The Concept of Blended Learning

With universities transforming to e-learning settings, another term or concept has emerged as a result or consequence of such move, or as an intended setting in some cases. The term ―blended learning‖ popped up. It is meant to describe mixture or combination of two or more things. Heinze & Procter (2004) define blended learning in higher education as:

“Blended Learning is 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“(Heinze & Procter, 2004).

Oliver & Trigwell (2005) provide many definitions of blended learning of various researchers. One of these is Driscoll‘s four concepts for the blended learning term:

“1- combining or mixing web-based technology to accomplish an educational goal; 2- combining pedagogical approaches … to produce an optimal learning outcome with or without instructional technology; 3- combining any form of instructional technology with face-to-face instructor-

led training; and 4- combining instructional technology with actual job tasks” (Oliver & Trigwell, 2005).

Another attempt was provided by Valiathan (2002) and is conceptualized in Oliver & Trigwell (2005)

“1- skill-driven learning, which combines self-paced learning with instructor or facilitator support to develop specific knowledge and skills; 2- attitude-driven learning, which mixes various events and delivery media to develop specific behaviours; and 3- competency-driven learning, which blends performance support tools with knowledge management resources and mentoring to develop workplace competencies” (Oliver & Trigwell, 2005).

The other definition is the one provided by Whitelock & Jelfs (2003), where they give three definitions of blended learning as quoted by Oliver & Trigwell (2005):

“1- the integrated combination of traditional learning with web-based online approaches (drawing on the work of Harrison); 2- the combination of media and tools employed in an e-learning environment; and 3- the combination of a number of pedagogic approaches, irrespective of learning technology use (drawing on the work of Driscoll)” (Oliver & Trigwell, 2005)

In their work, Oliver & Trigwell (2005) criticize all definitions by saying that ―the term ‗blended learning‘ is ill-defined and inconsistently used‖ (Oliver & Trigwell, 2005), and that ―what all definitions lack is an analysis from the perspective of the learner‖ (Oliver & Trigwell 2005). However, their suggestion to shift towards student-centered learning to analyze student‘s experience in blended learning (Oliver & Trigwell, 2005) though sounds logical and makes sense; could be seen as a radical shift to the other extreme where teacher‘s role is almost neglected.

Dewar & Whittington (2004) compiled factors that have to be considered in blended learning definition based on the work of Singh (2001); Driscoll (2002); Selix (December, 2001); and Osguthorpe (2003), which include:

“1- blends of online and offline (or f2f) activities (Singh, 2001), 2- self- paced and live, collaborative learning (Singh, 2001), 3- structured and unstructured learning (Singh, 2001), 4- custom content with off the shelf content (Singh, 2001), 5- blending work and learning (Singh, 2001), 6- pedagogical models – blending constructivism, behaviorism and cognitivism

(Driscoll, 2002), 7- synchronous and asynchronous communication methods (Selix, December, 2001), and 8- blending online and f2f instructors and learners (Osguthorpe, 2003)” (Dewar & Whittington, 2004).

Rossett, Douglis & Frazee (2003) define blended approach in terms of what can constitute it, where they categorize those as live face-to-face (formal or informal), synchronous or asynchronous virtual collaboration, self-paced learning and performance support, and under each they show what tool or method could be used. This is depicted in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3: Blended Learning Approach; What Constitute it Live face-to-face (formal)

• Instructor-led classroom • Workshops

• Coaching/mentoring • On-the-job (OTJ) training

Live face-to-face (informal)

• Collegial connections • Work teams

• Role modeling

Virtual collaboration/synchronous

• Live e-learning classes • E-mentoring

Virtual collaboration/asynchronous

• Email

• Online bulletin boards • Listservs

• Online communities

Self-paced learning

• Web learning modules • Online resource links • Simulations

• Scenarios

• Video and audio CD/DVDs • Online self-assessments • Workbooks

Performance support

• Help systems • Print job aids • Knowledge databases • Documentation

• Performance/decision support tools

Source: Rossett, A., Douglis, F., and Frazee, R. V. (2003), ―Strategies for Building Blended Learning‖,

Learning Circuits, retrieved on 18/8/2006, from http://www.learningcircuits.org/2003/jul2003/rossett.htm

When it comes to making a decision on what to include in the blend, Shaw & Igneri (2006) suggests that there are various possibilities; such as:

- Synchronous and asynchronous web-based collaboration, and different varieties of computer-mediated communications

- Different varieties of technology-based delivery (Internet, CD-ROM, video and audio podcast, etc)

- A blend of instructional resources and activities with performance support systems, information search and retrieval tools and content repositories, and knowledge management applications

- Different instructional modalities (face-to-face, event-driven instruction, etc)

- Multimedia, technology-based delivery and conventional text-based material

- A variety of instructional strategies: discovery based approaches versus didactic strategies, case-based and scenario-based tactics, problem- based and project-based or design-based learning, independent versus collaborative approaches (Shaw & Igneri, 2006)

In another, yet different attempt, Sharpe et al (2006) opt to define blended learning in terms of its dimensions not by stating a particular definition. They identified eight dimensions:

 Delivery – different modes (face-to-face and distance education)  Technology – mixture of web based technologies

 Chronology – synchronous and asynchronous interventions

 Locus – authentic work or practice-based vs. class-room based learning  Roles – multi-disciplinary or professional groupings of learners and teachers  Pedagogy – different pedagogical approaches

 Focus – acknowledging different aims

 Direction - instructor-directed vs. autonomous or learner-directed learning (Sharpe et al, 2006)

From the above we can clearly see that there is no unified definition of blended learning. Various people define it differently, each from a different perspective or consideration to suite or to meet certain requirements or goals. In addition, the above definitions/perspectives of blended learning show the various interpretations of the term and how it can be used and implemented; each from different perspectives, for different reasons, and for different usage in different scenarios. The differences and incompleteness of each perspective, model or definition in relation to others are evident when they are compared to each other. However, these could be used as a base for different blended learning models, though none would be sufficient to cover all aspects and dimensions of the blend. These have been tabulated and labeled as categories of possible blended learning settings in Table 2.4. Each category is given a code (A, B, C …) and next to each is concept or idea it was based on, followed by a column showing what each category consists of as main elements. For example category A is based on Driscoll (2002) four concepts of blending learning, and those concepts are shown in the third column of the table.

Table 2.4: Categories of Possible Blended Learning Settings

Category Based on Consists of

A Driscoll (2002) four

concepts. Blended learning, as clarified by Driscoll, is based on four main concepts for such blend. Each concept is by itself a combination (blend) of various elements, as shown in the following four types of blends.

1- Combination of web-based technologies 2- Combination of pedagogical approaches 3- Instructional technology with face-to-face 4- Instructional technology with actual job tasks

B Drivers. Valiathan (2002) classifies blended learning based on what drives it (driven by). These can be classified into three drivers, as indicated in the adjacent cell.

1- Skill-driven: self-paced with instructor or facilitator support

2- Attitude-driven: event and delivery media 3- Competency-driven: performance support tools

with knowledge management resources and mentoring

C Definition, by Whitelock & Jelfs (2003). It is derived from how blended learning is defined

1- Traditional learning with web-based online approach

2- Media and tools employed in e-learning environment

3- Pedagogic approaches irrespective of learning technology used

D Factors, based on the work of Dewar and Whittington (2004). They compile factors that have to be considered in blended learning definition based on the work of Singh (2001), Driscoll (2002), Selix (December, 2001), and Osguthorpe (2003)

1- Online and offline (face-to-face) activities 2- Self-paced and live collaborative learning 3- Structured and unstructured learning 4- Custom content with off-the-shelf content 5- Blending work and learning

6- Pedagogical models (constructivism, behaviorism, and cognitivism)

7- Synchronous and asynchronous communication methods

8- Online and face-to-face instructors and learners E Based on the work of

Rossett, Douglis and Frazee (2003). They classify blended learning based on what it is composed of. This is related to settings,

collaboration/

communication and pace.

1- Live face-to-face: formal and informal 2- Virtual collaboration: synchronous or

asynchronous

Table 2.4, Continue

Category Based on Consists of

F Shaw & Igneri (2006), possibilities of the blend. Shaw & Igneri (2006) has explored several

possibilities of blended learning, showing that any of these can be considered blended learning by itself, but no mentioning of combinations of these possibilities.

1- Synchronous and asynchronous web-based collaboration, and different varieties of computer-mediated communications

2- Different varieties of technology-based delivery (Internet, CD-ROM, video and audio podcast, etc)

3- A blend of instructional resources and activities with performance support systems, information search and retrieval tools and content

repositories, and knowledge management applications

4- Different instructional modalities (face-to-face, event-driven instruction, etc)

5- Custom content and off-the-shelf content 6- Multimedia, technology-based delivery and

conventional text-based material

7- A variety of instructional strategies: discovery based approaches versus didactic strategies, case- based and scenario-based tactics, problem-based and project-based or design-based learning, independent versus collaborative approaches G Sharpe et al (2006). The

researchers have identified 8 dimensions of blended learning, and they defined blended learning according to these.

1- Delivery – different modes (face-to-face and distance education)

2- Technology – mixture of web based technologies

3- Chronology – synchronous and asynchronous interventions

4- Locus – authentic work or practice-based vs. class-room based learning

5- Roles – multi-disciplinary or professional groupings of learners and teachers

6- Pedagogy – different pedagogical approaches 7- Focus – acknowledging different aims

8- Direction - instructor-directed vs. autonomous or learner-directed learning