A White Paper: Blended Learning

Dr. Raman Patel

Robert Morris College

401 S. State Street

Chicago, IL 60605

Table of Contents

Introduction

Background

Understanding Blended Learning

What Is Blended Learning?

Categories of Blends

Dimensions of Blended Learning

Improving Pedagogy

Other Benefits of Blended Learning

Blended Learning Model

Blended Learning in the Future

RMC’s Full-Time Flex Model

Empirical Evidence for Effectiveness of Blended Learning

References

i

Introduction

The University of Illinois at Chicago organized a “Sloan-C Workshop on Blended Learning and Higher Education” in Chicago, Illinois on May 7-9, 2006. The primary focus of the workshop was to discuss and share experiences with blended learning, especially pedagogical principles for blended learning. Many higher education institutions are moving toward blended learning for effective learning as well as effective utilization of institutional resources. Although, this white paper draws upon the materials presented and discussed at the Workshop, it is supplemented by additional research

Background

There are 20 million students enrolled at degree granting schools. A total of 3 million (15%) of these students take at least one online course (Asynchronous Learning Network - ALN). This indicates that many institutions are offering online learning alternatives to face-to-face (F2F) methods of instruction. In other words, online instructional methods are considered a substitute for traditional F2F methods.

Another approach has evolved, and is still being developed. The natural evolution of online learning (or e-learning) into an integrated program of multi media types is Blended Learning. Blended learning combines or “blends” the F2F and online modes.

Understanding Blended Learning

There are numerous definitions and interpretations of the “blended learning” (sometimes referred to as BL) approach. One of the interpretations of BL is: “destruction of our current instructional method (F2F) and then reconstruction of what we need.”

Garrison and Kanuka (2004) have tried to make a very basic definition as simple as they can make it: “At its simplest, blended learning is the thoughtful integration of classroom face-to-face learning experiences with online learning experiences.” The key term is “thoughtful integration.” However, what’s more important is

to see why face-to-face and online learning are combined than to see Blended Learning as a combination of the two...... The why is critical. The extent to which BL speaks to your institutional goals, serves your students, is embraced by your faculty - these things hinge on why. And why is, to a considerable extent, for you and your institution to determine. (Otte, 2005)

Heinze and Procter (2004) define Blended Learning as: “learning that is facilitated by the effective combination of different modes of delivery, models of teaching and styles of learning, and founded on transparent communication amongst all parties involved with a course.” This definition is based, in part, on the “Conversational Framework” and emphasizes communication

Yet another interpretation of blended learning is clearly evident in the following quote:

Blended learning means different things to different people. The word “blended” implies a mixture or combination. When a picture is pasted above a paragraph of text, a presentation is created that may be more informative to the viewer or reader but the picture and text remain intact and can be individually discerned. On the other hand, when two cans of different colored paints are mixed, the new paint will look different from either of the original colors. In fact, if the new paint is mixed well, neither of the original colors will continue to exist. Similar situations exist in blended learning.

The mix can be a simple separation of part of a course into an online component. In a course that meets for three weekly contact hours, two hours might meet in a traditional classroom and the equivalent of one weekly hour conducted online. The two modalities for this course are carefully separated and while they may overlap, they can still be differentiated. In other forms of blended courses and programs, the modalities are not so easy to distinguish. (Picciano and Dziuban, Editors Fall 2006)

The participants in the Sloan workshops recognized the difficulty in formulating a simple definition of Blended Learning. “At the 2005 Sloan-C Workshop on Blended Learning, the following was adopted by the participants and will serve as the accepted definition of blended learning . . . :

  1. Courses that integrate online with traditional face-to-face class activities in a planned, pedagogically valuable manner; and
  2. Where a portion (institutionally defined) of face-to-face time is replaced by online activity.” (Picciano, 2006)

Nust Institute of Information Technology (NIIT) (Valiathan, 2002) categorizes blended learning into three models:

  • skill-driven learning, which combines self-paced learning with instructor or facilitator support to develop specific knowledge and skills
  • attitude-driven learning, which mixes various events and delivery media to develop specific behaviors
  • competency-driven learning, which blends performance support tools with knowledge management resources and mentoring to develop workplace competencies.

Sylvestre (2004) has summarized in the table on the next page key features of each approach, situations in which an approach could be adopted (and why), and appropriate blended learning techniques that can be adopted to enhance learning.

Approach / When / Why Blend / How
Skills Driven / When you have self-paced learning modules that deal with the transfer of knowledge and skills. / Learners often feel isolated and require trainer/facilitator support. / •Creating a group-learning plan (through LMS – {Learning Management System}) that is self-paced, yet time bound.
•Padding the self-paced learning material with Instructor-Led “Overview” and “Closure” sessions.
•Demonstrating procedures / processes through Learning Labs (live on-the-web) or through the classroom.
•Providing support to learners through email.
•Designing assignments and project-work that help apply the concepts learned.
•Designing a web-based or project-based certification program for the content.
Attitude Driven / When you have content that deals with developing attitudes and behaviors. / Such content requires peer-to-peer interactions and trying out behaviors in a risk-free environment. / •Creating a Learning Space and activating discussions through Discussion Forums.
•Conducting Live Web conferences (Webinars)
•Organizing Instructor-Led sessions after learners go through self-paced “prerequisite” knowledge modules.
•Assigning projects (to be completed offline) that require the application of behaviors learned.
Competency Driven / When you need to capture and transfer tacit knowledge. / There are certain competencies with which experts work, while making decisions/solving problems --- these skills are not explicit and learners learn by simply observing how the experts work. / •Assigning mentors/guides to learners.
•Developing, populating and maintaining a Knowledge Base.

What Is Blended Learning?

In light of various definitions of blended learning, one may ask: what really is blended learning?

According to Garrison (2006), blended learning is:

  • Thoughtful integration of F2F and online learning.
  • An opportunity to enhance the classroom experience and extend learning through the innovative use of Internet information and communications technology.
  • Not an add-on; redesign approaches (e.g., reduce lectures, add online activities).

Rossett and Frazee (2006) answer this question succinctly: “Blended learning (BL) integrates seemingly opposite approaches, such as formal and informal learning, face-to-face and online experiences, directed paths and reliance on self direction, and digital references and collegial connections, in order to achieve individual and organizational goals.” (Rossett and Frazee, 2006)

Categories of Blends

Bonk and Graham (2005) have suggested three categories of blends. These categories are summarized in the following table:

Enabling Blends / Enabling blends primarily focus on addressing issues of access and convenience. For example, blends that are intended to provide additional flexibility to the learners or blends that attempt to provide the same opportunities or learning experience but through a different modality.
Enhancing Blends / Enhancing blends allow for incremental changes to the pedagogy but do not radically change the way teaching and learning occurs. This can occur at both ends of the spectrum. For example, in a traditional F2F learning environment, additional resources and perhaps some supplementary materials may be included online.
Transforming blends / Transforming blends are blends that allow for a radical transformation of the pedagogy. For example, a change from a model where learners are just receivers of information to a model where learners actively construct knowledge through dynamic interactions. These types of blends enable intellectual activity that was not practically possible without the technology.

Dimensions of Blended Learning

Blending can occur on various dimensions. Flexibility of what and how much to blend is what gives blended learning a competitive edge over other methods of instructions. Blended learning could, and should, be customized to meet both the learning requirements and also the course content requirements. Sylvestre (2004) offers the following dimensions:

  • Blended Offline and Online Learning
  • Blended Self-Paced and Live, Collaborative Learning
  • Blended Structured and Unstructured Learning
  • Various Combinations of the Above

Sylvestre (2004) also suggests the following ingredients of the blend:

Synchronous Physical Formats

•Classroom Instruction

•On the Job Training

•Hands-on Labs and Exercises

Synchronous Online Formats

•Virtual Classrooms

•Virtual Mentoring

•Live Web Seminars

Self-Paced Asynchronous Formats

•Web/CD-ROM courseware

•Recorded Live Events and Video

•Simulations

•On Demand Searchable Knowledge Portals

•Chat/discussion tools

Improving Pedagogy

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. (Sing and Reed, 2001) In other words,

  • by focusing on the learning objectives (rather than the delivery method),
  • by supporting many different personal learning styles to reach broad audiences, and
  • by accommodating individuals who bring different knowledge into the learning experience,

pedagogical method becomes more effective in transforming the students.

At this time, one of the myths MUST be cleared. Blended learning is NOT just a simple combination of F2F and online (that is, blended learning is NOT equal to F2F + Online). Blended learning requires thoughtful planning and design of courses. The amount of technology and technology itself are also key factors, and resources required are NOT insignificant.

For blended learning to be effective and become an integral part of an institution’s culture, the institution must commit to blended learning and make blended learning a part of its business strategy (including allocation of necessary resources).

Other Benefits of Blended Learning

Although there is not much research and data available for blended learning, some of the benefits of blended learning can be summarized:

  • Blended learning is positively related to greater retention of existing students.
  • Blended learning helps reduce duration for completing the degree. Current average is 6.8 years to complete BS/BA.
  • Blended learning is more effective than F2F or ALN (Asynchronous Learning Network) by themselves
  • Blended learning allows opportunity to socialize and get to know other students (via online)
  • Blended learning positively tied to student satisfaction and also faculty satisfaction
  • Active classroom time reserved for activities that require active participation for F2F part of Blended learning
  • Blended learning affords an opportunity to focus on learning (and learning environment) than on teaching (learner-centered)
  • Blended learning is more than learner-centered; it is also client-centered – local communities, region, public agencies, and private organizations.

Blended learning is very much appropriate for 1st generation college students who work while going to school. Blended learning offers:

  • Convenience – students can do “non-classroom” activities at their convenience
  • Communication/social networking – Pelz (2004) has found that online students bond earlier and ‘better’ than students sitting in the same classroom.
  • Social Presence: When participants in an online course help establish a community of learning by projecting their personal characteristics into the discussion — they present themselves as "real people."
  • Some students are shy to participate in the classroom setting, but are more prone to participate online – blended learning affords such students an opportunity to communicate and form social networking
  • Control (how to learn) - blended learning integrates ALN with F2F in a planned, pedagogically valuable manner, and DOES NOT combine but trades-off with online activity (or vice versa) in a meaningful blending

Sloan-C’s five pillars as key principles for achieving quality are:

  1. Learning Effectiveness: The provider demonstrates that the quality of learning online is comparable to the quality of its traditional programs (interaction is key: with instructors, classmates, the interface, and via vicarious interaction)
  2. Cost Effectiveness and Institutional Commitment: Institutions continuously improve services while reducing cost (Cost effectiveness models are also tuned to institutional goals)
  3. Access: All learners who wish to learn online have the opportunity and can achieve success.
  4. Faculty Satisfaction: Faculty achieves success with teaching online, citing appreciation and happiness.
  5. Student Satisfaction: Students are successful in learning online and are pleased with their experience.

Blended LearningModel

One may ask: what should an ideal Blended Learning model look like? There is no simple answer to this question. What and how much to blend depends on various factors.

An ideal blended learning Model uses the affordance of both F2F and ALN (or computer-mediated) environments to transform pedagogical practices. Graham (2006) suggests that when reviewing models of blended learning we need to consider the following characteristics of the model:

Purpose / Scope / Nature
Predominant purposes* / Significance** of blend in overall context: / What does the blend look like pedagogically
- Improved pedagogy
- improved access & convenience
- improved cost effectiveness / small (relatively inconsequential)
to
Integral (very significant) / How is the blend taking advantage of affordances in the environment to achieve goals.
*not mutually exclusive / **rough measure is % of course impacted by the blend

Blended Learning in the Future

Ross and Gage (2005) have summarized the essence of BL’s future when they stated: “Future learning systems will be differentiated not based on whether they blend but rather by how they blend.” We should make Blended Learning something RMC “is,” rather than something RMC “does.” Many institutions are adopting this approach.

Blended learning cannot be everything to everyone. There are some constraints that we should be aware of. One of the most important limitations is our audience’s readiness (in terms of skills as well as technology/web literacy) for accepting blended learning as an instruction mode. Obviously, there are lots of challenges facing any institution that is trying to convert to a blended learning mode of instruction. Some of the faculty and administrators may express their concerns regarding Carnegie Unit whereas others may be more concerned with learner achievement.

RMC’s Full-Time Flex Model

There are quite a few people at RMC who might think that we have already implemented Blended Learning, except that we named it “Full-Time Flex (FTF),” and not Blended Learning. A debate whether our FTF is indeed a blended learning can go on for some time. One might say that our FTF program may be what Bonk and Graham (2005) categorize as enabling or enhancing blend, and not transforming blend. Some of the questions we must ask (and answer) include:

  • Have we really redesigned the FTF courses to exploit full benefits of blended learning?
  • How did we decide what activities to keep for F2F part of the FTF and what activities for the online part?
  • Do we have the technology commensurate with blended learning?
  • Are all our students ready, capable, and eager to accept blended learning?

Empirical Evidence for Effectiveness of Blended Learning

In 2002, Thomson, Inc. conducted an in-depth two-year study, “Thomson Job Impact Study: The Next Generation of Corporate Learning,” examining the application of a structured Blended Learning model. The primary research goals of the Thomson Job Impact Study were to determine if there were significant accuracy and time performance differences on real-world tasks among learners who received a blended learning solution, e-Learning alone or no training.

This study included three groups. Group One received a Blended Learning course and Group Two received a standard e-Learning course. The third group was a control group used to benchmark performance and did not receive any training. In the final analysis, the performance of all three groups on real-world tasks revealed the following results:

  • The group that received Blended Learning performed with 30% more accuracy than the E-Learning alone group.
  • The group that received Blended Learning performed real-world tasks 41% faster than those who received E-Learning alone.
  • The group that received Blended Learning performed tasks with 159% more accuracy than the control group
  • The E-Learning alone group performed tasks with 99% more accuracy than the control group.

These findings demonstrate that Blended Learning heightens the overall on-the-job performance achieved by e-Learning alone. Simply stated, this study shows that a structured Blended Learning model does result in greater workforce productivity. (Thomson, Inc., 2002)

References

Bonk, Curtis J. and Graham, Charles R. (Editors). The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs, San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer, 2005.

Garrison, D. R. & Kanuka, H. “Blended Learning: Uncovering its Transformative Potential in Higher Education,” The Internet and Higher education, 2004, 7(2).

Graham, Charles R. “Models of Blended Learning in Higher Education,” Presentation at the 2006 Sloan-C Workshop on Blended learning and higher Education held in Chicago, Illinois, May 7-9, 2006.