Blended Learning

The body of literature on blended learning discusses a wide range of blending ranging from incorporating technologies and a focus on active learning, to a large percentage of reduced class seat time offset by an intentionally designed set of online learning activities. When blended learning classrooms are compared to traditional lecturing and distance teaching, studies reported either comparable student performance or increased performance in Blended classrooms. Overall, student and faculty perceptions seem to be positive in nature.

Blended learning classrooms have been shown to enhance student performance in STEM classrooms. For example, Naidoo and Naidoo 1 studied the performance of undergraduate students from chemical engineering participating in a calculus course. Naidoo found that students taught with the traditional lecture style exhibited more structural and executive errors than students taught the exact same material in a blended classroom. Students in the blended learning class tended to describe the concepts using deep structures rather than surface structures, an indication of deeper learning. Shen et al. 2 studied 177 vocational students in two consecutive semesters of a compulsory Database management systems course. The eighty-three students who took part in the class that applied blended learning outperformed the ninety-four students who took part in the traditionally taught class. Bazelais and Doleck 3 conducted a comparative case study that examined the differences in student performance between a traditional lecture-based class and a blended classroom approach in a college mechanics course. They found that students in the blended classroom experienced more conceptual change and higher performance compared to the students in the traditional lecture-based class. Tritrakan et al.4 compared pre-test and post-test scores on programming conceptual understanding, problem-solving using programming skills, and program analytical skills of undergraduate students in a computer science program. They found that the students’ conceptual understanding, problem-solving, and analytical skills related to programming were significantly increased in a blended classroom.

In some studies, blended learning yielded no statistically significant performance advantages when compared to distance or e-learning courses. However, these studies provide insight into other benefits of the blended classroom design. For example, Alonso et al. 5 found no pronounced differences between the grades achieved by students in the distance learning (e-learning) and blended learning versions of a software engineering course. However, they did report a significant decrease in students’ dropout rates. Daher et al.’s6 study provided similar results and reported that first-year engineering students had a higher completion rate on assignments in comparison to previous years where the course was taught following a traditional lecture-based, teacher-centered environment. Napier et al.7 found comparable performance between students’ learning in traditional and blended classrooms, however students reported an increase in interactions with the faculty instructors in comparison to other classes. Clark et al.8 compared the effectiveness of blended, semi-flipped, and flipped formats in an engineering numerical methods course. They also reported comparable results in terms of students’ performance with regards to effect sizes with students having a slight preference for the blended format.

In terms of student and faculty perceptions of blended learning, the literature provides us with some insights. Shen et al.2 gathered quantitative data on students’ experiences with blended learning and reported that 75% of students thought the blended approach was very helpful for learning. In qualitative interviews, students agreed that the digital learning materials used for the out-of-class portions of the blended learning structure contributed to their learning and were helpful for their preparation. It is common to find instructor generated videos provided to the students in the online portion of a blended class. Similarly, Tritrakan et al.4 found that computer science students’ aptitude for learning programming increased in a blended classroom. Daher et al. 6 studied both student and instructor perceptions in a blended learning class with reduced time in class (“seat time”). They reported that as the semester progressed, students found the blended approach more enjoyable. The instructor in the study reported that in the in-person sessions, students demonstrated increased engagement. The instructor reported using the in-person sessions to focus on interactive activities that were more complex in nature. Similarly from an instructors’ perspective, Napier et al.7 reported faculty perceptions of teaching in a blended format. Faculty participants in the study highlighted the importance of making decisions about which activities and learning experiences needed to happen online and which should happen in the classroom. Additionally faculty discussed the need to be creative in using both in- and out-of-class time. Some faculty referred to the fact that the reduced class seat time made them be more intentional in incorporating more complex topics in the in-person class sessions.

Synchronous Distance Instruction

The present study investigates blended learning that incorporates synchronous distance instruction. Similar to Blended learning classrooms, synchronous distance instruction shows promise in both undergraduate and graduate education. There are many attributes that define synchronous instruction 9. At its core, distance teaching and learning occur where a physical separation exists between at least some students and their instructor. Goodridge et al.10 compared the performance of students in engineering graphics courses using synchronous Online and Face-to-Face instruction. In this quasi-experimental study of just over 100 participants, students in the synchronous online environment performed significantly better on the final open-ended project than their face-to-face taught peers. The synchronous distance model can also allow for several individuals to connect with an instructor for a synchronous distance class session. For example, Bondi et al.11 included synchronous sessions in an online course as an avenue for students and instructors to reflect upon in-class events. They found that students reported increased motivation and engagement.

Synchronous distance classrooms also fare well when compared to traditional courses with regard to building community among students. McDaniels et al.12 studied the integration of learning communities in synchronous online courses. Their analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data indicated that the synchronous distance environment was successful in creating a strong sense of community among the participants. With regards to student perceptions, Peslak et al.13 studied students’ acceptance of the delivery of an information systems course. Students were located on three campuses. Students reported an overall suitability of 4.05, and a 3.8 (scale of 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) for wanting to enroll in another course delivered the same way. They also found that the technical reliability of online teaching tools, perceived substitutability of online teaching tools versus face-to-face teaching, perceived interaction via online teaching tools significantly influenced overall suitability ratings of the tools used for instruction.

An emerging set of literature discusses blended synchronous learning (BSL, also called “Blended Synchronous Classrooms”), with most studies examining several classrooms or individuals connected to an instructor via technology. In this literature, the “blend” is typically a blend of technology and classroom activities 14, not a blend of synchronous and asynchronous learning, as is the case in the present study. Significantly more research is needed to understand the BSL mode of delivery and how it might relate to our different view of integrating blended and synchronous distance learning.

Significance of the Study

While previous studies have shown the benefits and drawbacks of both blended learning and synchronous distance instruction independently, it is important to investigate the combination of both modes of instruction. This is particularly true due to the lack of significant literature on the topic. The primary significance of our study is threefold; first, the literature discussing methods of incorporating evidence-based instructional strategies in a blended synchronous distance classroom is sparse. Second, while the literature discussing instructors’ and students’ perceptions on synchronous distance instruction18 and blended learning 6, 19 is rich, there is minimal literature examining the combination of synchronous distance instruction and blended learning in the context of undergraduate engineering education. Finally, contrary to the majority of research on blended synchronous learning (BSL), our students experience reduced class seat time and are restricted to two distant locations on two campuses 60 miles apart. Most of the literature on BSL discusses students at remote locations connecting individually to a classroom, such as 20, 21, 22. Our design has unique implications as it discusses two classrooms connected synchronously with no remote individual connections.

Blended Learning Defined

Blended learning can be viewed as a subset or variation of the flipped classroom. Similar to the flipped classroom, students in a blended classroom will prepare for a class session by engaging with a set of learning materials before class. Often, these materials include readings, videos, and study notes among others followed by an assessment. As Figure 1 depicts, in blended learning, students learn the basic concepts out of class. The classroom time that follows is spent focusing on advanced topics and application. The primary difference between a blended and flipped classroom is that blended classrooms offer reduced class seat time. For example, for a 75 minute 2 sessions per week class offered on Mondays and Wednesdays, students would only physically attend a class session on Wednesdays.

Students engage with pre-class online content hosted on a learning management system in preparation for the in-class session. Completion of online content is required and pre-class assignments are closed before class. Students should come to class prepared and ready to move onto a more in-depth treatment of the week’s learning outcomes or more complex topics.

A week in the linear control systems course consists of a unit of study called a module. A module contains a week’s worth of online and in-person activities. As depicted in Figure 1, online activities include reading assigned text sections, watching short narrated videos, and doing short assignments (automatically graded quizzes, simulations, and example problems). The module’s in-class activities consist of doing a number of practice problems, working problems in groups, and being guided by the instructor into additional content that further supports the learning outcomes.

Blended classrooms offer the opportunity to create a highly engaged in-class experience that relies on active learning strategies. While there is a decrease in class seat time, there is more opportunity to focus on complex problems in the classroom. In our study, we were intentional in offsetting 50% of class seat time with a rich online learning experience that focuses on the components defined in the Community of Inquiry instructional approach 14.

Course Design Pedagogy

Figure 2 illustrates the pedagogy of backwards design and evidence-based instructional strategies that were employed in designing the course. The implementation of backwards course design included the following steps. First, approximately 50 learning outcomes were defined for the course. Next, short videos (approximately 10 minutes in length) were created for each outcome as narrated, animated, PowerPoints. Finally, automatically graded, short online quizzes were created for each learning video. A number of additional online activities were created to support each learning outcome that included practice problems and MATLAB^® code to explore.

Figure 3 shows a partial view of the course outcomes, the module structure, and the blooms level for each outcome. Each week, a subset of the 3 to 5 outcomes were covered. Every video was designed specifically around one or two learning outcomes. A series of in-class activities and problems were then designed to cover each learning outcome in depth and to build upon the online work. An individual quiz on each module was later added and given the week after the module was completed in class in order to provide formative feedback to students on their individual mastery of the learning outcomes. Thus, in-class activities each week included:

• An interactive, not for credit “check for understanding” quiz over the current week’s learning outcomes

• A graded, written individual quiz over the previous week’s learning outcomes

• Group activity problems, both for practice, and to turn in for a group grade

• Instructor facilitated progression of problems, discussion, simulations, and mini lectures

A key aspect of the course design was a commitment to provide students with timely feedback. To accomplish this, solutions to practice activities were shown in class immediately after students worked the problems, quiz solutions were shown immediately after the quiz, and solutions to group problems were posted within a week of the turn-in date. All solutions were made accessible online for students to review in order to aid learning. While the online and in-class work formed the body of opportunities for practice and lower-stakes formative assessments, the summative assessments for the course consisted of 3 exams, taken outside of the class time, and an individual design project using MATLAB.

Technology Employed

A key factor in this design was the selection of tools that would bring the vision of this class to life. The vision of engaging two cohorts of students separated by distance, in group and active learning, led simultaneously by an instructor in one location had not been done in any engineering classroom at our university. Figure 4 shows a photo of the course environment with the in-person cohort, the instructor, and the distance cohort shown in the upper right corner on screen. Both groups of students could see the projected content and the instructor, and both groups of students could work electronically on the same digital whiteboard to do problems that the instructor could then project to the entire class and comment upon. In addition, TAs were present during class at both locations to help with passing out and grading quizzes. The result was a highly interactive in-class experience that involved moving quickly from activity to activity, discussing solutions to problems, and students working problems, discussing questions, and collaborating in groups.

A comprehensive list of technologies that were used to create and deliver this course during the three years of the study is shown in Table 1 . In several cases, the technologies that were used in year 1 are different from those in years 2 and 3. This was due first, to a university-wide change in learning management systems which moved all courses from Blackboard™ to Canvas ™ in 2018, and a corresponding move from the video capture system TechSmith Relay to VidGrid. The free online whiteboard, Stoodle, that was used for group collaboration in 2016 was eliminated and left an essential gap in the course design. To fill this gap, in 2018 and 2019, Microsoft OneNote was used because it was free on campus and had much of the same functionality.

Student Behaviors & Course Experience Statements

Participants were asked to indicate on a 0 to 100 scale how many of the pre-class online activities they were completing and the pre-class videos they were watching. In 2016, 2018, and 2019, students reported very high rates of both completing pre-class online activities and watching pre-class videos ranging from 85% to 98% of the time on average. In 2018, participants were additionally asked about how they used the pre-class slides which were made available to students for the first time this year. Students reported viewing pre-class slides on average 74% of the time, taking notes on the slides 66% of the time, and viewing the slides with the videos 72% of the time. On average students used the slides 63% of time during in-class problem solving activities, and as a study aide for exams. They reported using slides during quizzes at a lower rate, 47% of the time. In 2019, when asked the same questions, students reported high but more variable rates for viewing pre-class slides alone (88%) or with the videos (59%), taking notes on the slides (71%), and using the slides during other parts of their work such as during quizzes (64%), in-class problem solving (63%), and as a study aid for exams(79%). That year, participants were also asked five additional questions about in-class problems and quizzes. These participants reported viewing and working on in-class problems before class (which was made available for the first time this year) 50% of the time. Students reported reviewing solutions to in-class quizzes, group problems, and example problems 67%, 53% and 56% of the time, respectively. See Table 2 for item means and standard deviations each year, and item multi-year averages.

In the study, participants were also asked to rate their agreement with seven statements related to their experience in the course. The statements were the same for each year. In 2016, participants were somewhat positive about the worthwhileness of assigned activities and were in the middle on whether activities were “busy work.” They were quite positive about the usefulness and number and length of the PowerPoints. On average, participants were neutral as to whether having the instructor at their location supported their engagement in class, and they were slightly negative about class discussions as opposed to lecturing. Participants also reported that they mostly were not experiencing technical difficulties when completing the weekly activities. In 2018, students believed assigned activities to be quite worthwhile and mostly did not perceive them as busywork. They also were very favorable about the content and number and length of the PowerPoints. This cohort reported engagement was mostly not affected by the instructor’s location and that they slightly preferred discussion as opposed to lecture. Finally, this group reported few technical difficulties related to completing the course activities. In 2019, students were also quite positive about the worthwhileness of assigned activities, the usefulness of the PowerPoints, and the number and length of the PowerPoints. They were, on average, neutral about the influence of instructor location on engagement and perceiving assigned activities as “busywork.” This group showed a slight preference for discussions over lecture, and reported a low instance of technical difficulties. Means and standard deviations for these items are shown in Table 3 .

Favorites and Least Favorites

In 2016 (N=25), the course elements most commonly identified as “favorite” components were meeting once per week (11 votes), group problem solving in class (10 votes), the narrated PowerPoints (6 votes), and quizzes on Blackboard (6 votes). In 2018 (N=12), the course elements most commonly identified as “favorite” components were the narrated PowerPoints (10 votes), meeting once per week (9 votes), group problem solving in class (8 votes), Kahoot! Quizzes (7 votes), and interactions in class (7 votes). In 2016, the course element that was overwhelmingly identified as the “least favorite” was the online discussion boards (11 votes), followed to a lesser degree by group problem solving in class (5 votes), quizzes on Blackboard (4 votes), and the mini lectures (4 votes). In 2018, the course elements that were identified as “least favorite” were having exams out of class (5 votes), group problem solving in class (3 votes), and the online discussion boards (2 votes). Due to negative student feedback in 2016, discussion boards were used less often in 2018. No other components received more than 1 vote. It was later discovered that one of the outside of class exams in 2018 occurred the day before homecoming, which may have impacted the high negative votes. It is also clear that while many students listed in-class group work as a favorite aspect, there were some each year who did not prefer it. The narrated PowerPoint videos that students watched outside of class were consistently considered a favorite aspect.

Open-Ended Questions

In 2016 (N=25), participants were asked two open-ended questions: “Can you identify one challenge or barrier to learning?” and “Do you have any comments about the course that you would like to share?” In 2018 (N=12), participants were asked five open-ended questions: the same two questions used in 2016 as well as “What worked well with your group work in this class?”, “Do you think this type of blended course design should be adopted in other classes? Why or why not?”, and “What advice would you give to future students about how to succeed in this class?” The 2019 cohort (N=20) were asked the same five open-ended questions as the 2018 cohort.

Not all participants provided substantive responses to these questions. An in depth summary of all student responses received to these questions is included in 15. In 2016, the most common challenge that was mentioned was the pacing and time allotted to the in-class activities (7 participants). These participants felt that they were rushed and not given enough time to do all they were instructed to do while in class. A small number of students identified assorted technology-related challenges, either related to technical difficulties experienced in the classroom or to the specific software used as part of the coursework. For the group of participants in 2018, the most commonly mentioned challenge or barrier was problems around the classroom technology that was used to support the distance learning set up (3 participants). Three students in 2019 identified challenges they had related to the narrated PowerPoint videos, ranging from “Learning through videos instead of a lecture was a challenge,” to “Hard to ask questions during outside class lecture,”. Three participants also indicated that it was difficult to ask questions when the professor was in the opposite location.”

With regard to group work, participants in 2018 reported that their groups functioned well because everyone contributed (3 participants), they were able to start working on the in-class problems before class (3 participants), and they were able to give and receive help from peers as they worked through the problems (3 participants). There were also comments about group members being motivated and well-organized (2 participants) and getting along well (1 participant). Notably, one participant said not everyone contributed to their group’s work, while another indicated that the frequent switching of activities made it hard to keep the group focused. In 2019, participants showed considerable agreement as to what went well with the in-class group work. Common responses were that everyone looked at or attempted the problems before class (8 participants), group discussions allowed them to help each other understand the problems and topics (7 participants), everyone contributed to the groups’ work (5 participants), they like being able to do the work together in class (4 participants), and group members got along well (3 participants).

The 2018 participants were rather single-minded on their advice for future students: eight participants indicated it is important to do the pre-class work, especially watching the narrated PowerPoints and attempting the example problems. The advice given in 2019 to help future students be successful was again mostly about doing the out-of-class work before class (15 participants). Multiple students also mentioned that keeping up with the work is important (3 participants) and taking notes on the narrated PowerPoints (3 participants).

Changes after Each Iteration and the COVID-19 Response

From 2016 to 2019, strategic changes were implemented in the course to address student survey feedback and instructor observations. The changes made after 2016 are detailed in Table 4 . Changes made after 2018 are shown in Table 5 . The changes shown represent an application of iterative course design based on student feedback that has been shown to be very successful for improving student learning outcomes 23.

The impact of several of these changes showed up in the survey data. In 2018, pdfs of video slides were made available to students. The data shows that students reported high levels of using this new course resource, viewing the slides 74% of the time in 2018, and 88% of the time in 2019. They also used slides during quizzes, while solving group problems, and to study for the exam (Table 2 ). In 2019, in-class activities were shown in advance, and students reported reviewing or attempting the activities before class at least half of the time on average (Table 2 ). Students reported that doing these problems ahead of time led to greater preparation for in-class group work (in open-ended survey responses). This was the expected impact of making this change.

In 2020, educational institutions around the globe were forced to contend with changes in the delivery of courses due to the global COVID-19 pandemic. This course was designed to be completed one half online, which worked very well for the pandemic, however class meetings each week were designed to have interactive in-person group collaboration. How would this group collaboration be facilitated during COVID-19? The solution included using OneNote for digital collaboration and introducing Zoom break out-rooms for group work time, along with socially distanced in-person group collaboration. OneNote was the perfect platform for facilitating group collaboration particularly when some group members were attending remotely due to quarantine or capacity limits and some were in person in class. Table 6 summarizes all of the changes that were made to this course in fall 2020 to quickly adapt to teaching within the constraints of physical distancing and reduced classroom capacity. A depiction of the course classroom structure before COVID-19 is shown in Figure 4 , and the course classroom structure during COVID-19 is depicted in Figure 5 .

While this course design was envisioned well before the COVID-19 pandemic, an important exploration in this study relates to the impact of COVID-19 on classroom structure and course delivery and the students’ ability to achieve course outcomes within this structure. In a time that many were forced to quickly adapt to the reality of remote learning and hybrid teaching, the identification of course designs that perform well in such environments is relevant and timely. Based on observations during fall 2020, the course design transitioned very well to support students during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In 2020, Zoom proved to be a more robust delivery mechanism to share course content to the distant classroom than the content sharing software used previously (AirTame). It also provided a seamless method to engage students in Lincoln and Omaha as well as those students attending from home (whether in Nebraska or across the globe, as one student participated virtually from Oman). It enabled an ease of connectivity and interaction between instructor and students regardless of their physical location. With the combination of sharing course content on screen, using the chat window to communicate, facilitating student group work using break-out rooms, and joining break-out rooms to address remote students’ questions in small groups, etc., aspects of facilitating the course were surprisingly improved during this physically distanced semester. All students were also able to consistently meet for group work whether they were in person or remote and had direct access to the instructor.

A GTA present in the classroom in Lincoln in 2020 for each Zoom class session provided feedback that the students in Lincoln were very engaged in their groups, both when in person and remote. She commented: “I would say that the students…seemed to find the group assignments especially helpful…It seemed that the Lincoln students were often reluctant to speak up in class because they felt awkward talking to you over Zoom, but I’m not sure of what a solution to that would be. The breakout rooms seemed to work well, though, and the students in Lincoln were very engaged while they were talking to their groups in the breakout rooms.” The instructor also observed a high level of interaction among students in groups in the Omaha classroom.

While student survey data were not collected in 2020, student performance on individual design projects can be compared to previous years to provide a very compelling litmus test on the effectiveness of this course design within this new environment.

Student Performance on the Design Project

Students are assigned an individual design project near the end of the course entitled “Analysis and Design of a Single Input, Single Output Linear Control System using Classical Methods”. For this project, a unique plant is assigned to each student based on their student I.D. that consists of 3 poles and no zeros and it is placed in a unity feedback configuration. Students decide what device their plant represents, research realistic performance criteria for the device, then step through a process to analyze the system’s initial operation and ultimately design controllers to meet the system’s desired performance criteria. ³ Students design in MATLAB® and must use an iterative design technique. The project is indeed a cumulative assignment that requires successful application of a number of course outcomes.

In 2018, based upon observations of student work in 2016, the project assignment was tweaked to provide more guidance as to what is expected of students at each phase of the project. A rubric was also created and posted for the design project. The modified design project assignment and the design project rubric, shown in Table 7 , was used in the course in 2018, 2019, and 2020.

Student performance on the design project for each portion of the rubric is detailed for the years 2018, 2019, and 2020 in Table 8 . It is of particular note that students performed nearly equally as well under the constraints of COVID-19 as in the years before the pandemic. In addition, because the annual average achievement on this assignment exceeded 80% each year, a majority of students each year were able to successfully demonstrate rubric design competencies by mastering key learning outcomes in this course in the years before COVID-19 (2018-2019) as well as during COVID-19 (2020).