A New Blended Course Architecture for the Modern University

ABSTRACT University-level instructors work in an environment where new technology-based teaching tools are created daily. Most instructors are not formally trained in these technologies, so they must determine by trial-and-error which tools are effective. This paper describes a research project that develops a new blended course architecture that combines the best traditional and online tools. The architecture was implemented into two classes and students were surveyed. The results of the survey show that 87.7% of the students perceive the new architecture to be effective. Further, key components in the design are shown to be very useful individually and in combination. A NEW BLENDED COURSE ARCHITECTURE FOR THE MODERN UNIVERSITY Teaching at the university-level has become a much more complex endeavor in the last decade. Prior to that time, courses were designed around the classic time-tested components of live lecture, handouts, homework, and periodic tests. While computer technology was available, it rarely was utilized in the classroom as a teaching tool and was never utilized as a common classroom learning implement by students. Instead, technology was relegated to the computer lab for projects or to special demonstrations that required extensive setup and planning on the part of the instructor. Some cutting-edge instructors may have used PowerPoint[TM] instead of overhead slides in the classroom, but for the most part, teaching was the same as it had been for decades. Then the revolution occurred. The combination of inexpensive hardware, vastly improved infrastructure, creative software, and the Internet laid the foundation for a new era in education. Learning was no longer limited to the physical confines of the classroom and the content limitations of the textbook (and instructor). World-class external resources were freely available and only a mouse click away. All courses and textbooks were expected to support dedicated web-sites. Entire college campuses were outfitted with wireless Internet hardware so that teachers and students could access these resources easily at any time. Lectures could be streamed, handouts downloaded, homework machine-graded, and tests given 24x7 anywhere the Internet was available. University-level education was thrust into the 21st century. In the middle of this whirlwind of change was the classroom instructor. Trained and experienced in the classic teaching methods, many found themselves struggling to function in the new technological environment. Others, who were more amenable to the change, were forced to learn by trial-and-error which new technologies are best suited for actual students in a real classroom (Nichols, 2003). The temptation for many in the latter group was to say that all technology is good and should replace traditional teaching methods; however, research has shown that the classic methods are very effective for many students (Ury, 2005). Because of this situation, a dilemma currently exists for the university-level instructor. Which new technologies should be adopted and which should be avoided? How best can the traditional teaching methods be merged and augmented with new technological tools? Of the technologies that are available, which do students prefer and which are most effective? These questions demonstrate the need for research into innovative course design architectures at the university-level. Teaching professionals work in a rapidly evolving environment where new technologies that impact their job are created daily. Most instructors are not formally trained in the disciplines that create these technologies, so they have difficulty predicting which will be effective and which will not. Without some guidance or overriding architecture it is very difficult for instructors to determine how best to design their courses to take advantage of the available tools. The project described by this paper developed such architecture. …

[1]  Murray W. Goldberg,et al.  CALOS: first results from an experiment in computer-aided learning for operating systems , 1997, SIGCSE '97.

[2]  Joe Turner Technology in computing education: yet another bandwagon? , 1997, ITiCSE-WGR '97.

[3]  Mark Nichols,et al.  A theory for eLearning , 2003, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[4]  Harvey Singh,et al.  Building Effective Blended Learning Programs , 2021, Challenges and Opportunities for the Global Implementation of E-Learning Frameworks.

[5]  William F. O'Neill Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology , 1980 .

[6]  Gary Ury A Longitudinal Study Comparing Undergraduate Student Performance in Traditional Courses to the Performance in Online Course Delivery , 2004 .

[7]  John Short,et al.  The social psychology of telecommunications , 1976 .

[8]  Leonard Peikoff,et al.  Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology , 1979 .

[9]  Thomas C. Reeves,et al.  Storms clouds on the digital education horizon , 2003, ASCILITE.

[10]  Michael J. Stahl,et al.  Effectiveness of Combined Delivery Modalities for Distance Learning and Resident Learning , 2001 .

[11]  David G. Kay Bandwagons considered harmful, or the past as prologue in curriculum change , 1996, SGCS.

[12]  Grandon Gill 5 (really) hard things about using the internet in higher education , 2006, ELERN.

[13]  G. David Garson,et al.  Evaluating Implementation of Web-Based Teaching in Political Science , 1998, PS: Political Science & Politics.

[14]  John Sener Escaping the Comparison Trap: Evaluating Online Learning on Its Own Terms. , 2004 .

[15]  Maureen Tam,et al.  Constructivism, Instructional Design, and Technology: Implications for Transforming Distance Learning , 2000, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[16]  J. Flavell The Developmental psychology of Jean Piaget , 1963 .

[17]  Rudy Hirschheim The internet-based education bandwagon: look before you leap , 2005, CACM.

[18]  Martin Weller,et al.  Delivering Learning on the Net: The Why, What and How of Online Education , 2002 .