1. COHERE 2013 Conference
Open Resources, Open Courses: Their Impact on Blended and Online Learning
October 24, 2013 | Vancouver, BC
INVESTIGATING A BLENDING OF CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION WITH
MOODLE IN UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION:
OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
Dennis York, Ron Owston, Susan Murtha, and Janna Finkel

2. Overview
About the Project
Models of e-Learning
Programming
Major Findings
Conclusions
Methodology

3. About the Project
Models of e-Learning
Programming
Major Findings
Conclusions
Methodology

4. About the Project
Guided by the e-learning framework (York’s eLearning Business Case, 2010)
•
•
•
•
Respond to enrolment pressures
Provide better experience for commuter students
Better engage students
Improve student learning
Involved three Faculties
• Faculty of Fine Arts
• Faculty of Health
• Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies
Evaluation components
• Student experiences
• Moodle course website design
• Instructor experiences

5. About the Project
Models of e-Learning
Programming
Major Findings
Conclusions
Methodology

6. Models of e-Learning Programming
Web-enhanced model
• No reduction of face-to-face time
Blended models
Blend I (70:30 ratio)
• 1/3 in-class is replaced with online activities
Blend II (50:50 ratio)
• In-class and online sessions are equally balanced
Blend III
• Rotation of in-class lectures and online tutorials on a fixed
schedule
Blend IV
• Rotation of online lectures and in-class tutorials on a fixed
schedule
Blend V
• Rotation of on-class lectures and hybrid tutorials
Fully online model
• All activities were conducted online

7. About the Project
Models of e-Learning
Programming
Major Findings
Conclusions
Methodology

8. Student Survey
• Adapted from existing surveys (Blended Learning
Toolkit, CLASSE, 2006; Cook et al., 2004; Garrison &
Vaughan, 2008)
• 23 likert-type and 6 multiple choice items address
• Course satisfaction
• E-learning preferences
• Flexibility
• Engagement and interaction
• 5,082 students across
three Faculties
• 2,597 completed surveys
(51% response rate)
• Learning outcomes
• A paper version of survey administered in class at the end of the
semester

9. Analytical Framework
for Evaluation of
Moodle Sites
• Guided by QM Rubric, Chico’s Rubric for Online Instruction, and
Quality Online Course Initiative Rubric
• Major criteria:
• Moodle organization and layout design
• Instructional design and delivery
• Student engagement
• Student support and resources
• 31 Moodle sites were
evaluated (77.5%)

10. About the Project
Models of e-Learning
Programming
Major Findings
Conclusions
Methodology

11. eLearning Formats / Participants
Background
• Courses: 40
• e-Learning formats:
• Blended: 35
• Online: 3
• Web-enhanced: 2
• Participants: 2,597 (51%)
• Traditional and mature
students
• Class size:
small, medium, and large
• Course level: introductory
and advanced
Blend II
369 (14%)
Online, 90 (4%)
Webenhanced, 386
Blended,
2,121 (81%)
Blend I
720 (28%)
Blend III
348 (13%)
Blend V
Blend IV
160 (6%)
524 (20%)

12. Student participants
44.1%
• did not work
16.9%
• worked less
than 10
hours
21.3%
• worked
between 10
and 19 hours
17.7%
• worked more
than 20
hours
76.7%
commuted to campus
23.3%
lived on campus

13. Course Satisfaction
Across different blends
*
All courses
Δ57.3%
Online
(90%)
Blend I (70.9%)
Blend II
(73.5%)
Δ22.8%
Δ19.7%
Web-enhanced (43.6%)
Blend III
(49.1%)
Blend IV (40.5%)
Blend V (44.3%)
Δ3.48 (1.13)
*Based on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

14. Learning Preferences (All Courses)
Face-to-face format
Fully online format
38%
Video
lectures
Blended format
47.7%
14.1%
Lectures
41.1%
35.0%
22.1%
Tutorials
51.3%
23.0%
25.7%
42.9%
26.7%
30.3%
Online
discussions
In-class
tutorials
Discussions

15. Effectiveness of Technology Use
Δ73%
Δ67%
Δ64%
able to find
course
information
easily at Moodle
found resources
useful at Moodle
found technology
used reliable
Online & Blends I, II (79-91%)
Blends III & V (56-58%)
Online & Blends I, II (75-84%)
Blends III & V (48-53%)
Online & Blends I, II (74-94%)
Blends III & V (56-58%)
Δ19%
reported
technology
interfered with
learning
Online & Blends I, III & Web (10-18%)
Blends II, IV & V (23-27%)

16. e-Learning Experiences
• Online, 96%
• Blend II, 85%
• Blend I, 70%
• Blend IV, 64%
• Blend V, 59%
• Blend III, 55%
• Web-enhanced, 30%
• Online, 96%
• Blend II, 70%
• Blend I, 65%
• Blend III, 39%
• Blend V, 36%
• Blend IV, 31%
• Web-enhanced, 16%
• Blend II, 37%
• Blend I, 30%
• Web-enhanced, 28%
• Online, 19%
• Blend III, 15%
• Blend IV, 14%
• Blend V, 13%
Flexibility in
personal
schedule (Δ63%)
Travel time
reduction
(Δ47%)
Connection to
other students
(Δ24%)
• Online, 16%
• Blend V, 18%
• Web-enhanced, 30%
• Blend I, 30%
• Blend III, 31%
• Blend II, 34%
• Blend IV, 35%
• Online, 25%
• Web-enhanced, 39%
• Blend V, 44%
• Blend II, 44%
• Blend I, 45%
• Blend III, 50%
• Blend IV, 51%
Information
overload (Δ31%)
Required extra
effort (Δ45%)

17. Engagement
I was more engaged in this course
Online
56%
All courses
Blend II
46%
Δ31.9%
Blend I
Δ32.2%
44%
Blend V
24%
Web-enhanced
24%
Δ35.3%
Blend III
Δ2.91 (1.21)
21%
Blend IV
16%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%

18. Interaction
(Δ31%)
(Δ27%)
46%
Blend II
36%
38%
Blend I
32%
37%
Web-enhanced
29%
20%
Online
30%
20%
Blend III
19%
21%
Blend V
15%
19%
Blend IV
19%

19. Learning Outcomes
Increased interest in material
(Δ56%)
Improved understanding of
key concepts (Δ51%)
• Online (79%)
• Blend I, II (67-63%)
• Blends IV, V, Web (43-47%)
•
•
•
•
Online (76%)
Blends I, II (60-64%)
Blend IV, Web (45-47%)
Blends III, V (35-38%)
• Online, Blends I, II (33-35%)
Developed better
• Blend V, Web (25-27%)
communication skills (Δ27%)
• Blend IV (16%)
• Online, Blend II (54%)
More opportunities to reflect • Blend I, V (45-49%)
(Δ39%)
• Web, Blend IV (26-31%)

20. Introduction
Models of e-Learning
Programming
Major Findings
Conclusions
Methodology

21. Blends I and II –
Most effective
blended models
• Blend I
•
Needs
improvement
Nearly a third of
scheduled course time
to be spent in class was
replaced with online
activities
- High course satisfaction
- Better learning outcomes
- Easy to navigate Moodle sites
- Useful online resources
- Flexibility in personal schedule
- Travel time reduction
• Blend II
•
A blending of in-class
and online sessions is
equally balanced with a
split of roughly 50-50
between time face-toface and online
instructional
- Strengthen an online
community of learners
- Improve engagement
- Increase online interaction with
instructor
Success
factors

22. Blends III, IV and V –
Least effective
blended models
• Blend III
•
A rotation on a fixed weekly
schedule between in-class
lectures and participation in
TA-facilitated Moodle
discussions
Success
factors
- Low satisfaction
- Weak community ties
- Low level of engagement
and interaction
- Less positive about
learning outcomes
• Blend IV
•
A rotation of online lectures
and in-class tutorials
facilitated by TAs
• Blend V
•
A rotation of in-class
lectures and participation in
TA-facilitated hybrid
tutorials (on-campus and
using Moodle discussions)
- Easy to navigate Moodle
sites
- Somewhat positive about
flexibility and reduction of
travel time
Needs
improvement

23. Recommendations
Implications
• Emphasize active learning
•
•
Proportion of time spent
online is an influence on
student satisfaction and
other related perceptions*.
Findings provide some
guidance for (re)designing
blended courses in
choosing the amount of
time instructors want
students to spend on online
activities.
• Greater student engagement with the material and with one
another
• Reach out to students of different needs and preferences
• Take advantage of a diverse repertoire of online tools within
Moodle
• Improve student support on Moodle course sites
• Increase on-demand, individualized assistance
*Contingent upon the instructors’ teaching
style and/or course subject.
• Consider the differences of reading online text
• Think carefully about strategies of organizing and presenting
course information on Moodle

24. Contact us
For more information…
Dennis York
dennis_york@edu.yorku.ca
Ron Owston
rowston@edu.yorku.ca