, Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology

9