CASE 3: Bringing Off-campus Students On Campus: An Evaluation of a Blended Course Free

Learners enrolled in the Bachelor of General Studies (BGS) independent study degree program, who had not yet taken the required religion course, were notified via e-mail of the opportunity to enroll in this blended section. When winter semester (2002) began, 7 BGS distant learners enrolled along with 49 on-campus learners.

The skill-driven, blended course model (Valiathan, 2002) was modified only slightly to accommodate the distant learners. As in previous semesters, learners bought a textbook, were assigned required and optional online readings, and were given required and optional Internet links to access. Powerpoint presentations (in pdf file format) used during lectures were posted in the course documents section of the online syllabus and learners were encouraged to post comments or questions to the online discussion board at least once each week. In addition, bi-weekly attendance quizzes were taken online, the midterm and final exams (both take home, open book) could be submitted in online or paper-pencil formats, and class notes were posted. These blended components reflect several suggested by Driscoll (2001) to “supplement or compliment existing courseware rather than replace it.”

The following supplemental components were added to the blended version of the course:

1. a pdf file including learners' names, brief biographical information, and pictures;

2. audio recordings of course lectures learners could download during the latter half of the semester, and

3. a teaching assistant who, in addition to grading and other TA duties, took on the role of evaluator: she participated in the class sessions, participated in, observed and analyzed the online discussions, conducted interviews, and administered questionnaires.

She was asked by other administrators to expand the evaluation to help them make decisions about offering similar kinds of courses in the future. This case study is based on her inquiries.

To help the reader see the course from the participants' perspective, excerpts from the interview results are presented in support of several themes that emerged from the analysis of the entire data set. The data set, which includes data from interviews, participant observation, surveys, discussion board, questionnaires, and statistics automatically generated by the online software, is reported elsewhere along with a detailed explanation of the research methodology (Burgon, 2003). Following these results, patterns the authors discerned in the entire data set for each of the four goals outlined above are hypothesized for consideration and implications for practice are suggested.

Distant learners, on-campus students, and the instructor shared this experience but emphasized the value of different dimensions of the course.

Demographically, the distant learners were 2 men and 5 women in the age range of mid-twenties to early fifties, all of whom were parents and were employed full time. Instructor, TA, and student interaction, community, and deadlines are themes that emerged from distant learner data.

In contrast with other distance learning experiences, the distant learners' experiences in this course were greatly enhanced through their interaction with the instructor and the TA/internal evaluator. Instructors of courses the distant learners took previously had discouraged instructor-student interaction, making it difficult to navigate through the course and receive answers to their questions. One distant learner mentioned how pleased she was that the instructor wrote a class announcement recommending that all class participants use her first discussion board posting as their example of how to post well. She was pleased, not only for the recognition, but because the announcement provided instructor feedback about the quality of her work. Another distant student commented, “I was really grateful that [the instructor] made himself available to answer questions and concerns. The [TA/internal evaluator] was quite helpful [at] getting things working for the class, especially for us off-campus students.” These results indicate that instructor-student interaction “keeps the learner from feeling isolated,” (Valiathan, 2002), helping them to maintain motivation, sustain participation, and, ultimately, achieve course completion.

Student-student interaction also played a key role in the distant learners' course experiences, helping them incorporate themselves into the campus community. Distance and on-campus learners, the instructor, and the TA/internal evaluator used the online discussion board to interact during weekly discussion sessions. Students submitted assignments here. Due to class size, time constraints on weekly lectures, and the location of the distant learners, the discussion board provided time and opportunity for all participants to share comments, questions, and occasional personal communications, which allowed them to get better acquainted. The discussion board became a “blended” space where both distant and on-campus learners could participate in the course together. The discussion board was a significant feature of this blended course because it provided a means for distant learners to interact with on-campus learners—a type of interaction they were not accustomed to in their traditional independent study courses.

Distant learners appreciated online interaction, not only for what they learned, but because they felt they were able to make a valuable contribution to the learning of others. Distant learners were actively engaged in the discussion board, frequently commenting, asking, or answering questions. They often included citations and liked to refer classmates to other valuable articles. The majority of the distant students made comments indicating that, deprived of new discussion, they went through a type of withdrawal when the course ended.

The emphasis on social interaction in this study is partially due to the institution's concern that while traditional distance courses may convey factual information to students, such courses may not help students experience the more intangible aspects of the institution (Waddoups & Howell, 2002) embedded in the cultural transmissions of synchronous on-site courses (Selix, 2001)—e.g., its mission, purposes, and atmosphere. One student who had been an on-campus student several years earlier commented that, unlike her previous independent study courses, interaction in this course made her “feel just like I never left [the university campus].” She was excited to interact with young people, noting that she learned from their youthful perspective, and felt she made a contribution to their learning as she drew upon her more extensive experience. Another distant learner wrote, “For me, this course was completely head and shoulders above the regular independent study courses. There was interaction; there were real people …. It was like a whole new world opened up. I wasn't expecting to get to know the class members like I did. It was good that class members came from different backgrounds. Their different perspectives really added to the class. I was glad to see the interaction and feel a part of the class rather that just doing a little Internet correspondence or a paper and pencil ‘take your class in the closet,’ type of course. Sometimes another student can help you better than the book, or even sometimes better than the instructor. I never thought I'd get a chance to go to this school because admissions are so competitive … Now I say, ‘that's my school’”

Most distant learners benefited from the deadlines provided in the syllabus for this blended course. In other independent study experiences, distant learners typically have a year to complete their courses with no intermediate deadlines. Due to the lack of deadlines, distant learners frequently allow personal interests to take priority over their courses, but not in this course. When one student realized business or travel would take her away from her home computer, she would complete the next assignment ahead of time. When she could, she would take readings with her on trips. Another student commented, “Give me a deadline and I will follow it and I'll think it's great. Say to me, ‘You have a year,’ and then just let me do it [on my own] and I'm still working on it.” She went on to note that she had started an accounting course through regular independent study at the time she started this course. She considered the accounting course to be tedious, having only completed 2 or 3 quizzes at the time of the interview. In contrast, she really enjoyed the blended course, and was disappointed when it was over. In this course, deadlines did not permit procrastination, thus assisting most distant learners to maintain focus in the course.

Deadlines are not always plausible for students (distant or on-campus). Two distant learners enrolled in this course received low grades due to missing assignments. One was prevented from participating for a significant length of time during the semester due to military deployment. Another made a career change. Because his new job meant relocation, he felt the time demands of a new job, a lengthy commute, and the other challenges of moving prevented him from spending as much time on the course as he needed to meet the deadlines. He felt that had he not relocated, his performance would have been much better, his discussion board participation would have been far more frequent, and his ability to meet deadlines would have been much improved. Despite deadline challenges, he still asserted that “This format is really the way to go for off-campus students.”

On-campus learners were undergraduates of all class standings enrolled in a traditional degree program ranging in age from late teens to mid-forties, most early-twenties. Themes emerging from on-campus learner data include course components, study groups, discussion board, and instructor/TA.

On-campus learners benefited from the course components added primarily to facilitate distant learning. International students participating on-campus particularly benefited from course notes prepared for distant learners (see Driscoll, 2000). One on-campus student from Ukraine noted that her stress level decreased in this course because she did not have to struggle to keep up with understanding the language of the lecture while frantically taking notes. Knowing that the course notes were available helped her enjoy class and pay close attention to the lectures. In addition to course notes, other students were also happy to have online access to all the Powerpoint presentations the instructor used during class.

On-campus learners were perceived to have only one potential benefit over distant learners: study groups. Though not a course component, a few learners formed a study group to prepare for exams. One student commented that “the study group was really helpful, especially when I was studying for the mid-term. It was like the other [students] that were at the study group were the only people I talked to in class.” An on-campus learner sent an e-mail invitation to participate to each student in the class and the resulting study sessions were held face-to-face on campus. Thus, distant learners were unable to participate.

On-campus learners enjoyed the discussion board for several reasons including time to comment and ask questions, comfortable social interaction, and a deeper understanding of the subject matter. In a class with 49 students, there was little class time for individual questions and comments. The discussion board allowed on-campus learners to ask questions and make comments.

Additionally, limited class time and large class size deterred learners from social interaction in the classroom setting. Most social interaction, both academic and personal, and for on-campus and distant learners, occurred on the discussion board. One might suppose that, due to physical proximity, social interaction is strongest face-to-face. In this case, a sense of physical distance on the discussion board gave the students a virtual comfort zone, allowing them to communicate at a very personal level. On-campus students' course experiences and learning were enhanced because of the opportunity to comment and ask questions on-line without fear or embarrassment.

On-campus students felt accessing classmates' comments on the discussion board enhanced their learning. Like the distant learners, the on-campus students' understanding of course concepts increased by reading about the topics from the differing perspectives and references presented by their classmates. As one campus student stated, “Some people point out things that I would never think of, it was so interesting, and they would include different articles, more and more information.”

The instructor created a positive learning atmosphere for the on-campus students and an approach that brought fresh, well supported, perspectives to the course material. On-campus learners appreciated the instructor's attention to teaching them how to use effective teaching methods. They especially appreciated that he “practiced what he preached.” On-campus students were also pleased with the instructor because of the tone he set for each class session. He always greeted students as they entered, he was well prepared when class began, his materials were well organized, he knew the students, had a respect for the material, and knew what he was teaching.

The TA/internal evaluator attended each class session and also knew the students by name. She fielded questions about syllabus requirements and grading. She typically referred students with questions dealing with subject matter to the instructor. However, she was familiar with course content and substituted when the instructor had to be out of town. One student stated that “when [the TA] taught, it was just like she was our teacher and not a substitute because she was there every day and she knew what we were doing.”

The instructor was a tenured professor at a large university. From instructor data, the following themes emerged: workload, discussion board, e-mail, and problems.

As described in the introduction to this case study group, blended courses frequently emerge as instructors of face-to-face courses add blended components over time. The instructor in this case had used a blended online component previously; therefore he was able to make revisions easily. He completed the major adjustments he thought were necessary for distant learners in less than two weeks.

Despite the added element of on-campus students, he maintained a workload similar to previous semesters, due in large part to hiring a TA/internal evaluator and blending instructors. The TA/internal evaluator took on the responsibilities of “producer” (Hofmann, 2001a, 2001b; see also Brooks, 2002) and participant observer for evaluation purposes. She worked as a traditional TA, grading assignments, answering questions, and giving lectures in the absence of the instructor. She also served as a liaison for the distant students, assessing and meeting their course needs. She also was a technician, creating the student bio file, putting audio files online, and making necessary adjustment to modes of delivery.

Additionally, the instructor was able to decrease his workload by changing his approach to discussion board participation. He found participation on the discussion board to be time-consuming during previous semesters. For this course, rather than reading and responding to nearly all of the posted messages, he read all of the messages but only responded when he felt a particular question required an accurate response (sometimes correction); the TA/internal evaluator did the same. In a subject the instructor described as “inexhaustible,” he felt the time participating on the discussion board was well spent as he learned from the innovative questions and perspectives the students presented.

By participating on the discussion board, the instructor was also able to see that course objectives were being met. One of his objectives for the class was to help learners become more conscientious scholars. He encouraged them to research and cite references to support their comments and ideas. He was especially pleased when learners would include links or references to articles he had not previously included, increasing the knowledge base for all involved. The instructor noted, “The links and documents the students added were amazing. One student included a copy of a historical document that clarified a concept, another attached a rare picture of a building referred to in the readings.”

The instructor recognized early in the semester that it was important to be committed to e-mail communication to address the needs of the on-campus and, especially, the distant learners. The instructor communicated with distant learners primarily by e-mail. He found individual responses to be especially important during the first month of the semester. He used e-mail, a technology the learners were comfortable using to assist the distant learners as they became familiar with the online course software (Smith, 2001).

Despite an overall positive experience, there were faults in the blended course. Some were easily remedied, such as posting Power-point presentations in pdf format for students who did not have access to the Powerpoint software. However, at least one imperfection was inherent in the course design. The instructor would occasionally send group e-mails to the distant learners to clarify requirements that had been posted in the syllabus as general announcements. For example, he reassured distant learners that they would be able to complete the equivalent of an in-class teaching assignment by completing their own out-of-class teaching assignment. He felt that having to send these clarifying e-mail messages “was the most frustrating aspect of the blended course from a design standpoint.” Though inconvenient, he did not want to confuse the whole group by listing two sets of instructions in the same announcement in the syllabus.

By examining the primary research question, the authors determined that, in achieving the goals of access to knowledge, social interaction, ease of revision, and personal agency, distant learners can be advantageously integrated into a blended, on-campus course. Online access to readings and the added information from instructor and students as the course progressed increased access to knowledge. Social interaction also enhanced learning by giving course participants a place to voice questions, share comments, and build community. Revising an existing blended on-campus course to accommodate distant learners can be done with ease. And, personal agency may be maintained by allowing the students the option to enroll, the instructor the option to integrate. Personal agency for the distant learners is particularly supported by this format; the deadlines guided them in their choices as they prioritized and organized their time.

The results of the course experience in all four goal areas indicate that the blended format has positive implications for distance education in the future. All interviewees, including distant and on-campus students and the instructor, said they would take another class in the same (or similar) format.

The instructor was able to integrate distant learners into a blended, on-campus course without a marked increase in workload through thoughtful use of class time, email, discussion board, and a TA/internal evaluator. The principal adjustments to the course format took little time to complete. Additional minor adjustments were made where necessary, some to the design and mode of presentation of online materials and some to the instructor's approach. The use of a TA/internal evaluator can be an important factor in successfully implementing this course format, as was the case in this instance; the TA eased instructor workload and provided students an additional instructor-side resource, while gathering useful evaluative feedback on the students' experiences in the course.

Because he was also the course designer, the course instructor was able to increase student access to knowledge. He directed the TA to assess students' needs and then carry out the necessary adjustments to the design. This capacity was especially important when learners, especially distant learners, whose means of participating is the Internet, did not have software and hardware that meet the requirements. Based on learner computer needs, the designer/instructor of a blended course may want to adjust methods of delivery for online course components (i.e. converting Power-point to pdf, and streaming audio, etc.) after the course begins.

Distant and on-campus learners and the instructor responded positively to the resulting course format. For the distant learners, this course, notably for the social interaction, was unlike any they had previously taken. They appreciated the campus connection, especially the opportunity to interact regularly with an instructor and other learners. For the on-campus learners, a notable difference between this and previous classes was the discussion board. They appreciated the opportunity to ask questions and comment, to have a “place” to continue the discussion after class had ended. A few on-campus students continued the discussion after class by creating a study group. Because on-campus learners found the study sessions helpful, and because distant learners could not participate, research into on-line collaboration, including study groups, should be taken into consideration before a blended format of this kind is next implemented.

Personal agency played an important role in the success of the course: The distant learners chose to enroll in the blended section, and the instructor chose to accept the distant learners and to make the necessary modifications to accommodate them. The distant learners appreciated deadlines even when they could not meet them. The results may have been quite different if the students had been forced to enroll in the blended course, or if the instructor had been forced to accept them.

Although the evaluative data for this blended course were generally positive, one should not necessarily conclude that the format would work for all courses, for all students, or for all instructors. This course, for example, focused on a topic in which most learners were already invested—a topic that invited dialogue. Though on-campus students may be accustomed to deadlines and social interaction, distant learners are not; some distant learners are involved in independent study because they are uncomfortable with deadlines and/or interaction. And, the instructor had designed and implemented blended formats over time.

The important finding of this study is that, at least in this particular case, blending distance with face-to-face learners can succeed for both groups of students without significantly increasing the demands on the instructor. As researchers, designers, and developers of distance education strive for ways to decrease the distance, they may look to the blended on-campus/distance, in-class/Internet course format as a minimal labor, positive outcome alternative to traditional on-campus, distant, or blended environments.