Hybrid Learning Module Design

The University of Chicago Education Lab recently released a fascinating study of Saga Education, a high-dosage tutoring model. The study found that substituting some tutor time with educational technology can reduce costs by one-third and halve the number of tutors needed without compromising effectiveness. This is an excellent read for anyone building new AI-powered tutoring products or school leaders exploring program design to better leverage strategic staffing options. 📌 The paper highlights the results of a 4K student RCT that tests the effects of a 4-to-1 tutoring model in which four 9th-grade students sit at a table with one in-person tutor, and the students alternate days working either with the tutor in student pairs (2:1) or working on computer-assisted learning for the entirety of a class period (50 minutes). 📈 Overall, the gain in students' math scores was equivalent to between three-quarters and one full year of additional learning over the program year. ⚖ Compared to everyday tutoring, incorporating technology reduces costs by 30%, reduces the number of tutors required to serve a given number of students by 50%, and has almost as large an effect on student learning. 💡 What I found interesting is how the paper explores why this hybrid approach works. The study estimates that 2/3 of the total learning gains could be attributed to high-quality computer-assisted learning (CAL). The study also showed that, on average, students used the program for about 30 hours of the total possible 45 hours in the program design, which signals a good amount of program adherence to me. 🔍 My interpretation of this is that the impact of reducing direct in-person instruction time is not linear. While the standard tutoring model and the hybrid model produced nearly identical results, most of the gains in the hybrid model could be associated with the support of technology. This indicates a likely compounding positive impact of daily in-person tutor time. That said, the program's structure likely produced higher adherence to recommended tech usage for students, and the combination of the two modes of learning offers a compelling lower-cost and scaleable model for instruction. "What tutoring can do that CAL cannot is provide human connection. This human connection between the tutor and the student might help to sustain student engagement and motivation. It follows that the absence of a human connection may be one reason why there seems to be diminishing marginal returns to student time spent on CAL (Bettinger et al., 2023)." https://lnkd.in/gMyScSWX #EducationInnovation #FutureOfLearning #EdTech #K12 #aiineducation #genai Overdeck Family Foundation

Can the lessons from successful hybrid work transform how we approach hybrid learning in higher education? Our latest academic article explores this compelling question. Drawing from my extensive research on hybrid working patterns since 2021, one principle stands out: "structure + program." This framework has consistently proven effective in organising hybrid work environments – and now shows promise for teaching and learning. The model is straightforward: First, establish clear "anchor days" when everyone in a department comes to campus. This creates predictability and eliminates the constant "should I go in today?" decision-making. Second, strategically map learning activities to location: - Reserve on-campus time for high-impact face-to-face interactions like tutorials and practical workshops. - Leverage remote days for lectures and independent learning activities. This approach doesn't just simplify scheduling – it optimises the learning experience by matching each activity to its ideal setting, and delivers better wellbeing outcomes for academics and students alike. Read more about our findings, link in comments Jeff Waters Jill Bamforth Liz Levin Kristina Turner Bin Wu Dr. Agustin Chevez #HigherEducation #HybridLearning #FutureOfEducation #TeachingInnovation

I talk to a lot of instructors about converting their instructor-led courses to online learning. I've developed a very particular way of doing it, but it is always a shock - instructor-led training is NOT a 1:1 transfer to eLearning. Both modes of training have very particular advantages and disadvantages. The chaos rendered on training by Covid was a great opportunity to showcase the advantages, but because it was overwhelmingly done poorly, there is a lot of prejudice against eLearning now. You can't replace a mechanic with a cook to fix a car and expect the same results at the end, but you wouldn't blame the cook, you'd blame the person who made the switch. eLearning is NOT a panacea and, quite honestly, has limited scope of utility. However, if paired into hybrid - eLearning coupled with instructor led online - it becomes powerful. A lot of what is delivered in class can be delivered in eLearning, then the instructor leads discussions, activities, or makes assignments. eLearning is also good for getting a lot of preparation out of the way for active classes: you can put policy and procedure into eLearning, then have a day of practicals and roleplay for reinforcement. Converting your instructor-led training should be performed by a #LearningStrategist or an #InstructionalDesigner who understands both sufficiently to mitigate the shortcomings of both, while magnifying the benefits. You need someone who has done both extensively to do the analysis and design, so they can mitigate the weaknesses of both and magnify the strengths, as well. #InstructionalDesign #LearningAndDevelopment #eLearningDevelopment