Cohere 2014 comparing kinesiology-blended, online courses

Centre for Continuing Education

A Comparison of Kinesiology blended/online course deliveries

Greg Bawden, BV/T EdDaysha Shuya, PT, MScKatherine McLeod, PhD

Jadi Engele

COHERE 2014


Study Background

• Two different courses share one classroom space– KIN 260 (Anatomy) and 268 (Physiology II) in Fall 2013– KIN 170 (Lifestyle & Health) and 275 (Into to Nutrition) in

Winter 2014– Online versions of course already developed

• Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of same course offered blended and fully online– Qualitative and quantitative research methods


Research Data

Quantitative Data• Not anonymous • Student success • Student grades • Student retention • Student demographics and

correlation between retention , grades, etc.

Qualitative Data• Anonymous• Students likes/dislikes about

each delivery mode. • Reasons for enrolling in a

particular course mode


Flipped learning

“A flipped classroom inverts the traditional structure of a classroom. In a typical traditional classroom, students listen to lectures in class and perform other learning activities, such as solving practice problems after class. In this traditional structure, students are exposed to material in class via lectures, and they attain deeper knowledge after class via various forms of homework. In a typical flipped classroom, students listen to pre-recorded video lectures before class and perform other learning activities in class. In this flipped structure, students are exposed to material before class via videos and readings, and they attain deeper knowledge in class via activities.” (Bogost, 2013)

http://bawdeng.wordpress.com/flipped-learning-2/

http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/08/the-condensed-classroom/279013/

http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/08/the-condensed-classroom/279013/

http://bawdeng.wordpress.com/flipped-learning-2/


KIN 260 - Human Anatomy

Sample chapter for f2f, online and blended formats

Daysha Shuya


Arthrology

• Face to face– Lecture format, supplemented with ppt– Lab component- activities and models

• Online• Blended


Arthrology- f2f


Arthrology- f2f (lab)


Arthrology

• Face to face

• Online– Video lectures with assigned readings from the

textbook– Workbook as a guide, listing objectives – Online cadaver lab software– ‘Knowledge reinforcement activities’ (games)

• Blended


Arthology- online Moodle view


Arthrology- online workbook












Arthology- online Moodle view


Arthrology- online lab


Reinforcement ActivitiesHot spot activity Fill in blank


Arthrology

• Face to face• Online

• Blended– The best of both offerings


Arthrology- Blended

f2f• Student interaction• Immediate student

feedback• Use of models in lab

Online• Self-directed freedom• Consistent content delivery• Student- guided learning

options


Arthrology- Blended

• F2f: Introduced content at the end of the previous module• Online: workbook and cadaver lab• F2f:

– Access to lab models– Reviewed joint motions and worked through a handout– Previous ‘trainer’ activity small group comparisons– Review workbook questions– “Simon says”


KIN 170 and 275

Katherine McLeod


KIN 170 and 275 blendedOutside of class (LMS)

–Textbook reading–Read online units (includes

graded quizzes, videos, polls, reflections, quick facts, pictures, links)

–Small group discussions - videos

–Links to food –portions

In class– Goal to reinforce concepts

learned online and outline new concepts to focus on

– Q&A, review concepts– Practical case studies– Guest speakers– Individual reflection writing or

small group activities (videos, dissecting/discussing research papers

– Food labels & food models


Instructor Reflections

• Online/blended instruction is a lot of work!• Having online course developed + teaching f2f made

developing/delivering blended easier• Learning curves • Stay true to successes of f2f delivery (what worked well) and

augment– ID is critical source of useful ideas for online delivery

• Blended provides best-of-both worlds• Student preference in course delivery (online/blended/f2f)

depends largely on learning style/environment preference


• Regular communication• Online organization

– Visual appeal• Clear expectations, learning

outcomes• Meeting once weekly (blended)• Meaningful, practical, applied

projects/assignments• Classroom comments (blended)

• Small group discussion overload (KIN 170)

• More visual connection with instructor (online)

• Technical issues• Large online class size requires

more support (TA)

What Worked What Didn’t


Student perspective

Jadi Engele


Comparing 4 Courses


KIN 260 commentsOnline (38 students 77% of max enrolment; 63% response rate;)

• Instructor slow response time• Flexibility• Wanted to know what was important• Course organization important• Course rated as Good to Satisfactory• Technical issues• Majority 6+ hours/week

Blended (35 students 94% of max enrolment; 43% response rate)

• Online activities useful for practice• 11/14 preferred f2f, 0 online, 3/14

blended• Needed f2f for direction and

motivation• More communication with

instructor outside of class• Good (8/15), Satisfactory (4/15), 1

Excellent, 2 Poor.• 3: 3-5 hours, 3: 6-8 hours, 2: 12-14

hours, 2: 15-17 hours


KIN 268 commentsOnline (offered in Spring 2014) – 10 students; 1 response

• Likes lecture and taking notes• Instructor responsive and helpful to questions

Blended (25 students 100% of max enrolment; 100% response rate)• Workbooks viewed favorably• Ability to check in with instructor• Online quizzes not matching textbook material; access quiz answers to learn from• Workload too heavy for self-study (online)• 20/25 prefer face-to-face, 2/25 online, 3/25 blended• Most rated Good or Satisfactory• Wanted to hear from instructor first, textbook second rather than reversed• Most spent 0-5 hours/week


KIN 260/268 student comments

• “It was really difficult to do a blended class because I like to learn in a classroom and listening to a professor, not reading information from a textbook. I would’ve liked having more visual aspects, like when we looked at bones in a classroom.”

• “I like the blended course a lot better because a lot of the time the professor just repeats what is said in the textbook. It is easier just to stay at home and do the course on my own time. But the extra little supplement of professor time explained all that needed explaining exam wise and for any question we did end up having from the course material. It was a good balance of help from the professor and teaching myself.”


KIN 170 and 275 blended• Outside of class (LMS)

– Textbook reading– Read units (graded quizzes, videos, polls, reflections)– Small group discussions-videos– Link to food portions

• In class - Goal to reinforce concepts learned online– Q&A, review concepts– Case studies– Guest speakers– Individual or small group activities– Food labels


KIN 275 commentsOnline (123 students 95% of max enrolment; 14.6% response rate)

• Liked practice quizzes, forums• Difficult to stay on task• More video less reading• 5 prefer f2f, 7 prefer online, 6 blended• Flexibility• More f2f connection with instructor• 9 Excellent, 8 Good, 1 Satisfactory• 6 :3-5 hours, 10: 6-8 hours• 11 said same amount of work

Blended (48 students 98% of max enrolment; 14.5% response rate)

• 5 prefer f2f, 0 online, 2 blended• Liked mini quizzes• Freedom of online components• Liked in class activities• 3/7 good, 2/7 excellent, 1

satisfactory, 1 poor• 4/7 more work, 2/7 same• 4 of 7 spent 3-5 hours/week; more

work than other courses


KIN 170 commentsOnline (50 students 98% of max enrolment; 20% response rate)

• Want more videos to reduce self-study

• 6/10 prefer F2F, 3/10 prefer online, 1/10 prefers blended

• Most rated good (7/10), some Excellent (3/10)

• 3-5 hours per week

Blended (49 students 100% of max enrolment; 12.2% response rate;)

• 1 preferred online, 5 preferred blended.

• Flexibility while still getting more detail in a class

• Same amount of work as other courses

• 3 excellent, 3 good.• 3: 3-5 hours, 2: 6-8 hours


Grades


Student Demographics

Online BlendedGender

F 85% 74%M 15% 26%

FacultyARTS 20% 22%BUSINESS 6% 4%CCE 3% 1%EDUCATION 4% 9%FINE ARTS 1% 1%KINESIOLOGY 17% 33%NURSING 27% 7%SCIENCE 20% 23%SOCIAL WORK 2% 0%

CitizenshipCanadian 98% 95%International 2% 5%

Age18-24 80% 91%25-44 18% 9%45+ 2% 0%


Considerations/Unanswered Questions

• Unaware or not prepared for what a blended course meant

• Pre-med students-want high marks, fed information to pass exams

• Personalities and presence• Volume of content• Culture of Faculty

• How it was in high school• Exam based assessment• Generally online students put

in more hours than blended• Registration process• Online lack of community

building• Class size


Next steps

• Student focus groups• More analysis of information especially quantitative data• Not sure if these blended courses will be offered again


Acknowledgements

• Daysha Shuya – KIN 260 and 268 instructor• Katherine McLeod – KIN 170 and 275 instructor• Jadi Engele – KIN 170 blended and KIN 275 online student• Greg Bawden – Instructional Designer


Questions/Comments