Blended+Learning

flat

Blended Learning, also referred to as Hybrid Learning, has a variety of definitions and remains a topic of debate but there are three common themes to the discussions regarding this subject. Firstly, the blending itself combines face-to-face classroom instruction with Distance Education so as to be mutually supporting. Voos (2003) points out that most often this classroom time is synchronous while the online activity is asynchronous. Secondly, there is a corresponding reduction but not elimination in the class seat time. Per Albrecht (2006) it is this substitution for online time that is the key differentiator from technology assisted education. Finally the goal of this hybridization is to combine the best features of each format in order to promote both collaboration and independent learning (Garnham & Kaleta, 2002). To do this requires intensive evaluation of pedagogy so as not to simply replicate the typical classroom course partially online.



Image courtesy of [|ikkoskinen] = =

=Benefits =

//“The concept of blended learning is rooted in the idea that learning is not just a one-time event—////learning is a// //continuous process. Blending provides various benefits over using any single learning delivery medium alone (Singh 2003).”//

Of those benefits, the most popular according to a study done in 2002 by Garnham and Kaleta is flexibility and convenience. In that study both students and instructors enjoyed the increased convenience of the blended learning model. There was less time needed for commuting and parking allowing additional time to concentrate on the studies themselves. This flexibility also means that blended classes can have a greater reach and provide access to learning for individuals who have other commitments such as work or family (Voos 2003). This in turn provides a larger pool of potential students for the institution or organization offering the education.

Catering to student diversity can also be enhanced by evaluation of different student learning preferences. Instructors can include a variety of environments and media that will appeal to a broader audience while increasing the effectiveness of the learning activities (Akkoyunlu & Soylu, 2008).

According to Spilka (2002), blended learning is better suited to develop skills that students will need to face the complexities of real-life workplaces. Specifically this can be done by modifying the role of the instructor while enhancing student collaboration, resulting in improved maturity and responsibility demonstrated by students.

And the educational institution itself can benefit by cost containment. Blended courses are seen as a way to reduce faculty costs, increase student-teacher ratios, and more heavily utilize physical classrooms (Marsh, 2003).

=Design =

 Simply having the access to multiple formats is not enough to create a successful blended learning environment. Poor instructional design or implementation can hinder the learning process and detract from the experience, perhaps even resulting in a decreased effectiveness when compared to the traditional face-to-face classroom (King & McSporran, 2005).

According to Carman (2005) there are five major components that should be included in the design of blended learning: 1. Live events- synchronous 2. Online content- individual paced learning 3. Collaboration environments- email, online discussion or chat 4. Assessment- pre and post assessments to measure learning transfer 5. Reference Materials

Note that the two formats identified in the definition of blended learning, face-to-face and online, are both present. In fact, the balance between each of these environments is critical in order to leverage the advantages of each (Akkoyunlu & Soylu, 2008). In the research, much attention is paid to this balance.

According to Sands (2002) since the online component will be the one less familiar to the teacher, more attention is required when designing a blended course. Of course, attention must be paid to the face-to-face component in order to create connectivity with the online work. Sands considers this hybrid nature more than a combination of two dissimilar parts, but instead a third unique result due primarily to the interactivity itself. For example, a teacher might bring an online student response to the face-to-face classroom and use it to initiate a discourse resulting in increased student participation and collaboration.

//“Additionally, by sequencing assignments so that they move students from significant discussion/responding online, through written reflections about their responses and the reading, to group or individual projects that are posted to a common learning space, such as a website or discussion board, for discussion and elaboration, teachers can have students engaged in doing, rather than just experiencing or reading (Sands 2002).”//

All of this is helpful in creating a Community of Learners.

=Media =

Rather than specifically reference and discuss technology in relationship to blended learning, it may be more appropriate to discuss the media of communication and thereby collaboration. Morrison (2003) uses the term “learning delivery channels” as his way to understand the role of media. These channels may include the physical classroom itself, print, telephone, coaching or mentoring, self-paced learning, discussion boards or email. These channels are more complex than the technological link itself and there may be crossover- for instance coaching may be delivered via telephone, email, or face-to-face.

This mixing of channels potentially enables improved learning for students over a comparable content delivered through a single medium, including when only face-to-face. After conducting case studies in his own teachings, Dede (2009) goes as far as to suggest that every learning experience should use a minimum of one synchronous and one asynchronous medium in addition to the face-to-face activity of the classroom.

“The real power of these media comes not from automating information transmission, but from enabling students’ collaborative, guided construction of meaning. Information technology is the only practical means we have of making such rich human experiences affordable and scaleable across the full population of educators (Dede, 2009).”

Another observation in Dede’s study was the process where students would find their “voice” in one or more of the media. There was a different comfort level of each participant in any particular media, and it was not until there were a multitude and a variety of choices that each could find the one most suited to their personality and learning style. In this way, each student is able to contribute fully to the collaborate work of the class. Conversely, when forced to use a single media for communication some would shut down and “lurk” with minimal participation.

=Efficacy =

The research has generally agreed that face-to-face, distance, and blended all offer the same effectiveness for learning, with expected variations in the individual learner (Albrecht, 2006). This equivalency should not be understood as “anything will do” per Akkoyunlu and Soylu (2008), but that regardless of the format the course must be developed well to take advantage of the learning opportunity.

While studies to date have show that the blended format performs at least as well as face-to-face or distance, there is at least anecdotal evidence that it in fact outperforms. Garnham and Kaleta reported in 2002 that at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee there was almost universal feeling by faculty that participants in their blended offerings learned more, wrote better, and performed at a higher level in all assessments utilized.

Taking another perspective on efficacy, Scholze and Wiemann (2006) argue that even if there is equivalency in performance, the blended format allows opportunities for learning to more people due to variations in learning styles. This approach is supported by Albrecht (2006).

Voos (2003) questions whether the format has any impact on performance at all, or if it is the act of design itself: //“It is likely not the "blendedness" that makes the difference, but rather the fundamental re-consideration of the content in light of new instructional and media choices. When we simply try to replicate the classroom course in a blended course (or online), breakthroughs do not occur.”//

=Acceptance =

As technology becomes ubiquitous in our society, it’s incorporation into all facets of life is gaining acceptance. Be it cell phones, laptops, ipods, or car touch-screens with GPS, this increasing interface with technology results in a “anytime anywhere delivery” of information (Albrecht, 2006).

This comfort with technology is translating into an acceptance of non-traditional learning environments, specifically those that utilize technology to learn over a distance. A study at Mount Saint Vincent University in Canada revealed that a high percentage of students, 68%, favored a blended learning environment over a traditional classroom setting. Interestingly enough, approximately half of these same students also expressed a preference for at least some face-to-face interaction making a fully Distance Education format less desirable than a blended one (Farmer & Nobes, 2004).

A more recent study in 2009 by Dede confirmed these findings with all participants agreeing that face-to-face interactions are important, but there was also evidence to suggest that the comfort with the virtual methods of communication was on the rise. Blended learning is seen as a comfortable convergence between tradition and technology resulting in a hybrid that is considered effective for learning.

=Conclusions =

It is apparent that blended learning offers a good transition from the traditional classroom to distance education. For those not accustomed to learning at a distance, be they students or teachers, a hybrid is one way to try another means of learning while lessening the risks of isolation and frustration.

After reviewing the research regarding the format for blended learning and comparing that with the topics that we reviewed in class, a compilation of the most important and effective design elements might look like this:


 * Multiple learning delivery channels with at least one being some form of face-to-face (Morrison, 2003)
 * Interactivity between the learning channels (Sands, 2002)
 * Synchronous and Asynchronous formats (Dede, 2009)
 * Student-centric collaboration and independent learning (Garnham & Kaleta, 2002)
 * Informational Resources- either physical or virtual, to promote knowledge generation
 * Assessment- formative assessment that is as diverse as the delivery channels (Singh, 2003)

Considering that the blended learning results are at least as good as either individual format, there is a strong potential for synergistic benefits that neither can offer alone.

=References =

Akkoyunlu, B. & Soylu M. Y. (2008). [|A Study of Student’s Perceptions in a Blended Learning Environment Based on Different Learning Styles.] //Educational Technology & Society//, //11// (1), 183-193.

Albrecht, B. (2006). Enriching Student Experience Through Blended Learning. (Research Bulletin, Issue 12). Retrieved June 14, 2009 from [|EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research] Web site: []

Carman, Jared M. (2005). Blended Learning Design: Five Key Ingredients. Retrieved June 14, 2009 from [|Agilant Learning] Web site: []

Dede, C. (2009) //Emerging Technologies for Knowledge Mobilization, Dissemination, and Use in Education.// Retrieved June 14, 2009 from [|ScienceSpace] Web site: []

Farmer, R. & Nobes, C. (2004). Extending the Campus Reach: To Local and Global Community using Innovative Teaching technologies. Retrieved June 14, 2009 from [|University of New Brunswick] Web site:[| http://www.unb.ca/naweb/04/papers/FarmerNobes.html]

Garnham C. and Kaleta, R. (2002). [|Introduction to Hybrid Courses]. //Teaching with Technology Today//, 8(6).

King, C. & McSporran, M. (2005). //Blended is Better: Choosing Educational Delivery Methods.// Retrieved June 14,2009 from [|United New Zealand Hyperdisc] Web site: []

Morrison, D. (2003). //The Search for the Holy Recipe.// Retrieved June 14, 2009 from [|The Morrison Company] Web site: []

Marsh, G. E. (2003). Blended Instruction: Adapting Conventional Instruction for Large Classes. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(4). Retrieved June 14, 2009 from Web site: [|http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter64/marsh64.htm] Sands, P. (2002) [|Inside Outside, Upside Down.] //Teaching with Technology Today//, 8(6).

Scholze, T. & Wiemann, S. (2006). //Successful Blended Learning Projects in 2006: Experiences in different formal, non-formal and informal learning environments.// Retrieved June 14, 2009 from [|Elearningeuropa.info] Web site: []

Singh, H. (2003). [|Building Effective Blended Learning Programs.] //Educational Technology,// 43(6), 51-54.

Spilka, R. (2002) [|Approximately “Real World” Learning with the Hybrid model.] //Teaching with Technology Today//, 8(6).

Voos, R. (2003). Blended Learning – [|What is it and where might it take us?] //Sloan-C View- Perspectives in Quality Online Education//, 2(1) 3-5.

=External Links =

[|Blended Learning] Wikipedia article on Blended Learning. [|Blended Learning in K-12] Wikibooks article on development and application of blended learning in the K-12 learning environment. [|Hybrid Courses] University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee website describing the use of hybrid courses in higher education from both the faculty and student perspectives.