Learning Outcomes of Blended Learning

Learning Outcomes of Blended Learning Perception Blended learning is viewed as having better outcomes than both traditional face-to-face instruction a...
5 downloads 0 Views 209KB Size
Learning Outcomes of Blended Learning Perception Blended learning is viewed as having better outcomes than both traditional face-to-face instruction and e-learning alone.

Research Among respondents to our research survey, an overwhelming number indicated that blended learning produced better learning outcomes than either face-to-face training alone or e-learning alone.

Blended Learning - Learning Outcomes vs. Face-to-Face 80% 70% 60%

Percentage

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Better outcome

Worse outcome

No significant difference

I don't know

Figure 6: Blended Learning Outcomes vs. Outcomes of Face-to-Face Instruction Alone

© Brandon Hall Research

Blended Learning - Learning Outcomes vs. E-Learning 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Better outcome

Worse outcome

No significant difference

I don't know

Figure 7: Blended Learning Outcomes vs. Outcomes of E-Learning Alone

Measuring blended learning outcomes for their impact on job performance and business is practiced in over 50 percent of respondent organizations. Responses indicate that the evaluation of blended learning programs is not established yet, with many respondents just beginning to evaluate programs.

Do not reproduce

Page 29

Measurement of Blended Learning Program Outcomes 53% 52%

Percent

51% 50% 49% 48% 47% 46% Yes, we measure blended learning program outcomes

No, we do not measure blended learning program outcomes

Figure 8: Measurement of Blended Learning Outcomes It is difficult to find solid research on the outcomes of blended instruction as part of corporate training programs. However, because corporate training frequently lags what is being measured in higher education, much data from higher education programs can be useful for determining potential value for corporate training programs. Research indicates that increased engagement with educational technology can draw staff and students closer together (both physically and virtually) (Aspden & Helm, 2003) and that blended learning can lead to improved learning as well as lower cost increases (Twigg, 2003). One corporate study, the Thomson NETg Job Impact Study in 2002, set out to determine if there were accuracy and time performance differences on real-world tasks among learners who receive a blended learning solution, e-learning alone, or no training. One hundred twenty eight corporate and academic organizations participated in the study. >

Group 1 took a blended course plus post-assessment and real-world task completion.

>

Group 2 took an e-learning course plus post-assessment and real-world task completion.

>

Group 3 participated in no training course but completed a real-world task.

In the Thomson NETg study, the blended course involved five scenario-based exercises for learning software, the integration of learning objects within real-world scenarios, use of full-

© Brandon Hall Research

featured actual software, access to live mentors doing online training, and assessments designed to parallel real-world tasks and using actual software to perform three authentic tasks. The e-learning course involved NETg learning objects (measurable objective, relevant practice activity, assessment), access to FAQs/supporting material, access to mentoring, postassessment at the end of each unit of study, learner guidance to repeat any objects not successfully mastered, and use of actual software to perform three authentic tasks. Findings of the Thomson Study show the following: >

Blended learning performance was 30 percent more accurate than e-learning alone.

>

Blended learning performance on the real-world task was 41 percent faster than e-learning alone.

>

Blended learning performance was 159 percent more accurate than no training (control group).

>

E-learning performance was 99 percent more accurate than no training (control group).

The results of this study seem to support scenario-based exercises as an effective model for learning. Both the blended model and the e-learning course used online mentoring and were, in effect, both blended. At the University of South Australia, a course delivered mostly face-to-face was redesigned to include a blend of online, distance, and asynchronous styles using a range of e-learning technologies. Researchers found that the impact on student learning was at least neutral. Blending made the course more flexible without reducing learning benefits (Clark & James, 2005). The annual State of the Industry Report published by the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) did not report specifically on the use of blended learning in their most recent report. ASTD did note, however, that their BEST organizations–those who have been recognized by ASTD for demonstrating a clear link between learning and performance–have realized efficiencies by blending e-learning with classroom instruction, mentoring, and on-the-job training. Other research measuring the impact of varied mixes of classroom and online instruction suggests that learners taking blended courses delivered in the context of the case method may perform better at multiple levels of learning outcomes versus traditional face-to-face instruction. Learners do as well in the traditional classroom, but data suggest the students in online environments may perform better at multiple levels of learning outcomes especially when using a blend of classroom and online technologies (Webb, 2005).

Do not reproduce

Page 31

A blended learning environment increases both the opportunities for engagement among learners and the connectedness with their organization or institution. Analyzing the diaries of learners enrolled in four or more blended courses at a U.K. university, researchers found that the virtual blended learning environment facilitated connectedness among learners. This connectedness further enabled better preparation for face-to-face learning. However, broken connections in the virtual learning portion of a blended course appear to affect learner perception of the entire learning experience rather than just the experience where the connection was broken. The researchers noted that, although expectations of constant access to resources (and people) must be met before value can be realized, the blended environment itself can provide opportunities to patch broken connections; barriers online can be overcome in the classroom, and barriers in the classroom can be overcome online (Aspden, 2004). At the University of Wisconsin, traditional face-to-face courses were redesigned, adding an online learning component. Course sizes ranged from 15 students to over 200. The study found that blended (hybrid) courses increased student engagement both online and in the classroom. Instructors favored the blended model over classroom only and reported an increase in student contact. Additionally, instructors believed students learned more in the blended format than in the traditional classroom and that they wrote better papers, performed better on exams, produced higher quality projects, and were capable of more meaningful discussions on course material. One-hundred percent of faculty members recommended using the blended model and planned to teach that way again (Aycock, 2002). At the University of Central Florida, blended courses, in measuring student success, were comparable to, or in some cases better than, face-to-face learning. Students in blended learning courses achieved better grades than students in traditional face-to-face courses or totally online courses (Dzuiban, 2005). Of the thirty institutions that were part of a Pew Foundation Study, twenty reported improved learning outcomes and ten reported no significant difference (Twigg, 2003). However, research is not conclusive as to the promise of blended courses versus fully online courses in higher education. Between 2003 and 2004, there was a decrease (46 percent to 38 percent, respectively) among respondents to a joint survey by Babson College, the Sloan Consortium, and Eduventures on the statement “blended courses hold more promise than online courses” among colleges and universities that offer online courses. However, the numbers among schools offering blended but not online courses decreased from 72 percent to 68 percent, which researchers infer as strong promise for blended learning in higher education (Allen, 2007). Other research suggests blended learning produces a stronger sense of community than either traditional face-to-face instruction or fully online courses (Rovai, 2004). Rovai’s study of 68 graduate students in three courses with different delivery methods (traditional face-to-face,

© Brandon Hall Research

blended, and online only) showed that students in blended courses scored higher on “connectedness” post-test scores than students in both traditional face-to-face courses and online courses. The blended course also possessed the highest estimated marginal mean (the difference between pre-test and post-test scores) for learning, followed by the traditional course and the online course. Participants in the blended course scored significantly higher on learning than those in the online course but scored lower than the traditional face-to-face course (Rovai, 2004). This study then tells us that: >

connectedness is stronger in blended learning courses than in both traditional face-to-face courses and online courses,

>

blended learning courses’ post-test scores indicate they are less effective for learning than traditional face-to-face courses,

>

blended learning courses show greater results for learning when comparing pre-test and post-test scores than both traditional face-to-face and online courses, and

>

blended learning courses are more effective for learning than online courses.

It has been suggested that this increase in connectedness may be driven by the paradigm shift away from teacher-centered instruction toward learner-centered instruction that has been the subject of debate over the past 15+ years (Barr & Tagg, in Rovai, 1995). Finally, a meta-analysis identified 96 studies reporting data from 19,331 trainees who took part in 168 training courses. Across 71 effect sizes and 10,910 learners, results indicate that combining classroom and Internet components is more effective than stand-alone classroom instruction for teaching trainees job-relevant knowledge and skills. Blended learning was 13% more effective than classroom instruction for teaching declarative knowledge and 20% more effective than classroom instruction for teaching procedural knowledge (Sitzmann, et al, 2006).

Implications The perception that blended learning produces better learning outcomes than face-to-face learning is mostly supported by research. The research comparing blended learning with elearning alone is not fully developed and therefore is inconclusive. Improved efficiency, greater flexibility, increased engagement and connectedness, improved learning, deeper learning, improved test scores, improved writing skills, and a sense of community are some of the findings supporting the perceptions. The research on the value of blended learning also supports the statement that the model of learning and its fit with supporting technologies, rather than the presence of technology per se, enhances learning outcomes (Webb, 2005). For organizations, this means that developing a blended learning strategy is a way to achieve better learning outcomes. Suppliers of e-learning tools, systems, courseware, and training can

Do not reproduce

Page 33

find opportunities in offering supportive technology and services as a way to improve learning outcomes.

© Brandon Hall Research