A faculty learning community (FLC) comprised of six professors from different disciplines was formed to study and teach blended learning courses. The FLC found that blended learning experiences varied by discipline, possibly due to differences between students or instructors. The FLC also found that FLCs are an effective form of professional development when faculty receive helpful advice on best practices and support during challenges, but are less effective without ongoing dialogue or adequate facilitation.

1. Lessons
Learned
From
a
Faculty
Learning
Community
on
Blended
Learning
David
Wicks
Associate
Professor
Chair
of
MEd
in
Digital
Educa?on
Leadership
SeaBle
Pacific
University
Email:
dwicks@spu.edu
TwiBer:
@drdavidwicks
7th
Annual
Interna?onal
Symposium
on
Emerging
Technologies
for
Online
Learning
(2014)
#et4online

2. Abstract
A
faculty
learning
community
(FLC)
comprised
of
six
professors
represen?ng
different
disciplines
was
formed
in
2011
to
study,
develop,
and
teach
blended
learning
courses.
As
part
of
this
project,
we
sought
to
evaluate
the
efficacy
of
blended
learning
on
faculty
(efficiency,
sa?sfac?on)
using
interview
ques?ons
designed
by
Garrison
and
Vaughan
(2011)
and
students
(access,
learning
effec?veness,
sa?sfac?on)
through
survey
responses
including
the
Community
of
Inquiry
(CoI)
survey
(Swan,
et
al.,
2008).
This
study
found
evidence
that
student
percep?ons
of
the
CoI
may
be
useful
in
predic?ng
differences
in
students'
blended
learning
experiences.
The
study
also
found
that
perceived
differences
in
blended
learning
experiences
varied
by
discipline.
This
difference
may
be
a
result
of
differences
between
students,
such
as
their
age,
or
differences
between
instructors.
A
second
research
outcome
was
that
FLCs
are
a
useful
form
of
professional
development
when
correctly
implemented.
For
example,
faculty
benefit
from
par?cipa?on
in
an
FLC
when
they
receive
helpful
advice
on
promising
prac?ces
and
encouragement
when
experiencing
instruc?onal
or
technical
challenges.
On
the
other
hand,
FLCs
are
less
effec?ve
when
there
is
a
lack
of
dialogue
between
mee?ngs
or
when
a
facilitator
does
not
provide
adequate
prepara?on
for
face-­‐to-­‐face
mee?ngs.
During
our
presenta?on
we
will
share
both
faculty
and
student
findings
from
our
study.
We
will
engage
our
audience
by
asking
them
to
share
promising
prac?ces
for
blended
learning
classrooms
and
professional
development
for
blended
learning
instructors.
Cox,
M.
D.
(2004).
Introduc?on
to
Faculty
Learning
Communi?es.
New
Direc)ons
for
Teaching
and
Learning,
5–23.
Garrison,
D.
R.,
&
Vaughan,
N.
D.
(2011).
Blended
Learning
in
Higher
Educa)on.
San
Francisco:
Jossey-­‐Bass.
Swan,
K.,
Richardson,
J.
C.,
Ice,
P.,
Garrison,
D.
R.,
Cleveland-­‐Innes,
M.,
&
Arbaugh,
J.
B.
(2008).
Valida?ng
a
measurement
tool
of
presence
in
online
communi?es
of
inquiry.
e-­‐Mentor,
24(2),
1-­‐12.

3. Objec?ves
• Describe
sehng
• Explain
methods
• Share
findings
from
study
• Share
lessons
learned
• Explore
your
ideas

4. The
Sehng
hBp://spu.edu

5. Faculty
Learning
Community
• Why?
– Workshops
&
informal
training
are
common
but
may
not
be
enough
– FLC
may
be
more
effec?ve
for
deep
understanding
• Define
– Designated
groups
of
interdisciplinary
faculty
that
work
together
on
a
yearlong
collabora?ve
project
around
a
specific
topic
related
to
teaching
and
learning
(Cox,
2004)

6. SPU
FLC
Plan
Faculty
technology
survey
Determined
need
Approval
from
administra?on
Recruit
faculty
–
3
ques?ons
Select
members
&
honorarium
Meet
and
agree
on
plan
(Team
Charter)
Meet
regularly
Learn
together
Conduct
study
Share
findings

7. Kevin
Bolding,
Electrical
Engineering
Erla
Champ-­‐Gibson,
Nursing
Baine
Cra<,
Psychology
Kris
Gri?er,
Curriculum
&
InstrucBon
Geri
Mason,
Economics
David
Wicks,
InstrucBonal
Technology
Blended
Learning
FLC

8. Blended Learning Community Goals
1.
Increase
dynamic
learning
and
interac?on
in
the
classroom
in
exchange
for
seat
?me
2.
Explore
disciplinary
boundaries
for
applying
blended
learning
3.
Build
a
set
of
promising
prac?ces
for
implemen?ng
blended
e-­‐learning

9. Required
Reading

10. Methods
• Materials
– Demographic
Ques?onnaire
– Blended
Course
Student
Survey
• Garrison
&
Vaughan
(2008)
– Community
of
Inquiry
Survey
• Swan,
et
al
(2008)
• Procedure
– Tradi?onal,
Face-­‐to-­‐Face
Format
– Blended
Course
Format
• 70/30,
face-­‐to-­‐face/online
– Measures
given
during
the
final
week
of
classes

11. F
O
Course
Blend
Students
Techniques
F
O
F
O
F
O
F
O
F
O
Impression
5
students
Recorded
Screencasts
Blogs
Online
Quiz
Student
video
Disc.
Groups
Experiments
+
+

12. Findings
• Faculty
benefit
from
par?cipa?on
in
FLC
by
receiving
helpful
advice
on
promising
prac?ces.
• Faculty
benefit
from
par?cipa?on
in
FLC
by
receiving
encouragement
from
peers
when
experiencing
challenges
within
their
blended
courses.
• FLCs
are
less
successful
when
there
is
a
lack
of
dialogue
between
mee?ngs
or
when
the
facilitator
does
not
provide
adequate
prepara?on
for
face-­‐to-­‐face
mee?ngs.
• CoI
is
predica?ve
of
students’
experiences
in
blended
courses.
• By
working
to
facilitate
a
CoI
within
blended
courses,
instructors
should
see
an
increase
in
student
sa?sfac?on
within
the
blended
course.
• Differences
in
the
student’s
experience
in
blended
learning
courses
vary
depending
on
the
discipline
of
the
course.

13. Lessons
Learned
• Always
allow
?me
for
sharing
in
mee?ngs
• Mix
required
and
discovered
readings
• Use
blog
to
reflect
publicly
on
progress
• Mix
face-­‐to-­‐face
and
web
conferences
to
meet
more
than
once
a
month
• Use
incen?ve
to
encourage
par?cipa?on
• Conference
presenta?ons
and
publishing
mo?vate
interest
and
par?cipa?on

14. Your
ideas
• Promising
prac?ces
for
blended
learning
classrooms
• Professional
development
for
blended
learning
instructors

15. Comments
or
Ques?ons?
David
Wicks,
EdD
Associate
Professor
Chair,
MEd
in
Digital
Educa?on
Leadership
School
of
Educa?on
SeaBle
Pacific
University
dwicks@spu.edu
hBp://spu.edu/soe
hBp://davidwicks.org
15