Home

Rethinking Blended Learning

Coloring Outside the Lines: Rethinking Blended Learning
by Patti Shank

Introduction
Economic, political, and sociocultural changes have brought about rapidly increasing needs for education and training over the lifespan, requiring new tools (Brown, 2000; Laurillard, 2002; Luker, 2000; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994). Workers face the probability of multiple careers and careers whose skills change rapidly. Continu­ous learning to meet changing learning needs is becoming the norm. Global economic, political, and cultural interdependence requires new ways of thinking and skills. A decreasing emphasis on cir­cumscribed and unchanging skills and an increas­ing emphasis on the ability to adjust and improvise, integrate and synthesize new information, and share and communicate changes how and what people need to learn. Because of the need for con­tinual learning, adults are increasingly demanding flexibility and options for gaining essential knowl­edge and skills (Brown, 2000) while at the same time expressing concerns over frustrations inher­ent in fully online instruction (Hara & Kling, 1999; Shank, 2002).Technologies will, no doubt, be part of the solution because classroom-based learning isn’t scalable enough to meet the growing need (Luker, 2000). But a more rational and considered use of technology is needed that forgoes hype. The increasing use of blended learning in academe and industry is a part of this more rational and consid­ered use, I believe. This consideration can be taken further with thoughtful reflection on what can be blended for what purposes.

The Hype Over Online Learning

Distance methods of education have been used for teaching and learning for more than 100 years (Moore & Kearsley, 1996) but the use of Internet and network technologies for teaching and learn­ing are a much more recent innovation. Some organizations and institutions were early adopters, throwing themselves into online learning and mak­ing it into a top organizational priority. Optimism about the promise of online learning grew quickly. Academe and industry rushed to develop and implement online instruction, expecting to reduce costs, increase enrollments, and make money (Brown, 2000; McMahon, 1997; Shea & Boser, 2001). There were large investments in online learning with huge payoff expectations. Claims were made that online learning would revolutionize pedagogy and make learning convenient and avail­able anywhere and any time (The Learning Alliance for Higher Education, 2004).

At Comdex in 1999, Cisco CEO John Chambers made his frequently quoted statement: “The next big killer application for the Internet is going to be education. Education over the Internet is going to be so big it is going to make e-mail usage look like a rounding error.” Research organizations such as GartnerGroup and International Data Corp (IDC) be­gan publishing figures that forecast mind-boggling levels of growth for this industry. But the hype was just that. Online learning didn’t get anywhere close to those early predictions. Online learning vendors and “thought leaders” came and went, along with their promises. Online learning hasn’t replaced the classroom. So much for the rounding error and exaggerated claims. More well thought-out uses of technology appear to be taking hold.

Outside the Lines

The Weatherstation Project (The Learning Alli­ance for Higher Education, 2004) collected data between January 2002 and April 2003 from six higher education campuses to determine what is happening with online learning. They discovered that many faculty are, in fact, using instructional technology such as computer-based assessments, course management tools, and online discus­sions. Although the initial hype over online learning forced some faculty into using technology in fully online courses with much resentment and antipa­thy, many continue using technologies because they see myriad benefits for themselves and their students.

Technologies have affordances that can be appro­priated to enhance teaching and learning, espe­cially when used well and with adequate consider­ation (Ryder & Wilson, 1996). James Gibson (cited in Ryder & Wilson, 1996) coined the term “affor­dance” to describe an object’s “perceptual proper­ties that can become opportunities for action in the hands of users” (personal communication, B. Wilson, April 2003). Technologies, delivery mecha­nisms, tools, media, and strategies have affordanc­es that can be employed for learning because they support learning, allow connections to people and objects that are not in learners’ immediate physical environment, and provide opportunities that are not easily available otherwise (Harasim, Hiltz, Teles, & Turnoff, 1996; Ryder & Wilson, 1996).

This type of consideration appears to be happen­ing; more an more people are considering how technology makes sense in their own situations and not being held to inflexible notions. One point of evidence is that more and more higher education institutions and organizations are using blended or hybrid methods for teaching, combining the best of both worlds, offering convenience and administra­tive benefits, without losing the benefits of face-to-face contact. The trend towards using technology to support instruction and learning is a quieter change from the earlier, hyped push towards fully online courses. Even many institutions and orga­nizations that were initially negative about using technology are seeing the benefits of a hybrid or blended approach.

Expanding the Definition of Blending What is blended learning? The definition that most folks use includes a mix of online and classroom instruction. This definition is narrow and limits our thinking and therefore what can be achieved. We can also blend a host of other elements in order to take advantage of their unique affordances. Instead of a narrow definition for blended learning, I would suggest a more open view, one that allows consid­eration of many, many more possibilities. We can start by considering what blend of the following dimensions (adapted, with permission, from Singh & Reed, 2004) can best enhance teaching and learning in a given instructional situation.

Consideration of these ten dimensions can initiate a dialog about the outcomes made possible from blending within and among these dimensions. We can start by considering the pragmatic and peda­gogical affordances of each of these dimensions. In the two tables that follow, I have begun this process for myself and my clients and students but this is just a beginning. An open dialog with those who design instruction of all types would, no doubt, provide additional insights and that is my goal in the interactive keynote. Table 2 shows affordances of informal, classroom, and online instruction and Table 3 shows affordances of asynchronous and synchronous online delivery, as I see them.

 


Physical space/face-to-face

 

ó

 

Virtual space/distance

 

Synchronous/live

 

ó

 

Asynchronous/not live

 

Self-paced/content interactions

 

ó

 

Collaborative (people interactions)

 

Structured/formal

 

ó

 

Unstructured/informal

 

Fixed time

 

ó

 

Open ended

 

Instruction

 

ó

 

Performance Support

 

Off-the-shelf (generic content)

 

ó

 

Proprietary (internal processes)

 

Learning

 

ó

 

Work

 

Content authored in advance

 

ó

 

Content built by learners

 

Directed

 

ó

 

Exploratory

 

  Table 1. Prospective Blending Dimensions

Consideration of these ten dimensions can initiate a dialog about the outcomes made possible from blending within and among these dimensions. We can start by considering the pragmatic and peda­gogical affordances of each of these dimensions. In the two tables that follow, I have begun this process for myself and my clients and students but this is just a beginning. An open dialog with those who design instruction of all types would, no doubt, provide additional insights and that is my goal in the interactive keynote. Table 2 shows affordances of informal, classroom, and online instruction and Table 3 shows affordances of asynchronous and synchronous online delivery, as I see them.

 

Informal

Classroom

Online

Benefits

Generally real activities, completed in context

Learner has time to make connections

Mentoring or coaching over time is possible

Immediate feedback and support

Social aspects easily accessible

Easy to see performance

Instructional materials are generally easy to use

Easily scalable

Possible to customize

Easier tracking

Potential for increased participation

Incremental cost is lowered when spread over wide audience

Access to experts

Mentoring or coaching over time is possible

Challenges

May not be structured enough

May be frustrating for learner

Needed resources may not be available

Not easily tracked

Usually linear, more time-bound

Participation is limited by available time

Customization is limited by group pacing

Travel greatly increases cost

Not easily scalable

Tools are often challenging for learners

Delayed feedback and support

Instructional materials may be challenging to use

Table 2. Affordances of Informal, Classroom, and Online Learning


 AsynchronousSynchronous

Benefits

Convenience

Access at work/home

Time to reflect

Standardization of content

Lack of visual cues (privacy)

Review materials as needed

Self-direction

Time set aside

Real-time benefits

Immediate feedback

Visual cues (gauge emotions, understanding)

Better for poor reading and writing skills

Instructor direction

Challenges

Lack of immediacy

Lack of visual cues (potential for misunderstanding)

Frustration when needing help

Easier to avoid

Inconvenience and logistics - time zones

No time to reflect

Event oriented

Instructor control

Table 3. Affordances of Asynchronous and Synchronous Online Learning

Conclusions Although the initial promises for online learn­ing were widely exaggerated, more rational and considered use of technologies to support teach­ing and learning seems to be occurring. Trainers, faculty, content experts, instructional designers, and others who design instruction are beginning to consider affordances that various technolo­gies, tools, and strategies have that can enhance teaching and learning. This trend is quieter and less frenzied than the initial hyped push towards putting everything online. A more open view of blending supports this quiet and deliberate at­tempt to select technologies, tools, and strategies that make the most sense in any given instruction­al situation. A dialog about the affordances made possible within and among these dimensions can provide additional insights for the considered uses of technology to meet individual, organizational, and societal needs.

References

Brown, B. L. (2000). Web-based training (ERIC Digest No. EDO-CE-218): Center on Education and Training for Employment, College of Education, The Ohio State University.

Brown, J. S. (2000, March/April). Growing up digital: How the web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. [Electronic version]. Change, 11-20.

Hara, N., & Kling, R. (1999, December). Students’ frustration with a web-based distance education course. First Monday, 4(12). Retrieved November 19, 2000 from http://firstmonday.org/issues/is­sue4_12/hara/

Harasim, L. M., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turnoff, M. (1996). Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Laurillard, D. (2002, January/February). Rethink­ing teaching for the knowledge society. Educause Review, Retrieved April 22, 2002 from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0201.pdf

Luker, M. A. (Ed.). (2000). Preparing your campus for a networked future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

McMahon, M. (1997, December 7-10). Social con­structivism and the world wide web - a paradigm for learning. Paper presented at ASCILITE ‘97, Perth Australia. Retrieved November 19, 2001, from http://www.curtin.edu.au/conference/ascilite97/papers/Mcmahon/Mcmahon.html

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance edu­cation: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Ryder, M., & Wilson, B. G. (1996, February 14-18). Affordances and constraints of the internet for learn­ing and instruction. Paper presented at Associa­tion for Educational Communications Technology (AECT). Retrieved September 11, 2002, from http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/aect_96.html

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Jour­nal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.

Shank, P. (2002). Learning anew: An exploratory study about new online learners’ perceptions of people interaction and learning to learn in an online course. In P. Barker & S. Rebelsky (Eds.), Proceedings of educational multimedia, hypermedia & telecommunications (edmedia) (pp. 2167-2171). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advance­ment of Computing in Education (AACE).

Shea, R. H., & Boser, U. (2001, October 15). So where’s the beef? There’s quality online, but it takes real work to find it. [Electronic version]. U.S. News & World Reports, 44-54.

Singh, H., & Reed, C. (2004). Achieving success with blended learning: A white paper. Navowave, Inc.

The Learning Alliance for Higher Education. (2004). Mixed skies ahead: What happened to e-learning and why. Change, 36(2), 55-58.

Article originally published in E-Learn 2004 pro­ceedings, Washington, D.C..

Biographical Information

Patti Shank, PhD, CPT, is Learning Peaks’ presi­dent and is well known for her independent and systems-oriented approaches to training, learning, and technology. Learning Peaks is an international­ly recognized instructional technology and instruc­tional design consulting group. Patti is listed in Who’s Who in Instructional Technology, an often-re­quested speaker and workshop leader at training and instructional technology conferences, and quoted frequently in training publications. She has contributed numerous chapters to training and in­structional technology books and has co-authored an online learning fundamentals book, Making Sense of Online Learning, published by Wiley/Pfei­ffer in 2004. She was an award winning contribut­ing editor for Online Learning Magazine, and her articles are also often found in eLearning Guild publications, ASTD’s Learning Circuits and T+D Magazine, and Macromedia’s elearning Designer & Developer Center. Her interests include systems thinking in instructional technology, collaboration and social interaction, tools and technologies for interaction, and instructional authoring. Her research on views of new online learners won an EDMEDIA 2002 best research paper award.

Scott Price – December 2, 2005 – 4:52pm
blended learning