This document summarizes a study investigating the blending of classroom instruction with the Moodle online learning platform in undergraduate education. The study evaluated five blended learning models (Blends I-V) and their impact on student satisfaction, engagement, and learning outcomes. Blends I and II, with roughly 30-50% of class time replaced with online activities, were the most effective models. Students reported higher satisfaction, better learning, and flexibility. Blends III, IV, and V were least effective with weaker community ties and lower engagement. The researchers recommend emphasizing active learning and student support to improve blended course design.

1. COHERE 2013 Conference
Open Resources, Open Courses: Their Impact on Blended and Online Learning
October 24, 2013 | Vancouver, BC
INVESTIGATING A BLENDING OF CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION WITH
MOODLE IN UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION:
OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
Dennis York, Ron Owston, Susan Murtha, and Janna Finkel

2. Overview
About the Project
Models of e-Learning
Programming
Major Findings
Conclusions
Methodology

3. About the Project
Models of e-Learning
Programming
Major Findings
Conclusions
Methodology

4. About the Project
Guided by the e-learning framework (York’s eLearning Business Case, 2010)
•
•
•
•
Respond to enrolment pressures
Provide better experience for commuter students
Better engage students
Improve student learning
Involved three Faculties
• Faculty of Fine Arts
• Faculty of Health
• Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies
Evaluation components
• Student experiences
• Moodle course website design
• Instructor experiences

5. About the Project
Models of e-Learning
Programming
Major Findings
Conclusions
Methodology

6. Models of e-Learning Programming
Web-enhanced model
• No reduction of face-to-face time
Blended models
Blend I (70:30 ratio)
• 1/3 in-class is replaced with online activities
Blend II (50:50 ratio)
• In-class and online sessions are equally balanced
Blend III
• Rotation of in-class lectures and online tutorials on a fixed
schedule
Blend IV
• Rotation of online lectures and in-class tutorials on a fixed
schedule
Blend V
• Rotation of on-class lectures and hybrid tutorials
Fully online model
• All activities were conducted online

7. About the Project
Models of e-Learning
Programming
Major Findings
Conclusions
Methodology

8. Student Survey
• Adapted from existing surveys (Blended Learning
Toolkit, CLASSE, 2006; Cook et al., 2004; Garrison &
Vaughan, 2008)
• 23 likert-type and 6 multiple choice items address
• Course satisfaction
• E-learning preferences
• Flexibility
• Engagement and interaction
• 5,082 students across
three Faculties
• 2,597 completed surveys
(51% response rate)
• Learning outcomes
• A paper version of survey administered in class at the end of the
semester

9. Analytical Framework
for Evaluation of
Moodle Sites
• Guided by QM Rubric, Chico’s Rubric for Online Instruction, and
Quality Online Course Initiative Rubric
• Major criteria:
• Moodle organization and layout design
• Instructional design and delivery
• Student engagement
• Student support and resources
• 31 Moodle sites were
evaluated (77.5%)

10. About the Project
Models of e-Learning
Programming
Major Findings
Conclusions
Methodology

11. eLearning Formats / Participants
Background
• Courses: 40
• e-Learning formats:
• Blended: 35
• Online: 3
• Web-enhanced: 2
• Participants: 2,597 (51%)
• Traditional and mature
students
• Class size: small, medium,
and large
• Course level: introductory
and advanced
Blend II
369 (14%)
Online, 90 (4%)
Web-enhanced,
386 (15%)
Blended,
2,121 (81%)
Blend I
720 (28%)
Blend III
348 (13%)
Blend V
Blend IV
160 (6%)
524 (20%)

12. Student participants
44.1%
• did not work
16.9%
• worked less
than 10
hours
21.3%
• worked
between 10
and 19 hours
17.7%
• worked more
than 20
hours
76.7%
commuted to campus
23.3%
lived on campus

13. Course Satisfaction
Across different blends
*
All courses
Δ57.3%
Online
(90%)
Blend I (70.9%)
Blend II
(73.5%)
Δ22.8%
Δ19.7%
Web-enhanced (43.6%)
Blend III
(49.1%)
Blend IV (40.5%)
Blend V (44.3%)
Δ3.48 (1.13)
*Based on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

14. Learning Preferences (All Courses)
Face-to-face format
Fully online format
38%
Video
lectures
Blended format
47.7%
14.1%
Lectures
41.1%
35.0%
22.1%
Tutorials
51.3%
23.0%
25.7%
42.9%
26.7%
30.3%
Online
discussions
In-class
tutorials
Discussions

15. Effectiveness of Technology Use
Δ73%
Δ67%
Δ64%
able to find
course
information
easily at Moodle
found resources
useful at Moodle
found technology
used reliable
Online & Blends I, II (79-91%)
Blends III & V (56-58%)
Online & Blends I, II (75-84%)
Blends III & V (48-53%)
Online & Blends I, II (74-94%)
Blends III & V (56-58%)
Δ19%
reported
technology
interfered with
learning
Online & Blends I, III & Web (10-18%)
Blends II, IV & V (23-27%)

16. e-Learning Experiences
• Online, 96%
• Blend II, 85%
• Blend I, 70%
• Blend IV, 64%
• Blend V, 59%
• Blend III, 55%
• Web-enhanced, 30%
• Online, 96%
• Blend II, 70%
• Blend I, 65%
• Blend III, 39%
• Blend V, 36%
• Blend IV, 31%
• Web-enhanced, 16%
• Blend II, 37%
• Blend I, 30%
• Web-enhanced, 28%
• Online, 19%
• Blend III, 15%
• Blend IV, 14%
• Blend V, 13%
Flexibility in
personal
schedule (Δ63%)
Travel time
reduction
(Δ47%)
Connection to
other students
(Δ24%)
• Online, 16%
• Blend V, 18%
• Web-enhanced, 30%
• Blend I, 30%
• Blend III, 31%
• Blend II, 34%
• Blend IV, 35%
• Online, 25%
• Web-enhanced, 39%
• Blend V, 44%
• Blend II, 44%
• Blend I, 45%
• Blend III, 50%
• Blend IV, 51%
Information
overload (Δ31%)
Required extra
effort (Δ45%)

17. Engagement
I was more engaged in this course
Online
56%
All courses
Blend II
46%
Δ31.9%
Blend I
Δ32.2%
44%
Blend V
24%
Web-enhanced
24%
Δ35.3%
Blend III
Δ2.91 (1.21)
21%
Blend IV
16%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%

18. Interaction
(Δ31%)
(Δ27%)
46%
Blend II
36%
38%
Blend I
32%
37%
Web-enhanced
29%
20%
Online
30%
20%
Blend III
19%
21%
Blend V
15%
19%
Blend IV
19%

19. Learning Outcomes
Increased interest in material
(Δ56%)
Improved understanding of
key concepts (Δ51%)
• Online (79%)
• Blend I, II (67-63%)
• Blends IV, V, Web (43-47%)
•
•
•
•
Online (76%)
Blends I, II (60-64%)
Blend IV, Web (45-47%)
Blends III, V (35-38%)
• Online, Blends I, II (33-35%)
Developed better
• Blend V, Web (25-27%)
communication skills (Δ27%)
• Blend IV (16%)
• Online, Blend II (54%)
More opportunities to reflect • Blend I, V (45-49%)
(Δ39%)
• Web, Blend IV (26-31%)

20. Introduction
Models of e-Learning
Programming
Major Findings
Conclusions
Methodology

21. Blends I and II –
Most effective
blended models
• Blend I
•
Needs
improvement
Nearly a third of
scheduled course time
to be spent in class was
replaced with online
activities
- High course satisfaction
- Better learning outcomes
- Easy to navigate Moodle sites
- Useful online resources
- Flexibility in personal schedule
- Travel time reduction
• Blend II
•
A blending of in-class
and online sessions is
equally balanced with a
split of roughly 50-50
between time face-toface and online
instructional
- Strengthen an online
community of learners
- Improve engagement
- Increase online interaction with
instructor
Success
factors

22. Blends III, IV and V –
Least effective
blended models
• Blend III
•
A rotation on a fixed weekly
schedule between in-class
lectures and participation in
TA-facilitated Moodle
discussions
Success
factors
- Low satisfaction
- Weak community ties
- Low level of engagement
and interaction
- Less positive about
learning outcomes
• Blend IV
•
A rotation of online lectures
and in-class tutorials
facilitated by TAs
• Blend V
•
A rotation of in-class
lectures and participation in
TA-facilitated hybrid
tutorials (on-campus and
using Moodle discussions)
- Easy to navigate Moodle
sites
- Somewhat positive about
flexibility and reduction of
travel time
Needs
improvement

23. Recommendations
Implications
• Emphasize active learning
•
•
Proportion of time spent
online is an influence on
student satisfaction and
other related perceptions*.
Findings provide some
guidance for (re)designing
blended courses in
choosing the amount of
time instructors want
students to spend on online
activities.
• Greater student engagement with the material and with one
another
• Reach out to students of different needs and preferences
• Take advantage of a diverse repertoire of online tools within
Moodle
• Improve student support on Moodle course sites
• Increase on-demand, individualized assistance
*Contingent upon the instructors’ teaching
style and/or course subject.
• Consider the differences of reading online text
• Think carefully about strategies of organizing and presenting
course information on Moodle

24. Contact us
For more information…
Dennis York
dennis_york@edu.yorku.ca
Ron Owston
rowston@edu.yorku.ca