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.