Purposefully Designing Blended Learning Experience: Capitalizing on the Best of Face to Face Programming and Digital Program Delivery.

Darrell A. Dromgoole, Associate Professor and Extension Specialist, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service.

Scott Cummings, Associate Department Head and Program Leader; Professor and Extension Specialist, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service.

As the Chovid 19 pandemic cases begin to decrease and Texans begin to realize a “new normal” it is imperative that Extension educators embrace new methods in order to meet our clientele needs. Our Director, Dr. Jeff Hyde has stated that our goal is to impact every Texan. In order to accomplish this goal it will imperative to incorporate digital program delivery routinely in our Extension educational portfolio.

Blended educational events provide the opportunity for Extension educators to mix the best of face to face meetings and digital online educational opportunities to create a new learning environment for their clientele (Stein & Graham, 2014). Research suggests that blended courses can have a positive impact on efficiency, convenience, and learning outcomes (Stein & Graham, 2014). By moving more of the learning situated in online environments, blended courses add flexibility to clientele’s schedules, provide learning benefit through automated and asynchronous online tools, and can tap into the modern, social media sites to assist learners to venture beyond the traditional boundaries of the classroom (Stein & Graham, 2014).

To consistently achieve benefits from blended methods, Extension educators should go beyond a simple “digital facelift” (Stein & Graham, 2014).  Instead, Extension educators should purposefully create transformative blends through an intentional program design process (Stein & Graham, 2014). This program design will include the following:

• Clear and concise program goals and objectives
• Subject matter to be presented
• Desired program outcomes
• Target audience, including its previous knowledge, experience, and attitude
• Sequential learning opportunities organized to build on previous knowledge
  • Each topic should have associated teaching points that correlate to program goals and objectives
  • Determination of what content can be delivered online and which will require face to face clientele interaction

When planning program delivery methods, Extension Educators should consider the following questions (Seevers & Graham, 2012):

• What educational experiences are most appropriate for the audience and content?
• Are the program delivery methods selected appropriately for accomplishing the identified program objectives?
• What is the logical sequence for activities and/or methods? Should online material be provided prior to a face to face educational event to provide foundational knowledge and set the stage for learning during the face to face educational event or should online material be presented after face to face educational event to reinforce teaching points included during face to face educational event?
• Do the learning activities build logically on other learning experiences? (For example, a newsletter series may be sent following a workshop to add value to content delivered during the face to face workshop or an online lesson.)

Research on adult learners has identified key differences between adult and traditional student–aged audiences (Knowles, 1980; Merriam, 2001), providing a roadmap for effective andragogy (methods or technique utilized to teach adults) in Extension programming (Strong, Harder, & Carter, 2010). In particular, adult learners have a greater capacity to direct their own learning, have problem-oriented learning goals, wish to immediately apply new knowledge, and are more self-motivated than externally motivated (Knowles, 1980).

According to Larkin, Weber, Galatowitsch, Gupta, and Rager (2018), these characteristics of adult learners align well with blended learning teaching methods. One example of utilizing blended learning methods is providing online content prior to face-to-face meetings via self-paced online modules, YouTube videos, and webinars, etc. This  independent learning is focused on knowledge and comprehension (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Milman, 2012), freeing up face to face instruction time for higher level, more active modes of learning that leverages the presence of the Extension educators and peers to facilitate application, analysis, and synthesis (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Mazur, 2009).

When done right, blended courses allow for increased access and convenience without giving up—and sometimes even enhancing—the things that many Extension clientele associate with a satisfying, effective learning experience such as building relationships with the Extension educators and other clientele (Stein & Graham, 2014). While still requiring some onsite attendance, blended learning provides more flexibility and freedom than purely face to face educational experiences by moving a significant amount of onsite class sessions online (Stein & Graham, 2014). The simple use of technology to facilitate learning activities provides added flexibility because now clientele can participate in the course when it’s most convenient.  Smartphones and tablets can support online interactions during commutes or whenever clientele have spare time (Stein & Graham, 2014).

Hino and Kahn (2016) piloted a training program at Oregon State University for Extension educators to explore blended teaching effectiveness. These researchers conducted a force field analysis with the study group to determine the group members’ perceptions of the opportunities and challenges associated with blended teaching in an Extension educational environment (Hino & Kahn, 2016).  Force Field Analysis was developed by Kurt Lewin, a social psychologist, in 1946. The basic concept behind Force Field Analysis is that situations are maintained by an equilibrium between forces that drive change and others that resist change. For change to happen, the driving forces must be strengthened or the resisting forces must be weakened.  Listed below are the “Forces for Blended Teaching” as a result of Force Field Analysis (Hino & Kahn, 2016):

• Efficient for faculty
• Broader audience (diverse, new demographics, easier access)
• Convenient for learners
• Responds to changes in client demographics (i.e., younger digital natives)
• Scalable
• Cost-effective
• Greater adaptability, both regionally and nationally
• Meets growing audience demand for online resources
• Encourages resource sharing
• Ability to chunk content
• Supported by existing technology

This Force Field Analysis revealed the following “Forces against Blended Teaching” (Hino & Kahn, 2016):

• Upfront development time
• Limited expertise in online delivery among Extension faculty
• Not all programs are suited for a blended approach

Researchers in New Zealand reported that when time between learning experiences is provided there is a more optimum educational environment for clientele to learn (Gray, Sewell Hartnett, Wood, Kemp, Blair, Kenyon & Morris, 2016). By providing clientele time between educational experiences, they have time to reflect and synthesize information to determine how it will be applied to their specific situation.

In Figure 1, a concept map illustrates how a blended teaching method could be implemented with a series of three face-to-face educational meetings:

Figure 1.   Concept map of a Beef Cattle Nutrition Blended Learning Experience.

In terms of Bloom’s revised taxonomy (2001), this means that clientele are doing the lower levels of cognitive work (gaining knowledge and comprehension) outside of the face to face educational environment, and focusing on the higher forms of cognitive work (application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation and/or creation) in face to face settings, where they have the support of their peers and Extension educators (Figure 2).

Figure 2.          Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson, & Krathwohl, 2001).

In addition, Stein & Graham (2014) proposed the following reasons for why blended educational approaches are as effective as, or more effective than, traditional face to face educational events:

• Improved program instructional design. Blended educational efforts (like online courses) may be more deliberately designed than face-to-face counterparts.
• Increased guidance and triggers. Clientele working in a face-to-face educational setting receive guidance from the Extension educator during the face to face educational event. In a blended Extension educational environment, the course environment provides a clear path through resources, activities, and assessments with explicit guidance each step of the way.
• Easier access to learning activities. Putting materials and activities online allows more of the clientele to engage with these on their own schedule, which may lead to a more robust learning environment.
• Individualized learning opportunities. Because digital materials may be accessed according to clienteles’ individual needs, and reviewed upon demand, the delivery of digital materials allows clientele to self-direct certain learning activities to fill their knowledge gaps. Automated assessments often used in online learning environments may also provide immediate, corrective feedback that directs clientele to revisit materials.
• Increased engagement through social interaction. Clientele in a face-to-face educational event may have limited opportunities to engage with each and every one of the participants, and the face-to-face environment itself may inhibit some clientele from participating. Online environments that facilitate discussions, collaboration, etc., may increase the amount of clientele-to-clientele interaction. This may, in turn, enhance their engagement with the subject matter and provide motivational benefits from the increased social interaction.
• Time on task. Blended and online courses tend to intensify clientele focus on more relevant work. This may be true because of increased guidance and access, and improved instructional design. It may also be that time on task is simply more visible in a blended course because clientele activity in an online environment can be tracked on every page and every click.

When thinking about utilizing a blended educational approach, consider how the effectiveness of an educational series might be augmented. Traditionally, we would schedule a series of face to face educational meetings over the course of several weeks or even months. When utilizing a blended approach, the Extension educator might record presentations using a platform such as YouTube™, conduct a webinar or have clientele take online units, allowing more time for clientele engagement with Extension educators during face to face sessions. This enables clientele to achieve the lower levels of cognitive work (gaining knowledge and comprehension) outside of the face to face educational environment. Face to face sessions allows clientele to focus on the higher forms of cognitive work (application, analysis, synthesis, and/or evaluation), where they have the support of their peers and Extension educators.  In addition, Researchers in New Zealand reported that when time between learning experiences is provided the learning experience is much more robust (Gray, Sewell Hartnett, Wood, Kemp, Blair, Kenyon & Morris, 2016). By providing clientele time between educational experiences, they have time to reflect and synthesize information to determine how it will be applied to their specific situation.

Take Home Points

While the literature on blended or hybrid learning in Extension is still limited, many in Extension have begun to embrace technology to reach new audiences through a variety of blended or hybrid learning programs. Some of the advantages to a blended or hybrid educational approach is a follows:

• Extension has a genuine opportunity to reach every Texan.
• Extension clientele’s learning preferences are changing and blended or hybrid approaches appeals to their need for independent learning.
• Clientele are able to do the lower levels of cognitive work (gaining knowledge and comprehension) outside of the face to face educational environment, and focusing on the higher forms of cognitive work (application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation and/or creation) in face to face settings, where they have the support of their peers and Extension educators.
• Efficient for Extension educators.
• Cost effective.
• Convenient for clientele.
• Responds to changes in client demographics (i.e., younger digital natives).
• Meets growing audience demand for online resources.
• Ability to chunk content.
• Provides clientele time between educational events to reflect on information to determine how it will be applied to their specific situation.

References

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy. New York, NY: Longman Publishing.

Gray, D., Sewell, A., Hartnett, M., Wood, B., Kemp, P., Blair, H., Kenyon, P., & Morris, S. (2016) Improved extension practices for sheep and beef farmers. Hill Country- Grassland Research and Practice Series # 16.

Hino, J., & Kahn, C. (2016). Hybrid Teaching in Extension: Learning at the Crossroads. Journal of Extension, 54 (4), Article # 4IAW3. Available at   https://www.joe.org/joe/2016august/pdf/JOE_v54_4iw3.pdf

Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge Books.

Larkin, D.J., Weber, M. M., Galatowitsch, S.M., Gupta, A. S., & Rager, A. (2018). Flipping the Classroom to Train Citizen Scientists in Invasive Species Detection and Response. Journal of