Increasing Access to Graduate Education: A Blended MSW Program

Abstract

Students who live in remote areas and have work and family responsibilities frequently face considerable challenges completing graduate education. Accredited programs in their professional field may be several hundred miles away, on campuses where traditional face-to-face programs are the primary - if not the only - options available. This means considerable windshield (driving) and seat (classroom) time that their situations make prohibitive. At the same time, new technological developments and continued research and experience have made quality online learning feasible in many fields. Nevertheless, there is still a strong bias to have adequate face-to-face elements in the preparation of professionals for whom face-to-face contact with clients will be the norm. This combination of student need, technological feasibility, and a professional bias toward face-to-face instruction provides the perfect environment for a "blended" program that combines the best features of face-to-face, videoconferencing, and online instruction. The Michigan State University Blended Statewide Clinical Master of Social Work (MSW) Program was developed to respond to the serious access issues facing students in areas of the state where accredited master's programs are either too far away or do not provide flexibility in course load and scheduling. In this article, the program's underlying assumptions are explained and the primary components of the Blended Program model are described in detail. It should be noted that this is not just a theoretical model – it has, in fact, been implemented, with the first cohort of students in the third year of the three-year MSW program. Results to date are presented.

Full text

Page 1

www.rcetj.org

ISSN 1948-075X


Volume 5, Number 2
Summer 2009

Edited by:

Mark van ‘t Hooft
Editor




Alison Bland
Managing Editor
Special Issue: Blended Learning (Part 2)

Guest Editor:

Karen Swan, Ed.D.
Stukel Distinguished Professor of Educational Leadership

University of Illinois Springfield







Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology (RCET)
Vol. 5, No. 2, Summer 2009

Page 2

Editor Managing Editor
Alison Bland
Mark van ‘t Hooft, PhD

Advisory Board

Joseph Bowman, Ph.D.
State University at Albany

Rosemary Du Mont
Kent State University

Ricki Goldman, Ph.D.
NYU

Aliya Holmes
St. John's University

Cheryl Lemke
Metiri Group

Robert Muffoletto, Ph.D.
Appalachian State University
Elliot Soloway, Ph.D.
University of Michigan


Review Board

Kadee Anstadt, Perrysburg City Schools
Savilla Banister, Bowling Green State University
William Bauer, Case Western Reserve University
Sebastian Diaz, West Virginia University
Evelyn Goldsmith, Kent State University
Albert Ingram, Kent State University
Jan Kelly, Mogadore Local Schools
Cindy Kovalik, Kent State University
Annette Kratcoski, Kent State University
Mary MacKay, Wake County Public School System
Theresa Minick, Kent State University
Jason Schenker, Kent State University
Chris Simonavice, Murray State University
Karen Swan, University of Illinois, Springfield
Leonard Trujillo, East Carolina University
Maggie Veres, Wright State University
Yin Zhang, Kent State University


The Journal for the Research Center for Educational Technology is published twice a year by RCET
(http://www.rcet.org). It provides a multimedia forum for the advancement of scholarly work on the effects
of technology on teaching and learning. This online journal (http://www.rcetj.org) seeks to provide unique
avenues for the dissemination of knowledge within the field of educational technology consistent with new
and emergent pedagogical possibilities. In particular, journal articles are encouraged to include video and
sound files as reference or evidence, links to data, illustrative animations, photographs, etc. The journal
publishes the original, refereed work of researchers and practitioners twice a year in multimedia electronic
format. It is distributed free of charge over the World Wide Web under the Creative Commons License
(Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States) to promote dialogue, research, and
grounded practice.


Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology (RCET)
Vol. 5, No. 2, Summer 2009

Page 3

Volume 5, Number 2
Summer 2009




Introduction to the Special Issue on Blended Learning,
Part 2: Blended Learning Programs
Karen Swan

Finding the Recipe for the Best Blend: The Evolution and Assessment
of a Blended Master's Degree Program
Camille Ramsey, Andrew Hawkins, Lynn Housner, Robert Wiegand, and
Sean Bulger

Increasing Access to Graduate Education: A Blended MSW Program
Paul Freddolino, Christina Blaschke, and Sally Rypkema

Blended Program Development: Applying the Quality Matters and
Community of Inquiry Frameworks to Ensure High Quality Design and
Implementation
Len Bogle, Vickie Cook, Scott Day, and Karen Swan

Comparing Online Learning with Blended Learning in a Teacher
Training Program
Susan Kirwin, Julie Swan, and Nicholas Breakwell

Access Strategy for Blended E-learning: An AIOU Case Study
Nazir Sangi

Using Cognitive Apprenticeship to Provide Faculty Development in the
Use of Blended Learning
Carianne Hayslett, Ed O’Sullivan, Heidi Schweizer, and Janna Wrench


1
3
27
51

67
75
92
Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology (RCET)
Vol. 5, No. 2, Summer 2009

Page 4

Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology (RCET)
Vol. 5, No. 2, Summer 2009

27
RCETJ 5 (2), 27-50

Increasing Access to Graduate Education: A Blended MSW Program
Paul Freddolino
Michigan State University
Christina Blaschke
Michigan State University
Sally Rypkema
Michigan State University
Abstract
Students who live in remote areas and have work and family responsibilities frequently face considerable
challenges completing graduate education. Accredited programs in their professional field may be several
hundred miles away, on campuses where traditional face-to-face programs are the primary – if not the
only – options available. This means considerable windshield (driving) and seat (classroom) time that
their situations make prohibitive. At the same time, new technological developments and continued
research and experience have made quality online learning feasible in many fields. Nevertheless, there is
still a strong bias to have adequate face-to-face elements in the preparation of professionals for whom
face-to-face contact with clients will be the norm.
This combination of student need, technological feasibility, and a professional bias toward face-to-face
instruction provides the perfect environment for a “blended” program that combines the best features of
face-to-face, videoconferencing, and online instruction. The Michigan State University Blended Statewide
Clinical Master of Social Work (MSW) Program was developed to respond to the serious access issues
facing students in areas of the state where accredited master’s programs are either too far away or do not
provide flexibility in course load and scheduling. In this article, the program’s underlying assumptions are
explained and the primary components of the Blended Program model are described in detail. It should
be noted that this is not just a theoretical model – it has, in fact, been implemented, with the first cohort of
students in the third year of the three-year MSW program. Results to date are presented.
Introduction
Online learning has continued to expand its position in the higher education arena. In fact, the latest data
indicate that close to four million students were enrolled in at least one online course in Fall 2007, a 12.6
percent increase over the number reported the previous year (Allen & Seaman, 2008). Although offerings
of blended courses decreased slightly between 2003 and 2005 while online course offerings grew, there
are a slightly larger percent of blended program offerings than online programs across all disciplines
(Allen, Seaman, & Garrett, 2007, emphasis added). In this article we will examine the importance of
improved student access to educational resources as a force driving the increase in both online and
blended courses and programs, and discuss challenges and potential benefits of these approaches. We
will then describe the origins and implementation of one graduate professional master’s program using a
blended learning approach designed to improve student access.

Page 5

Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology (RCET)
Vol. 5, No. 2, Summer 2009

28
Access Issues
Results of a survey of over 2,500 colleges and universities presented in the fifth annual report on U.S.
online learning show that “ improving student access is the most often cited objective for online courses
and programs” (Allen & Seaman, 2007, p. 2). Furthermore, Allen & Seaman (2007) report that this is the
top reason noted by all of the different types of institutions included in the study. The most recent data (for
2007) indicate that both chief academic officers and online teaching faculty rated the need for flexible
access above other motivations for teaching online presented to them (Allen & Seaman, 2008).
Access, however, can be defined in many ways and include many different dimensions. As is commonly
understood in the context of the growth of online and blended learning, the “access issue” generally
incorporates the idea that large numbers of students confront challenges in pursuing higher education
courses and programs due to factors such as:
1) geographical barriers – they simply live “too far” from the physical location of a campus providing
traditional (i.e., face-to-face in a classroom) courses and programs; these geographical barriers can be
expressed in terms of mileage (e.g., living 100 miles away from campus in a rural area) and/or driving
time (living in urban areas but an hour-or more commute from the target campus);
2) employment/time availability barriers – regardless of how far away they live, some potential students
work full-time jobs or even two jobs, making it difficult to allocate time on a fixed schedule to attend face-
to-face classes for a specific period of time; and
3) family and community responsibilities – regardless of how far away they live, some potential students
have a combination of family and community responsibilities that make attendance at and participation in
traditional classes in a specific geographic site on a fixed schedule very difficult if not impossible.
The literature is filled with reports about the importance of access. Braun (2008) notes that “students’
desire for flexibility outweighing the apparent need for instructor and peer interaction as one of the driving
reasons behind enrollment in an online course” (p. 63). Tamburri (2004) notes that what students seek
“above all else is the flexibility to pursue their studies when they want and where they want, while they
continue to work and raise their families” (¶ 1). The United States Distance Learning Association (n.d.)
notes that there are issues of equity, cost, and convenience to potential students. Kennedy (2008)
suggests that expectations of potential students, especially adult learners, “include the ability to have their
education tailored around their needs — courses they can take when and where they want, and at a pace
that fits their lifestyle” (¶ 4), but he does note realistically that there is a continuum of program types
ranging from those with more specific demands and structure to those with fewer demands and more
options for choice in content. Ostrow and DiMaria-Ghalili (2005) comment that for nursing students the
combination of fulltime employment, parenting, and school leads to the inevitable conclusion that “time is
a precious commodity” (p. 5), another aspect of the access issue. In short, “students are seeking to
reduce the costs, in terms of both time and money, of commuting to classes on campus” (McCracken,
2008, ¶ 11).
The types of issues described above are even more salient and problematic for graduate and
professional education in fields like nursing (Ostrow & DiMaria-Ghalili, 2005; Stanton et al., 2005);
pharmacy (Vuchetich, 2003); special education (Luna & Medina, 2007); and social work (Regan & Youn,
2008). T here are also examples of important access needs for various groups of students identified by
geographic location such as rural areas (Ostrow & DiMaria-Ghalili, 2005) and island communities
(University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2008); and by demographic/cultural characteristics (Oklahoma State
University, 2008).