8    What Really Works in a Blended Learning Graduate Program?

A Case Study of a Faculty of Education

Maurice Taylor, Shehzad Ghani, and Michael Fairbrother

As Zawacki-Richter and Anderson (2014) asserted, online distance education is a comprehensive, many-sided, and multifunctional process. In their seminal work, the authors “developed a validated framework of research topics that help organize the field and identify research gaps” (p. 2). Each of these frames of reference calls for a different theoretical justification and research method. This chapter falls within the microlevel research stream for understanding teaching and learning in distance education and empirically explores the lived experiences of students and professors in a blended learning graduate program.

According to Owston (2013), it now appears that blended learning has the potential to transform higher education. This pedagogical approach is viewed as an opportunity to redesign how courses are developed, scheduled, and delivered in both undergraduate and graduate programs. As Garrison (2016) pointed out, at the heart of blended learning redesign are the goals of engaging students in critical discourse and reflection. In a similar vein, Campbell and Schwier (2014) suggested that a more modern constructivist instructional design is needed for online education where individuals and groups co-create new knowledge. They also maintained that learners play a much more active role in a constructivist environment. A blended learning pedagogy could also offer the same kinds of student engagement features.

Building on the research in this microlevel frame of reference and from the perspective of open university systems, Conrad (2014) proposed that learning is a social activity immersed in different social contexts that result in different understandings. Moreover, interaction and communication among members who collaborate in a learning community are at the core of the learning process. However, Conrad posed a challenge by questioning how we can accommodate current learning needs and preferences using new media and online course design.

In an effort to unravel part of this question, our study sought to understand better which practices really work for graduate students and professors teaching in a blended learning format. With empirical evidence of how best to combine text and voice in blended learning still in its infancy, it also attempted to explore some initial insights into the balance between text and voice in a Faculty of Education graduate blended learning program. For the purpose of this study, the term “blended learning” was defined as the “attempt to match the affordances of information and communication technologies with the immediacy of face-to-face education” (Anderson & Zawacki-Richter, 2014, p. 490). The chapter begins with a focused literature review on adult learner characteristics and interaction and communication in learning communities. This review is followed by a brief description of the conceptual context used in the study and the research questions that guided the investigation.

Literature Review

This literature review considers two connected viewpoints for understanding teaching and learning in the microlevel research stream using new media and online course design. With the growing population of adult students now more present in graduate higher education, it is important to address how educational programs can accommodate the learning needs and preferences of such students (Taylor, Vaughan, Ghani, Atas, & Fairbrother, 2018). In addition, since communication and interaction in blended learning courses are at the heart of active learning and student engagement (Garrison, 2016), it is also essential to recognize the types of communication strategies and interaction tools that students in higher education use to connect with their peers and professors.

Adult Learner Characteristics

Much of the research on the characteristics and preferences of adult learners is drawn from Knowles’s andragogical model of adult learning (Cercone, 2008; Phillips, Baltzer, Filoon, & Whitley, 2017; Stevens, 2014). Steeped within the social context of how best to meet the needs of this growing population, the ever-expanding literature on adult learning, adult development, and characteristics of adult learners is interrelated yet focuses on various factors that influence how these mature students can be best supported in higher education.

Rabourn, Shoup, and BrckaLorenz (2015), using data from 146,072 students who participated in the 2013 and 2014 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), compared traditional college students and adult learners. They found that adult learners are more likely to take all of their classes online, to begin their initial education at another institution, and to be more academically engaged than traditional college-aged peers. They also have positive perceptions of teaching practices and interactions with others but find their campus services to be less supportive. Furthermore, the researchers found that these diverse adult learners tend to pursue flexible educational offerings, are drawn to different types of institutions, and have specific and sometimes immediate goals in mind. However, generalizing these findings to a Canadian population should be done with caution. According to a recent report by the Canadian Digital Learning Research Association (2019), distance education, online courses, and blended learning are more firmly established in the United States than in Canada.

In addition, Phillips et al. (2017) investigated the perspectives of adult learners on the characteristics of effective instructors. Using a mixed methods research design, they surveyed 132 learners from an adult liberal arts undergraduate program in the northeastern United Kingdom. Some of the key findings indicated that adult students benefited from instructors who had knowledge of and respect for mature learners, demonstrated applied knowledge in the fields in which they taught, were flexible, and understood the demands unique to this population of learners. Participants reported that instructors were ineffective when they dismissed their life experiences, lacked interest in their prior knowledge and real-world constraints, and possessed arrogant teaching mannerisms. These findings suggest the importance for faculty members to find connections, model respect, and clearly communicate with adult learners in ways different from those that they might use when teaching a class of traditional college-aged students.

Another important contribution to the literature was the synthesis report by Osam, Bergman, and Cumberland (2017) on the barriers faced by adult learners in higher education. This review used the framework of Ekstrom (1972), which categorized barriers to adult learning as institutional, situational, and dispositional (Osam et al., 2017, p. 55). Findings indicated that the barriers that adult learners continue to face have not changed in over 30 years. The authors also described the inadequacies within higher education institutions offering online learning to address the current needs of adult learners compared with those of traditional college-aged students. This was particularly evident in situational barriers such as financial burdens as well as in how services in higher education addressed dispositional barriers to learning exemplified by fear of failure and academic insecurity.

A three-year longitudinal study conducted by Stevens (2014) compared and contrasted the perceptions, attitudes, and preferences of adult learners in higher education representing six geographic regions in the United States. In this study, 173 participants were surveyed on a range of questions about the adult learning experience. Follow-up telephone interviews were conducted with 86 of the participants to deepen the data from the initial survey results. Key findings suggest that the majority of adult learners work full time, view family and work activities as major obstacles to their academic pursuits, and want to pursue higher education as full-time students. The majority of the participants favourably viewed the use of technology and the flexibility of online and blended learning. Although these adult learners found study groups helpful, they were not supportive of mandatory group projects. Important in the results were motivational factors such as increased earning potential, self-satisfaction from increased educational prowess and completion of a degree, and being examples to their children. Moreover, flexible scheduling of academic courses through online and blended learning formats positively affected their motivation.

In sum, a number of important ideas are conveyed in this abbreviated literature on the characteristics of adult learners and their experiences in higher education. Foremost, the preferences of adult learners need to be understood and supported better through the infrastructures in higher education. The barriers to learning faced by adults can be understood by acknowledging their social roles and understanding that their social contexts are very different from those of traditional college-aged students. Further research is needed on how to address these issues, and the new medium of blended learning might offer some promise for better integrating graduate adult learners into higher education. What seems to be missing in this literature is exactly how graduate students experience a blended learning program.

Communication and Interaction in Blended Learning Courses

Twenty-five years ago, Mason (1994) observed that interaction was the basic component of the new age of education and central to the progress and success of student learning. More recently, scholars of blended learning have emphasized the need to broaden the concepts of communication and interaction as new formats of learning continue to evolve. For example, using an action research and case-based methodology, Vaughan (2014) investigated blended learning design features and supportive assessment activities that increase levels of student engagement through collaborative learning applications. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used to collect data from 273 students and eight instructors in one Canadian university. Information was collected in seven first-year blended learning courses over the two-year program. Initially, professors were interviewed and then requested to complete an online survey. Students were also requested to complete a different online survey. A select group of students were then invited to participate in focus group discussions in order to investigate the impacts of collaborative learning applications such as blogs, wikis, and clickers on student learning and engagement. The main results indicated that professors have a general inclination to use the tools at hand to improve student communication and interaction. This was also evident in students’ tendency to associate a high value with using collaborative learning applications to complete a range of assessment activities.

Similarly, Wang (2010) examined students’ online and offline interactions in two Taiwanese colleges to gauge the extent of collaborative learning among students. Content analysis of students’ weekly blogs and journals and instructors’ observation notes was used to reveal the students’ collaborative communicative characteristics. One of the key findings was that students demonstrated successful collaborative learning in an asynchronous networked environment. As well, it was found that the implementation of information and communication technology (ICT) tools in a blended learning environment encouraged social interaction among students and increased their level of engagement. However, the implementation of ICT tools did not automatically help to facilitate students in their use of active learning strategies. From a teaching and learning lens, could it be that faculty members still have some difficulty identifying appropriate training and practice using ICT tools?

Furthering the literature on communication and interaction, Tayebinik and Puteh (2012) investigated students’ perceptions of community when integrating face-to-face classes into fully online courses. They interviewed 48 undergraduate students at a Middle Eastern university using an open-ended interview schedule. The results from the study suggest that the participants’ high level of satisfaction with the blended learning format was related to how they viewed the meaning of community. For example, common themes were high perceptions of a sense of community, more effective student-instructor interactions, positive views of blended courses, and increases in student-student interactions.

In a similar vein, Babb, Stewart, and Johnson (2010) explored students’ perceptions of constructing communication in blended learning environments by using the seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education identified by Chickering and Gamson (1987). Online survey data were collected from 75 undergraduate students enrolled in blended courses at a large university in Texas. The results indicated that the principles of active learning, student-student interaction, professor feedback, and communication of high expectations for students actually determined students’ perceptions of performance and satisfaction. It is interesting to note that, even though students who had positive outlooks on their performance by discussing course material online with their peers, they were much more selective when it came to interacting with their professors. These students seemed to benefit from online communication with their professors only when it was related specifically to course expectations and feedback.

In sum and based on the cited literature, students who take blended learning courses seem to use a variety of communication strategies and interaction tools to connect with their peers and instructors. However, the disadvantage of using a blended learning pedagogy is that students are required to be on campus and have to acquire ever-changing ICT skills that can present a steep learning curve. It is also apparent that the target population of such empirical investigations is drawn from traditional college-aged undergraduate students. Therefore, it is imperative, especially in the microlevel research stream for understanding teaching and learning, that studies explore the lived experiences and practices of graduate students and professors who have adopted a blended learning pedagogy and their need to develop communication and interaction.

Conceptual Context

As Zawacki-Richter and Anderson (2014) suggested, research topics at the microlevel of teaching and learning in distance education need to be empirically explored, critically analyzed, and theoretically interpreted. They also advocated that such research questions should be posed within a theoretical or conceptual framework. Given the exploratory nature of the investigation, the conceptual context for this study is Garrison, Anderson, and Archer’s (2000) Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework for online and blended learning communication. This model has been the focus of extensive research and validation for over a decade (Garrison, 2009). The premise of the framework is that higher education is both collaborative and individually constructed. This premise is considered useful because it brings together three converging concepts: cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence. Cognitive presence is taken to mean the extent to which students in a community of inquiry can construct meaning through sustained communication. Social presence is how the students identify with the community as a whole in which they can trustingly communicate with each other and therefore develop interpersonal connections. And teaching presence, multidimensional and performed by the instructor, consists of design, facilitation, and instruction (Akyol & Garrison, 2008; Garrison, 2009).

Although the framework does focus on the educational experience created by instructors and students, it is limited in distinguishing among different methods of teaching and learning in online and blended learning environments. In particular, it also does not centre on the types of text and voice as teaching methods. Despite these limitations, the framework can still help us to answer questions related to the microlevel research stream for understanding teaching and learning. Three research questions guided the study. (1) What are graduate students’ experiences in a blended learning program? (2) What are professors’ experiences in a graduate blended learning program? (3) What variations of voice and text are used by the graduate students and professors who teach in a blended learning program?

Methodology

In the following section, a brief description of the research design and instrumentation, we discuss the site location and participants. We also provide an overview of the complete data analysis.

Research Design and Instrumentation

A qualitative approach was used as the research design for this study. “Qualitative researchers are interested in understanding the meaning people have constructed, that is, how people make sense of their world and the experiences they have in the world” (Merriam, 2009, p. 13). As noted by Creswell (2013), qualitative researchers tend to use approaches and methods such as grounded theory, ethnography, case studies, interviews, focus groups, observations, narrative analysis, and discourse analysis to seek in-depth subjective and multiple perspectives as a means of exploring a problem in depth. In this research, a case study method was employed using semi-structured interviews, document and artifact analyses, and researchers’ field notes. They served as multiple data collection sources for the study and helped to triangulate the findings.

Qualitative data were obtained from semi-structured interviews with students and instructors in a Faculty of Education in a medium-sized Canadian university in eastern Ontario. The interview schedules were developed based on the international literature on blended learning and the CoI research, and they were pilot-tested with both professors and students in the faculty. Interview schedules for students and instructors consisted of three demographic questions and nine open-ended questions. Overall, each semi-structured, face-to-face interview lasted between 45 and 60 minutes. A second data source incorporated documents and artifacts. The documents were related to blended learning courses such as institutional policies and regulations, course syllabuses, evaluation surveys, and assessment tools. Artifacts included students’ projects, assignments, and weekly reports. A third data source comprised researchers’ field notes, which provided insights into the interviews and enabled investigators to consolidate the findings and to establish the validity of the data obtained during the study.

Site Location and Participants

When the Strategic Mandate Agreements submitted by Ontario universities to the provincial Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities in 2012 were examined, it became apparent that postsecondary institutions in the province needed to embrace new methodologies, such as the large-scale adoption of blended learning courses. This change was precipitated by a need to move away from the traditional lecture-based pedagogy and an increase in the availability of new technological teaching tools. To fulfill this blended learning commitment, the university chosen for this study committed resources from the Office of the Vice-President, Academic, to have at least 20% of all course offerings in a blended learning format by 2020. The rationale for choosing the Faculty of Education as the site location was based on reports from an intra-university working committee indicating that this faculty had taken a leadership role in establishing both online and blended learning within the institution.

The participants of the study were 27 key informants from the Faculty of Education, including 18 students and 9 professors. The student participants had taken at least two graduate courses offered in a blended learning format. As well, the professors had at least one year of teaching experience in a blended learning format in the faculty.

Data Analysis

To determine patterns in the qualitative data sources, the research team used the constant comparative technique (Merriam, 2009). In preparing the raw interview data, pseudonyms were assigned to each key informant to protect confidentiality and identity. Analysis of the interview data and field notes involved five steps:

1. exploring the data by reading through the responses;
2. coding the data;
3. using codes to develop themes by aggregating similar codes;
4. connecting and interrelating themes; and
5. constructing the narrative.

First, participants’ responses to interview questions were converted into transcripts. Next, in order to develop themes, researchers read through the transcribed data several times and then consolidated these themes and created the narrative. In addition to the analysis of qualitative data obtained from interviews and field notes, an analysis of the documents and artifacts was conducted using a Likert-type criteria grid with indicators associated with social, cognitive, and teaching presence.

As a final step in the data analysis, the narrative themes drawn from the three data sources for graduate students were examined using an analytical chart (see Appendix A) depicting the six key principles of the andragogical model of adult learning (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2011). These principles include the learner’s self-concept, experience, readiness to learn, problem-centred orientation, internal motivation, and need to know. Since Merriam and Bierema (2014) discussed these six principles in detail, we present a short statement of them here. The learner’s self-concept is related to the importance of having a voice in what and how one learns. An adult’s accumulated life experience is a rich resource for learning and integral to her or his identity. Readiness to learn is connected to the social roles and developmental tasks of adulthood that create a need for learning. Adults are motivated to learn to deal with an issue or problem of immediate concern and have a desire for immediate application. Internal motivation is related to self-actualization of the adult learner and puts the individual at the centre of the learning transaction. Adults want to know why they need to learn something and how what they learn will be applied to their immediate situations.

This tool was created to help identify possible matches between the andragogical model of adult learning and the text-based communications and verbal interactions evident in the emergent themes and key informant quotations from the data sources. As well, in the same manner as professors’ narratives, a modification of the Blended Learning Course Quality Rubric was employed to identify possible matches between text-based communications and verbal interactions evident in the emergent themes. This rubric was developed by Teaching and Learning Support Services at the university where the data were collected. The tool was developed based on best practices in course design, and it was intended to help guide instructors in the development of quality blended learning courses. The rubric consisted of four main criteria: course design, learner supports and resources, use of technology, and course organization and content presentation. Each of the main criteria was accompanied by several descriptors to be used in a checklist format by an instructor (see Appendix B).

Findings

We present the results of the data analysis path under three headings. Each section corresponds to one of the three research questions and includes (1) the lived experiences of graduate students; (2) the experiences of professors teaching in a graduate blended learning program; and (3) the variations of voice and text used in a blended learning program by students and professors.

The Lived Experiences of Graduate Students

Central to the learning needs of graduate students in blended learning courses was the importance of developing trust with peers and the instructor at the outset. Social interaction exercises conducted during the face-to-face sessions before going online were instrumental in establishing a level of comfort with disclosure of academic and personal content. As Shelia reported, “when the professor uses meaningful ice breakers and trust-building exercises, you get a sense of who you are going to be working with.”

During the introductory face-to-face session, it also seemed to be important for students to know which small group they would be participating in during the online components. This need also raised the issue of sequencing face-to-face and online sessions. Most students preferred at least two or three face-to-face sessions before beginning online group work. Mohammed put it this way: “I like to have enough class time interaction with the professor and try to figure out what the course is all about.” There was also a tendency not to feel satisfied with one face-to-face and then one online sequencing throughout the course or with large blocks of online learning. What seemed to be more engaging for the students was a continued sequence of either face-to-face or online sessions together. Another interesting aspect of the theme was how the climate of mutual respect among peers during the face-to-face sessions acted as a motivator for learning new content. Zhang, an international student who had taught in a Chinese university, believed that the small group format for assignments made her feel more comfortable. Peers interested in the Chinese educational system came to respect the cultural differences in learning.

Acquiring critical thinking skills, one of the graduate program learning outcomes, was identified as a key area for most students, especially when working through online learning modules. They preferred problem-posing scenarios, searching for alternative solutions to case studies and unpacking the weekly readings with each other in their small groups. Sandy thought that knowing the basic principles of critical thinking first and then having time to practise them in class and online increased her metacognitive skills.

Critical thinking skills are viewed as an indicator of cognitive presence in the CoI and were acknowledged as an important area of expertise in the work-related student projects gathered during data collection (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000). Graduate students believed that critical thinking was an important part of their professional and academic lives. Alice, a part-time student employed in a hospital, described it this way: “As a practising RN and a nurse educator, critical thinking is an essential skill for me to master and model for my students.”

All graduate students thought that being part of a community of practice was important. Some mentioned that the professor sets the tone for how that community develops and collaborates by real-time interaction in class and weekly online communications. For example, Michelle reported that the personalized discussion questions posed after the guest speaker presented during a face-to-face session made her more aware of the community resources now within her reach.

However, students who had taken a full online course were dissatisfied with the amount of feedback received from the professor when they were working online. Jason said that “I felt like the instructor wasn’t really there when we did our postings, and we would go off on these meaningless tangents.” Another common theme related to the community of practice was active student engagement in learning. Many students recognized the importance of continuity between classroom and online learning. Alia put it succinctly: “If I can’t figure out where we are going when I’m online, I lose motivation very quickly. I like how the prof explained the flow of the course in our first face-to-face sessions.” Another graduate student had a similar remark: “I need to know the backgrounds of my group and how the course fits together before I can start challenging student opinions.”

Another pattern that emerged from the students’ artifacts was related to knowledge building. Working through a community of practice within blended courses enabled students to increase their levels of interaction among peers and the instructor and to gain new perspectives on the course content in the face-to-face and online discussions. Chris put it this way: “During classroom discussions, or in my online community of inquiry group, each member offered an original perspective which provided me with a full range of responses to consider in forming my own thoughts and increasing my knowledge base.”

Challenges of blended learning comprised another theme in the data from the graduate students. Poor instructional design, poor navigation, technical difficulties in uploading documents in online sessions, and not enough time to get to know peers were the most cited factors associated with learning dissatisfaction. Marcia, a thesis student, suggested that “professors should be trained on how to teach in a blended learning format before they actually instruct. I had a prof who changed the online assignment mid-stream in the course, and it completely confused everyone.” Also a challenge for more mature graduate students was the steep learning curve using Blackboard Learn, the university’s learning management system (LMS). Abdul, an international student who had arrived on campus a few days after the course had started, went on to say that

I had never taken an online or blended learning course before, and I was overwhelmed with trying to learn the technological aspects like logging in, let alone the course content, which was outside of my field of practice. I struggled a lot over the course and felt that I never really made a connection with my classmates.

This idea was also supported by the researchers’ field notes. For example, some students in the age range of 45–55 described the intense learning curve in trying to master the new LMS, far different from basic computer use. This lack of ease in navigating Blackboard Learn acted as an impediment and affected weekly online progress at times.

Experiences of Professors Teaching in a Graduate Blended Learning Program

One key theme that emerged from the data for professors was related to motivation. Many respondents reported that the current increase in the size of a graduate class was a main motivator in trying out a blended learning pedagogy. Another motivating factor was related to trying out different ways of organizing the course content and communicating with students. As one respondent, Jennifer, explained, “I wanted to move away from blogging and wikis for a change, so I tried having the students develop a small group action research project during our in-class sessions, and then I supported them as they continued their work online.”

There was also a recognition that all graduate students are now equipped with the technical skills to move easily through online learning using a range of tools available in an LMS like Blackboard Learn. Since graduate students seemed to be more comfortable with using technological tools, there is a sense that professors see this comfort as readiness to embark on a blended learning pedagogy. As one professor, Mary, mentioned, “I was interested in trying out a new method of blended learning and was curious to compare it with my more traditional classroom teaching style.” Gerald, a professor who had three years of blended learning teaching experience, believed that it was important to do some design training on learning objectives and structuring small group work in learning modules. He also thought that it was important to talk with colleagues who had only taught online courses because context in blended learning is crucial.

Another theme that emerged was the impact of blended learning. The vast majority of professors interviewed declared that they observed a higher quality in assignments coupled with more student engagement. For example, one professor described how Skyping in a guest speaker during an in-class session and then having an open plenary discussion increased student participation. Some professors had also tried different sequences in designing both classroom and online formats and used blogs to fill in knowledge gaps between sessions. Mark, another seasoned blended learning professor, said that “I use the face-to-face sessions to pick up on any unresolved questions from the online learning sessions, and I’ve noticed a better quality of weekly work.” Another professor, Joanne, who had recently developed and completed her first blended learning course, believed that the reflective journey and personal experiences shared with peers using both formats seemed to be richer. She added that “I have moved away from [the] research type of assignments and more into reflection and professional growth type of assignments.”

Exploring a blended learning pedagogy also emerged as an important theme from the data sources. Professors who had several years of experience teaching in this format claimed that a well-defined course structure and continuity between in-class and online learning were important design features that influenced student progress. Having students participate in small group discussions while in class and then carrying those stimulating discussions online seemed to work for some of the respondents. Linda, a professor teaching her third blended learning course, pointed out that “the learning objectives for each session need to correspond to the learning strategies that you choose, and this is dependent on the core concepts of that session.” Adam, a professor new to the faculty, also mentioned that “my choice for some of the technological tools used for the online sessions was research based.” Another respondent brought out an important point about the range of student ability with technology and claimed that “I try to keep in mind that some students like technical experimentation while learning online, and others don’t. I spend a lot of time navigating with the whole group while we are together at the beginning.” Some professors also thought that conducting interviews with former graduate students as a means of determining needs and approaches when redesigning a blended learning course was an important preparatory step in defining the pedagogy. Frank, a seasoned professor, put it this way:

I knew about 10 months in advance that I would be teaching a new blended learning course, so while I was teaching that same course in a full face-to-face format I interviewed several students to find out what aspects of the content should become learning modules and which content should remain as in-class sessions. I also got a clear sense of how to balance individual and group work in both formats. For me, the lesson I took away from those interviews is that the course content actually drives how you make decisions about sequencing the in-class and online learning sessions.

Also related to the theme of blended learning pedagogy were the important features of the well-structured course outline and the needs assessment conducted at the beginning of the course. These features helped to create and define this community of inquiry in both face-to-face and online sessions. In particular, the important information collected from the needs assessment questionnaires helped to create exercises that developed trust among student group members and provided momentum in establishing this new form of pedagogy.

Creating a faculty culture was another key theme. All professors indicated that having an incentive such as course design support from the university’s blended learning initiative was an important factor in their decision to move forward in creating a new blended course. Paul reported that “I can now hire a TA who has the technological expertise to help me design and deliver the course. He already knows that posting too many course documents can become boring for the students.” Another respondent claimed that this university-wide initiative was becoming more visible and that a four-part certificate course on designing blended learning offered by the Centre for University Teaching (CUT) provided the necessary skills and knowledge to feel confident in undertaking course development. As part of the blended learning initiative in this university, a needs assessment was conducted by CUT among faculty members that prompted the development of this certificate course. Martha explained that “taking that course helped to identify the misconceptions around blended learning and provided a lot of demonstrations and hands-on tips.”

Also related to faculty support was the idea of in-house champions. All professors indicated the importance of the informal faculty support group in existence for over three years. This group of professors gathered at the end of each semester to share their experiences, challenges, and stories. Brian, a former member of this informal group, realized that he could call on a faculty champion at a moment’s notice whenever he bumped into a snag such as getting the flipped classroom formula just right.

Variations of Voice and Text Used in a Blended Learning Program by Students and Professors

Within the three themes related to graduate students—developing trust, acquiring critical thinking skills, and establishing a community of practice—were variations in both textual communications and verbal interactions. These variations were used to support many of the principles inherent in Knowles’s andragogical model of adult learning. In developing the learner’s self-concept, verbal interactions were used by both the instructor and peers to increase social interactions during the in-class sessions, and textual communications through online trust-building exercises continued this psychological climate of respect and collaboration. A readiness to learn was enhanced when text-based assignments focused on work-related content and verbal instructions were given by the instructor on how to use and navigate the LMS.

Different voice and text communications were also used to create a problem-centred orientation for the students. For example, during the class sessions, small group discussions that centred on the weekly readings provided an opportunity for students to try out new ways of questioning and to practise their critical thinking skills. This type of skill acquisition was also practised during online sessions. As well, text-based case studies that were part of the online module helped students to search for alternative solutions to current educational problems as they worked together in their CoI groups. Students were motivated when the instructor explained the continuity between the face-to-face sessions and the online sessions each time the class met on campus. They also enjoyed learning from each other during the in-class oral presentations. In addition, knowledge building was improved through online textual communications since they gave students more time to reflect and respond to each other in their discussion forums.

Within the three themes from the data from professors—motivation, impact of blended learning, and exploring a blended learning pedagogy—was also a wide variation in voice and text combinations used by professors. This was evident across the four main criteria of the modified Blended Learning Course Quality Rubric: course design, learner support and resources, use of technology, and course organization and content presentation. Textual communications such as the course syllabus were used during the first face-to-face session to introduce the new blended learning course objectives, and they were posted on the LMS for careful review. Learning activities as part of the course design incorporated both voice and text. For example, Skyping in a guest speaker for a face-to-face session seemed to increase student engagement, especially when discussion among classmates took place. In one instance, the professor used small groups in class to create an action research project and then followed each group online as they continued through the steps of the project. For the criteria of learner support and resources, there was an indication that the text-based communications among the small online groups related to the online module provided higher-quality submissions. One professor found that students were comfortable giving him verbal feedback in class on how to improve a part of an online module. As well, some professors mentioned that their students felt more comfortable giving face-to-face feedback to them when some aspect of the online content did not work.

In the purposeful integration of technology, it seemed that there was a balance between voice and text communications. For instance, in-class interactions between the instructor and students were more important in addressing unresolved questions and issues raised in the online discussion forums. In addition, students were eager to attend a final face-to-face session in the course in which each small group member would share his or her reflection on the journey through the online modules. The use of blogs between face-to-face sessions helped to develop course continuity for some students, and the text-based personal growth assignments gave more time for individuals to think through their positions. In terms of course organization and content presentation, there was an indication that posting too many course documents online could demotivate some students. It also seemed to be important for the instructor to spend time in class at the beginning of the course to navigate the blended learning course content and to illustrate how the technological tools would be used.

Discussion

Situated within the microlevel of the teaching and learning framework for distance education espoused by Zawacki-Richter and Anderson (2014), and guided by the theoretical orientation of the Community of Inquiry, this study attempted to understand better what really works in a graduate blended learning program. Overall, the results indicate that mature adult learners enrolled in a graduate blended learning program have specific learning preferences as an outgrowth of this new pedagogy and that professors who use the approach reach toward meeting the needs of this student population. It also seems to be clear from the findings that learning is a social activity for both the graduate students and the professors as indicated by their lived experiences. Both key informants co-create knowledge as individuals and in groups. What seems to be highlighted is the importance of the social roles of the graduate student. This context is closely connected to their social responsibilities as worker, parent, and community advocate. This context appears to be different from that of the traditional undergraduate student. In addition, results seem to indicate that certain voice interactions and text communications can be identified by both the graduate students and the professors who participated in the investigation.

Since there is a dearth of empirical evidence in this area, the following section contains a discussion of three arguments related to this topic: (1) interactions and communications and the search for balance between voice and text; (2) a tool for professors to improve the quality of blended learning; and (3) how focusing on characteristics of adult learners will help to improve blended learning for graduate students.

Interactions and Communications: The Balance Between Voice and Text

As Zawacki-Richter and Anderson (2014) contended, professors’ and students’ perpetual conception and maintenance of interactive circles and community of practice are instrumental in sustaining the development and success of any form of online learning. In this particular study of practices in a blended learning program, we saw the importance of interaction and communication circles through voice and text as students and professors collaborated to form a learning community both in class and online.

Based on the analytical charts and the raw data, some type of balance between voice and text does exist. For example, graduate students used problem-posing scenarios and unpacking of weekly readings in their small groups as verbal interactions to sharpen their critical thinking skills. As well, they practised these foundational skills through online textual communications, which afforded them additional time for deep reflections and then written communications with their interactive CoIs. The importance of developing these skills is in line with Garrison’s (2016) assertion that redesigning a blended learning course should have the objective of stimulating students to use critical discourse and reflection. Furthermore, professors employed reflective journey assignments as an assessment technique using voice in small group face-to-face sessions and then carried forward these engaging conversations online through text communications.

As well, one of the major motivating factors for graduate student progress was continuity between face-to-face and online sessions through voice and text. Both the verbal interactions and the textual communications helped the students to feel connected with the “ebb and flow” of the course and to sustain their communities of practice. One consequence of this balance between voice and text was that it enhanced the important aspect of building trust among all members of the group, including students and professors. Vaughan (2014) alluded to this, mentioning that both students and professors recognize the significance of tools of interaction in blended learning for developing trust. In addition, professors emphasized the role of blogs and wikis as textual communications and verbal interactions during the face-to-face sessions in order to resolve student queries that they developed during the online sessions. As mentioned in the literature review, Wang (2010) also found that blogs and journals—types of information and tools of communication in a blended learning environment—can inspire social interaction among students and increase active engagement in the learning process.

Tayebinik and Puteh (2012) made an important point when they stated that overall satisfaction with blended learning improves as collaboration among members in the community of practice and interaction among peers increase. This collaboration can take on various forms. What we found in this study is some early evidence that balancing voice interactions in the face-to-face sessions with text communications during the online sessions can help graduate students to develop trust, acquire critical thinking skills, and build sustainable communities of practice.

A Tool for Professors to Improve the Quality of Blended Learning

One of the theoretical justifications for using the CoI framework for this study was that, over the years, it has guided the idea that “information and communication technology provide[s] the opportunity to create communities of learners that support engagement and collaboration” (Vaughan, Cleveland-Innes, & Garrison, 2013, p. 3). A strength of the framework is the interplay among teaching, cognitive presence, and social presence that can provide a road map for understanding the complex dynamics in a blended learning environment. And, as was the case in this study, nesting the research questions within this framework did allow an understanding of some of those blended learning dynamics as experienced by graduate students and professors. Although the framework does highlight the importance of selecting content, setting climate, and supporting discourse, it is difficult for professors to use these indicators as guides for evaluating their own practices when teaching in a blended learning environment, especially with more mature adult graduate learners. As Ross and Collier (2016) declared, there is now a need for the evaluation of learning design and teaching practice as emerging technologies and digital education are transforming postsecondary institutions. Furthering this argument, Conrad (2014) noted the increasing use of voice, video, social media, and other immersive technologies as important tools of engagement for blended and online learning. At the same time, Conrad challenged those working in online education to do a better job of accommodating the current preferences and needs of learners in this new medium.

To meet this challenge, the two analytical charts used in the data analysis for determining variations of voice and text used by graduate students and professors who teach in a blended learning program can be used as a starting point for instructor self-evaluation. Appendix A, the text and voice analytical chart using the andragogical model of adult learning, can help instructors to create unique learning experiences for adult learners in a blended learning environment. For the purposes of this study, the columns in the analytical chart of themes and quotations were used in the data analysis. For example, using the learner’s self-concept, the first andragogical principle in the model, the matching theme of developing trust and the quotations from two student key informants were identified by the research team. They then identified the textual communications and verbal interactions from the theme and quotations. However, using this chart without these two columns, the instructor might simply record the types and frequencies of textual communications and verbal interactions associated with each of the six adult learning principles. This tool could be used in either designing a blended learning course or after delivering such a course to check for the balance between text and voice in both the face-to-face sessions and the online sessions.

Additionally, Appendix B, the user-friendly voice and text analytical chart using a modification of the Blended Learning Course Quality Rubric, could be used in a similar fashion when teaching mature graduate students. As previously mentioned, this rubric was developed based on best practices in course design, and it is intended to help guide instructors in the development of quality blended learning courses. In this study, once again the columns in the analytical chart of themes and quotations were used in the data analysis. For example, using course design, the first criterion in the Blended Learning Course Quality Rubric, the matching theme of exploring pedagogy and the quotations from the two professors were identified by the research team. They then identified the textual communications and verbal interactions. Using this chart without these two columns, the instructor could again record the types and frequencies of textual communications and verbal interactions across the four main course criteria and indicators when planning or delivering face-to-face and online sessions. Taken together, these charts could act as a self-evaluation tool for instructors to improve the quality of their blended learning designs. Identifying the different modes of communication that they use in digital learning and the efficacies of speech and text might be a mechanism to support mature graduate students in their development of critical and reflective thinking.

Improving Blended Learning for Adult Graduate Students

Although Garrison (2016) posited that blended learning can transform higher education by revisiting and redesigning the way that courses are developed, it is evident that work still needs to be done. Tensions persist over the purpose of blended learning and whether or not it is an administrative measure designed to handle an increasingly large number of students on campus and to lower the costs of operations while attempting to preserve the quality of instruction and student experience. Research indicates that, by not meeting the unique learning characteristics of mature students, many barriers will continue to impede their educational opportunities (Osam et al., 2017; Phillips et al., 2017; Rabourn et al., 2015). Blended learning is an approach in higher education that shows some promise and benefit to mature learners even though mastering some of the technological communication tools might actually impede the ongoing dialogue with professors and peers. As described earlier, Campbell and Schwier (2014) and Conrad (2014) have suggested that courses designed to provide social and cognitive activities by integrating students’ real-life experiences are effective in motivating learners.

What seems to emerge from the findings is that good-quality blended learning design can address adult learners’ characteristics and reduce institutional barriers to higher education. For example, developing trust, acquiring critical thinking skills, and being part of a community of practice are essential elements in blended graduate education. These findings resonate with the work of Merriam and Bierema (2014), who identified the positive aspects essential for improving adult learners’ academic experiences. As well, the results suggest that, through both textual communications and verbal interactions, professors have flexibility in how they integrate the real-life experiences of graduate students in course content. Therefore, an effective blended learning pedagogy seems to lend itself to a course design that involves the fusion of face-to-face and online learning activities for individuals and groups. This could be the case for institutions that have adopted and funded blended learning initiatives at large. Yet essential for implementing a university-wide blended learning strategy is a faculty culture developed through technological and pedagogical support services as well as by recognizing in-house champions (Taylor, Atas, & Ghani, 2017).

As the demographics change in institutions of higher education with more opportunities for adult learners to increase their academic and work-related knowledge, the barriers that they face remain a concern (Stevens, 2014). However, getting a glimpse of how graduate students and professors actually experience blended learning can provide some insights into tackling such barriers. At the core of this awareness is the fact that adult learners have unique self-concepts, experiences, motivations, and problem-centred orientations.

Conclusion

Although this study was conducted in a particular faculty of a medium-sized Canadian university that has adopted blended learning, the results are not generalizable. Nevertheless, the case does raise some interesting additional questions for further inquiry, such as how graduate students can become more involved in course design for blended learning initiatives so as to meet their unique educational needs and how professors can become more aware of the learning needs of mature students. Additional research is needed on the applicability of the self-evaluation tool for professors in their search for quality blended learning design. These questions will inform future work on the quest for the finest course offerings in blended and online learning.

Appendix A: Text and Voice Analytical Chart using the Andragogical Model of Adult Learning

Appendix B: Text and Voice Analytical Chart using a modification of the Blended Learning Course Quality Rubric

References

Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2008). Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry. Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 183–190.

Anderson, T., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2014). Towards a research agenda. In O. Zawacki-Richter & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda (pp. 485–492). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Babb, S., Stewart, C., & Johnson, R. (2010). Constructing communication in blended learning environments: Students’ perceptions of good practice in hybrid courses. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4), 735–753.

Campbell, K., & Schwier, R. (2014). Major movements in instructional designs. In O. Zawacki-Richter & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda (pp. 345–380). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Canadian Digital Learning Research Association. (2019). Tracking online and distance education in Canadian universities and colleges: 2018 public report. ECampus Ontario.

Cercone, K. (2008). Characteristics of adult learners with implications for online learning design. ACCE Journal, 16(2), 137–159.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.

Conrad, K. (2014). Interactions and communication in online communities: Towards an engaged and flexible future. In O. Zawacki-Richter & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda (pp. 381–402). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Ekstrom, R. (1972). Barriers to women’s participation in postsecondary education: A review of the literature. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.

Garrison, D. R. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning. Encyclopedia of Distance Learning, Vol.2, pp.352–355.

Garrison, R. (2016). Thinking collaboratively: Learning in a community of inquiry. New York, NY: Routledge.

Garrison, R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical thinking, cognitive presence and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.

Knowles, M., Holton, E., & Swanson, R. (2011). The adult learner. (7th Edition). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Mason, R. (1994). Using communications in open and flexible learning. London, UK: Kogan Page.

Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S., & Bierema, L. (2014). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Osam, E. K., Bergman, M., & Cumberland, D. M. (2017). An integrative literature review on the barriers impacting adult learners’ return to college. Adult Learning, 28(2), 54–60.

Owston, R. (2013). Blended learning policy and implementation. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 1–3.

Phillips, L. A., Baltzer, C., Filoon, L., & Whitley, C. (2017). Adult student preferences: Instructor characteristics conducive to successful teaching. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 23(1), 49–60.

Rabourn, K. E., Shoup, R., & BrckaLorenz, A. (2015). Barriers in returning to learning: Engagement and support of adult learners. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research. Denver, CO. (pp.1-32).

Ross, J., & Collier, A. (2016). Complexity, mess, and not yetness: Teaching with emerging technologies. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emergence and innovation in digital learning (pp. 17–34). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Stevens, J. (2014). Perceptions, attitudes, and preferences of adult learners in higher education: A national survey. Journal of Learning in Higher Education, 10(2), 65–78.

Tayebinik, M., & Puteh, M. (2012). Sense of community: How important is this quality in blended courses. Proceeding of the International Conference on Education and Management Innovation, Singapore.

Taylor, M., Atas, S., & Ghani, S. (2017). Exploring the experiences of students and professors in a blended learning graduate program: A case study of a faculty of education. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 9(1), 1–15.

Taylor, M., Vaughan, N., Ghani, S., Atas, S., & Fairbrother, M. (2018). Looking back and looking forward: A glimpse of blended learning in higher education from 2007–2017. International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology, 9(1), 1–14.

Vaughan, N. (2014). Student engagement and blended learning: Making the assessment connection. Education Sciences, 4(4), 247–264.

Vaughan, N., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Wang, M. (2010). Online collaboration and offline interaction between students using asynchronous tools in blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(6), 830–846.

Zawacki-Richter, O., & Anderson, T. (Eds.). (2014). Online distance education: Towards a research agenda. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.