Blended learning concepts in comparison

The research work was carried out as a sub-project (Prof. Dr. Volker Scheid, Dr. Andreas Albert and Dr. Tobias Hillebrand) of UKS_digi (University of Kassel digital: redesigning university teaching, August 2021 - July 2024) and funded by the Foundation for Innovation in University Teaching.

To further develop reflexive, video-based case work, sports education courses were designed, offered and evaluated in various blended-learning formats. Based on competence and quality concepts, a reflective, action-oriented and explorative examination of the three quality dimensions of good (sports) teaching (Herrmann et al., 2016) was carried out using suitable teaching scenes from the ViSpo video database.

The aim of the project was to evaluate the designed courses on teaching quality with regard to their impact in four areas: Development of professional knowledge, self-efficacy expectations, development of reflective performance and satisfaction with the format.

Blended learning refers to forms of teaching and learning that consist of a sequential alternation of face-to-face events and digital components. Stalker and Horn (2012) define four blended-learning models in which online and face-to-face teaching are combined in different ways. Two of these models were selected and evaluated for the project: The rotation model consists of a predetermined structure with face-to-face and online phases, whereby assignment deadlines and face-to-face sessions must be adhered to. In the flex model, on the other hand, the course materials are mainly made available to students online. Teachers offer individual support in the form of voluntary consultation appointments.

Methods

Professional knowledge was recorded using a questionnaire survey. The 12 questions related in equal parts to the areas of subject knowledge as well as pedagogical and didactic knowledge and were adapted to the topics of the three seminar concepts.

Two existing scales from the Jerusalem working group were used to record the students' self-efficacy expectations ("Promoting motivated learning", 6 items and "Promoting competent social behavior", 6 items - Jerusalem & Röder; 2007Jerusalem & Drössler, 2007) and supplemented by a specially developed scale for promoting movement competence (13 items).

The assessment of reflection performance (content-analytical evaluation of the written video reflections) was based on the process model by Krieg and Kreis (2014). The model makes it possible to classify the depth of reflection on teaching events on four levels (descriptive, explicative, introspective, integrative) on the one hand and transformative reflection as a reflection on alternative courses of action on three levels (naming options for action, naming conditions, defining criteria) on the other.

Participants' satisfaction with the blended-learning format was assessed using the IEBL questionnaire, which uses eight scales (46 items in total) to record the three areas of face-to-face teaching, online teaching and the course as a whole (Peter et al., 2015).

Data from a total of 110 students (summer semester 2022, rotation model: 52; summer semester 2023, flex model: 58) were included in the analysis. The drop-out rate was striking: while only 3 students (5.5%) did not complete the course in the summer semester 2022, a total of 16 participants (21.6%) did not complete the flex model in the summer semester 2023.

Findings

The following findings relate to an overall comparison between the two semesters. In both course formats, PE students increased their professional knowledge in the three areas of pedagogical, subject-didactic and subject-related research equally significantly (<.001) over the course of the seminar. The highest rates of increase were achieved in pedagogical knowledge.

In terms of self-efficacy expectations, the students of both course formats were able to significantly to highly significantly increase their expectations in the three areas considered - promotion of learning, social behavior and movement competence - to a comparable extent.

The participants' performance in the depth of reflection increased in the groups in a comparable manner from the beginning to the end of the seminar. However, the group in the rotation model achieved a higher, introspective level of reflection (MW = 3.27). On a transformative level, there was only a highly significant increase in the group that worked in the rotation model, which corresponds to the naming of options for action in terms of content.

With regard to student satisfaction with the respective blended learning format, the participants in the rotation model were significantly more satisfied in 6 out of 8 scales than those who worked according to the flex model. On average, the rotation group rated the appropriateness of the demands as "just right", while the flex group perceived the demands to be significantly higher and more difficult.

Summarizing the results, we can speak of positive effects of both blended learning formats. The higher level of depth of reflection and the better results in transformative reflection in the rotation model suggest that the regular exchange in the classroom has an effect on reflection performance. The assessment of satisfaction with the seminar is also significantly more positive overall for the rotation model. It was also noticeable that the drop-out rate was higher in the flex model, which indicates that an excessive degree of freedom for individual students does not appear to be expedient and that a regular, binding combination of teaching and learning phases is appropriate for blended learning scenarios.