eJournal Africa 2006

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Blended Learning: Why Our Choice?

Blended Learning: Why Our Choice?

By Alemu Abebe Woldie

Introduction

The term “blended learning” is being used with increased frequency in the academic world. As cited by Rooney, the American Society for Training and Development identified blended learning as one of the top ten trends to emerge in the knowledge delivery industry.

These days, a dramatic increase in the number of hybrid (i.e., blended) courses in higher education possibly includes as many as 80-90% of all courses (Young, 2002).
Even though blended learning has become Some what of a buzzword in higher education settings, there is still quite a bit of ambiguity about what is meant when the term is used.
How is blended learning different from other terms such as distributed learning, e-learning, open and flexible learning? Some define the term so broadly arguing that there is no any learning system that is not “blended”. Others challenge the very assumptions behind blending as holding onto relics of an old paradigm of learning (Graham, 2002).

In this article a trial will be made to highlight some points on blended learning and to briefly answer the question why we choose blended learning as method of content delivery.

What Is Being Blended?
One frequent question asked when one hears about blended learning (BL) is “What is being blended?” While there are a wide variety of responses to this question, most of the definitions are just variations of a few common themes. The three most commonly mentioned definitions documented by Graham, Allen, and Ure (2003) are:
1) BL = combining instructional modalities (or delivery media)
2) BL = combining instructional methods
3) BL = combining online and face-to-face instruction

The first two positions above reflect the debate on the influences of media versus method on learning. According to Clark and Kozma, both of these positions suffer from the problem that they define BL so broadly that there encompass virtually all learning systems. One would be hard pressed to find any learning system that did not involve multiple instructional methods and multiple delivery media. So defining BL in either of these two ways does not get at the essence of what blended learning is and why the concept of blended learning is exciting to so many people. As to Charles R. Graham the third position more accurately reflects the historical emergence of blended learning systems and is the foundation of the working definition This working definition reflects the idea that BL is the combination of instruction from two historically separate models of teaching and learning: traditional F2F learning systems and distributed learning systems. It also emphasizes the central role of computer-based technologies in blended learning.

Therefore, BL is part of the ongoing convergence of two learning environments. On the one hand, we have the traditional F2F learning environment that has been around for centuries. On the other hand, we have distributed learning environments that have begun to grow and expand in exponential ways as new technologies have expanded the possibilities for distributed communication and interaction.

Graham argue, that in the past, these two learning environments have remained largely separate because they have used different media/method combinations and have addressed the needs of different audiences. For example, traditional F2F learning typically occurred in a teacher-directed environment with person-to-person interaction in a live synchronous. On the other hand, distance learning systems emphasized self-paced learning and learning-materials interactions that typically occurred in an asynchronous environment. The widespread adoption and availability of digital learning technologies has led to increased levels of integration of computer-mediated instructional elements into the traditional F2F learning experience.

Why Our Choice?
There are many reasons why an instructor, trainer, or learner might pick blended learning over other learning options. Osguthorpe and Graham (2003) identified six reasons why one might chose to design or use a blended learning system:
(1) pedagogical richness,
(2) access to knowledge,
(3) social interaction,
(4) personal agency,
(5) cost effectiveness, and
(6) ease of revision.

In the BL literature, the most common reason provided is that BL combines “the best of both worlds”. While there is some truth to this, it is rarely acknowledged that a blended learning environment can also mix the least effective elements of both worlds if it is not designed well. Beyond this general argument (Graham et al. 2003) found that overwhelmingly people chose BL for three reasons:
(1) improved pedagogy,
(2) increased access/flexibility, and
(3) increased cost effectiveness.

Improved Pedagogy. As indicated above, one of the most commonly cited reasons for blending is more effective pedagogical practices. It is no secret that most current teaching and learning practice in higher education training setting is still focused on transmissive rather than interactive strategies. In higher education, 83% of instructors use the lecture as the predominant teaching strategy (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Some have seen blended learning approaches increase the level of active learning strategies, peer-to-peer learning strategies, and learner centered strategies.

Increased Access/Flexibility. Access to learning is one of the key factors influencing the growth of distributed learning environments. Many emphasize that programs would not be possible if students are not able to have a majority of their learning experiences at a distance from instructors and/or other students. Learner flexibility and convenience is also of growing importance as more mature learners with outside commitments (such as work and family) seek additional education. Many learners want the convenience offered by a distributed environment, and, at the same time, do not want to sacrifice the social interaction and human touch they are used to in a F2F classroom. It is possible to cite numerous examples of how blending is used to provide a balance between flexible learning options and the high touch human interactive experience.

Increased Cost Effectiveness. Cost effectiveness is a third major goal for BL systems in higher education institutions. Blended learning systems provide an opportunity for reaching a large, globally dispersed audience in a short period of time with consistent content delivery.

Wrap Up
Even though we choose BL as an appropriate mode of content delivery, it does not mean that it is 100% perfect. There are issues or challenges that we face when blending. We need to consider six issues when designing BL systems. These include:
(1) the role of live interaction(f2f),
(2) the role of learner choice and self-regulation,
(3) approaches for support, training and tutoring,
(4) finding balance between technological innovation and production of contents,
(5) cultural adaptation, and
(6) dealing with the digital divide

What do we mean by these Challenges (Core Issues)?
The Role Of Live Interaction (F2f)
We need to get answers for these questions: Under what conditions is human interaction important to the learning process and to learner satisfaction with the process? When and why should we be considering human interaction such as collaboration and learning communities?

Role of Learner Choice/Self Regulation. How are learners making choices about the kinds of blends that they participate in? How can blended learning environments be designed to support increasing learner knowledge and skills and capabilities for self-regulation?

Approaches For Support And Tutoring. There are many issues related to support and tutoring in blended environments including:
(1) providing learners with technological skills to succeed in both F2F and online environments,
(2) changing organizational culture to accept blended approaches ,
(3) the need to provide professional development for instructors that will be teaching online and F2F
(5) the need to see more successful models of how to support a blended approach to learning from both the technological infrastructure and organizational (human) perspectives.

Finding Balance Between Technological Innovation And Production Of Contents. In designing BL content, there is a constant tension between innovation and production. Hence, there is a need to look forward to the possibilities that new technological innovations provide and, there is a need to be able to produce cost effective solutions. However, due to the constantly changing nature of technology, finding an appropriate balance between innovation and production will be a constant challenge for those designing blended learning systems.

Cultural Adaptation. This is a check what blended approaches play in adapting materials to local learners. This indicates the need for customizing the materials to the local learners to make them culturally relevant.

Dealing with the Digital Divide. This refers to the divide between the information and communication technologies available to individuals and societies at different ends of the socio-economic spectrum (to address the issue of information poor vs information rich).
By giving due attention to the above shortly described issues, it is possible to transform the conventional pedagogy radically. This, we can call, is a change from a model where learners are just receivers of information to a model where learners actively construct knowledge and skills through dynamic interactions.

REFERENCES
1. Bersin & Associates. (2003). Blended learning: What works?: An industry study of the
strategy, implementation, and impact of blended learning: Bersin & Associates.
2. Bonk, C. J., Olson, T., Wisher, R. A., & Orvis, K. (2002). Reflections on blended
distributed learning: The armor captains career course.
3. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of
Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459.
4. ------------ (1994). Media and method. Educational Technology Research & Development, 42(3), 7-10.
5. ----------- Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 42(2), 21-29.
6. Collis, B. (2003). Course redesign for blended learning: modern optics for technical
professionals. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and
Lifelong Learning, 13(1/2), 22-38.
7. Cottrell, D., & Robison, R. (2003). Blended learning in an accounting course. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 261-269.
8. Dabbagh, N. (2004). Distance learning: Emerging pedagogical issues and learning
designs. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(1), 37-49.
9. Graham, C. R., Allen, S., & Ure, D. (2003). Blended learning environments: A review of the research literature.
10. Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-211.
11. Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning systems: Definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-234.
12. Rooney, J. E. (2003). Blending learning opportunities to enhance educational
programming and meetings. Association Managment, 55(5), 26-32.
13. U.S. Department of Education. (2001). The condition of education 2001 (2001-072).
Washington, DC: National Center for Edcuational Statistics.
14. Young, J. R. (2002, March 22). 'Hybrid' teaching seeks to end the divide between
traditional and online instruction. Chronicle of Higher Education

What is blended learning? And what are the dimensions of blending?


By Sahar Talaat Abdel Bary

Definition of blended learning:

Blended Learning can be described as a learning program where more than one delivery mode is being used with the objective of optimizing the learning outcome and cost of program delivery. However, it is not the mixing and matching of different learning delivery modes by itself that is of significance, but the focus on the learning outcome. That is mean that blended learning focuses on optimizing achievement of learning objectives by applying the “right” learning technologies to match the “right” personal learning style, to transfer the “right” skills to the “right” person at the “right” time (Singh & Reed 2001).

Blending involves a planned combination of approaches, such as coaching by a supervisor; participation in an online class; breakfast with colleagues; competency descriptions; reading on the beach; reference to a manual; collegial relationships; and participation in seminars, workshops, and online communities (Rossett, et al. 2003).

Embedded in this definition are the following principles:
1. We are focusing on the learning objective rather than the method of delivery
2. Many different personal learning styles need to be supported to reach broad audiences.
3. Each of us brings different knowledge into the learning experience.
4. In many cases, the most effective learning strategy is “just-what-I-need, just-in-time” (Singh & Reed 2001).

Dimensions of the Blend:

The term blended learning has evolved to encompass a many learning strategy. Today a blended learning program may combine one or more of the following dimensions, although many of these have overlapping attributes (Singh & Reed 2001).

1. Blending Offline and Online Learning:
At the simplest level, a blended learning experience combines offline and online forms of learning where the online learning usually means “over the Internet or Intranet” and offline learning happens in a more traditional classroom setting. We assume that even the offline learning offerings are managed through an online learning system.

2. Blending Self-Paced and Live, Collaborative Learning:
Self-paced learning implies solitary, on-demand learning at a pace that is managed or controlled by the learner. Collaborative learning, on the other hand, implies a more dynamic communication among many learners that brings about knowledge sharing.

3. Blending Structured and Unstructured Learning:
Not all forms of learning imply a premeditated, structured, or formal learning program with organized content in specific sequence like chapters in a textbook. In fact, most learning in the workplace occurs in an unstructured form via meetings, hallway conversations, or e-mail. A blended program design may look to actively capture conversations and documents from unstructured learning events into knowledge repositories available on demand, supporting the way knowledge-workers collaborate and work.

4. Blending Custom Content with Off-the-Shelf Content:
Off-the-shelf content is by definition generic—unaware of an organization’s unique context and requirements. However, generic content is much less expensive to buy and frequently has higher production values than custom content. Generic self-paced content can be customized today with a blend of live experiences (classroom or online) or with content customization. Industry standards such as SCORM (Shareable Content Object Reference Model) open the door to increasingly flexible blending of off-the-shelf and custom content, improving the user experience while minimizing cost.

5. Blending Learning, Practice, and Performance Support:
Perhaps the finest form of blended learning is to supplement learning (organized prior to beginning a new job-task) with practice (using job-task or business process simulation models) and just-in-time performance support tools that facilitate the appropriate execution of job-tasks. Cutting-edge productivity tools provide ‘workspace’ environments that package together the computer based work, collaboration, and performance support tools.

6. Blending Work and Learning:
Ultimately, the true success and effectiveness of learning in organizations is believed to be associated with the paradigm where work (such as business applications) and learning are inseparable, and where learning is embedded in business processes such as hiring, sales, or product development. Work becomes a source of learning content to be shared and more learning content becomes accessible on-demand and in the context of the user’s workplace need.

What should be evident from the above discussion is that many of the implicit constraints of time, geography and format that we accepted with the physical classroom are no longer valid. Even the fundamental organizing construct of a “course” can be transformed into an ongoing learning process or experience (Singh, 2003).

Ingredients of the Blend:
In the past, the ingredients for blended learning were limited to physical classroom formats (lectures, labs, etc.), books or handouts. Today organizations have myriad learning approaches to choose from, including but not limited to:
1. Synchronous physical formats:
· Instructor-led Classrooms & Lectures.
· Hands-on Labs & Workshops.
· Field Trips.
2. Synchronous online formats (Live eLearning):
· eMeetings.
· Virtual Classrooms.
· Web Seminars and Broadcasts.
· Coaching.
· Instant Messaging.
3. Self-paced, asynchronous formats:
§ Documents & Web Pages.
§ Web/Computer-Based Training Modules.
§ Assessments/Tests & Surveys.
§ Simulations.
§ Job Aids & Electronic Performance Support Systems (EPSS).
§ Recorded live events.
§ Online Learning Communities and Discussion Forums.
(Singh & Reed, 2001).

Why we implement blended learning formats?

The problem of most of educational and training institutes is only slightly more than half of their highly motivated students would actually complete their programs. This problem can be related to a mismatch between the student’s desired learning style – interactive, social, mentored learning – with the program’s delivery format. They found that introduction of live eLearning into their program to address student's needs raised student completion rates to 94%. The improvement was attributed to the ability of a scheduled live event to motivate learners to complete self-paced materials on time, the availability of interaction with instructors and peers, and higher quality mentoring experiences. The Stanford research strongly suggests that linking self-paced material to live eLearning delivery could have a profound effect on overall usage and completion rates – enabling organizations to radically increase the return on their existing investments in self-paced content (Bersin & Associates, 2003).

References:

1. Singh H. & Reed C., 2001: Achieving Success with Blended Learning, Centra Software, 2001 ASTD State of the Industry Report, American Society for Training & Development, March 2001.
2. Bersin & Associates, 2003: Blended Learning: What Works?

3. Singh H., 2003: Building Effective Blended Learning Programs, November - December Issue of Educational Technology, Volume 43, Number 6, Pages 51-54.