Reasons for Using Blended-Learning

This section looks at b-learning affordances and the advantages that many educators and researchers have found when using or analysing b-learning. After providing a more general outlook for the use of b-learning, this chapter is sub-divided into Design and Interaction because these two factors on their own are of major importance to the development of b-learning in education and are pivotal points in this study and how CoI are created and successfully contribute to the teaching and learning experience.

The major benefits of b-learning are often seen as being: ‘(1) more effective pedagogy, (2) increased convenience and access, and (3) increased cost effectiveness’ (Graham et.

al., 2011: p.253). These benefits and others are discussed in detail in this section, yet particular emphasis is given to design and interaction as they feed into this research more directly and these are discussed separately after reviewing all the other affordances.

An important perspective on the need for b-learning is that it improves pedagogy, as Bonk and Graham (2006) define. It enables an increase in active learning strategies (focus on learning by doing), as well as peer-to-peer learning strategies and is extremely focused on learner-centred strategies (Rovai, 2004; Bonk et. al., 2006; Gearge-Walker and Keeffe, 2010; Tesar and Siebar, 2010; Levy et. al., 2011; Frantz et.al, 2011). Bonk and Graham also refer to how b-learning increases access to knowledge and adds spatial and time flexibility:

blending is used to provide a balance between flexible learning options and the high-touch human interactive experience (p.9).

In this light, b-learning is viewed by this author as cost-effective (Singh, 2001, 2003; Kerres, 2003; Thorne, 2003; Garrison and Kanuka, 2004; Bersin, 2004; Bonk and Graham, 2006; Kim and Kee, 2010; Borup et. al., 2011, Verliefde et. al., 2011) and as an enhancer of social interaction (Dillenbourg, 2002; Osguthorpe, 2003; Bonk, et. al., 2006; Garrison and Vaughan, 2008; So and Brush, 2008; Wang, 2010; McCarthy, 2010; Shea et. al., 2010; Borup et. al., 2011). It is cost-effective in the long-run in relation to course material as it can be re-used or re-processed and once the equipment and software are acquired, it may be functional for a few years. Ease of revision is also seen as one of the favourable characteristics of b-learning. It is however pertinent to refer to the costs in relation to the time a teacher/ moderator spends online. The set-up time for these courses and the time that the teacher spends online monitoring activities and maintaining interactivity are substantial and cannot be disregarded. These online hours

are long and the teacher also needs to prepare materials for both the online platform and for the face-to-face classes. All these working hours, especially for newcomers are many gruelling hours of work that would need to be paid for. From this perspective, b- learning may not be as cost-effective as it seems at first. Nevertheless, other surplus values such as variety, flexibility and a sense of community are still pertinent to b- learning.

On the other hand, Hofmann (in Bonk et. al., 2006) puts forward the argument that b- learning makes economic sense as trainers/ teachers and workers/ students do not need to be moved around physically from one room to another, making the whole teaching and learning process more effective (p.28). She shares a more job-oriented perspective and puts forward the argument that b-learning makes sense due to the geographically dispersed work environments in which staff levels are constantly changed. From my point of view, this opinion is also valid in terms of university settings as b-learning can enable students who live in various parts of the country/world to have easier access to class materials and also become more cost-effective as they may work from home and need not live or travel over to the university so often. Hofmann (in Bonk et. al., 2006) believes:

blending technologies that take advantage of learning styles, learner convenience, and the best practices of instructional design enable course developers to create programs that engage learners and maximize learning retention (p.29).

In the following study, variety and flexibility maintain their importance in b-learning but the focus is on context and learning objectives. Masie (2002) reports that b-learning offers many opportunities in a time when the need for multiple perspectives on content is very high, but the importance of context must also not be overshadowed. Ensuring that context is not overshadowed by content can be done through value-sorting,

whereby content and context are defined as high-value, medium-value and no-value. The high-value stuff is the content and context that must be remembered, and the no- value is all that is superfluous. Masie claims the prime driver in b-learning is the need to reduce and target learning objectives. As learning is longitudinal and accomplished over time, b-learning allows the learners to accomplish tasks at their own rhythm. B-learning also maintains the social aspect of learning as well as the tacit and unstructured nature of learning possesses, according to Masie. Social and cognitive presence shall be explored further in this chapter when looking at CoI.

Engagement and CoI add to the elements that were previously mentioned as essential to the efficiency of b-learning. Other studies suggest that students’ engagement and successful learning outcomes are increased for students in blended-learning environments (Burgon and Williams, 2003; Garrison, 2004; Boyle, 2003 in Bonk and Graham, 2006, Ginns and Ellis, 2007; Garrison and Vaughan, 2008, Shea and Bidjerano, 2010). Rovai and Jordan (2004) found that blended courses produced a stronger sense of community among students than traditional or fully on-line courses. This sense of community also enables students to have better learning outcomes as they seem to participate actively in discussion forums with more ease than they participate orally in traditional classes (Garrison and Vaughan, 2008), which is particularly important in this thesis too, given the stimulus that the forums in the b-learning course managed to attain in getting students to write in English.

As different approaches are taken when engaging with b-learning, teachers can learn from being aware of them and their outcomes. Therefore, a few examples of approaches that helped design this study’s modules are explained and they reveal many of the benefits for using b-learning. Lewis and Orton (2006) demonstrate how IBM engages in b-learning. IBM uses the Four-Tier Learning Approach:

 Tier 1: provides information and just-in-time on-line performance support

 Tier 2: interactive on-line learning

 Tier 3: online collaboration

 Tier 4: learning labs and face-to-face human interaction (in Bonk and Graham, 2006: pp.61-63)

This approach is applicable at HE level as an effective method that has been tried and tested by this company. It makes sense that a b-learning course be structured in this way as most teaching methods also follow pedagogic steps essential to the organisation of a lesson (eg: presentation, practice and production) and the above-mentioned structure abides by the overall organisation of teaching pedagogies. This approach is extremely interesting and it influenced the design of my b-learning writing module as can be seen in the narrative description of the ARCs.

Overall reasons for the use of b-learning according to Ross and Gage (in Bonk and Graham, 2006) and Jones and Lau, 2010, are that it enables expanding access to HE as there is a larger percentage of the population that now is able to get a higher education. They also believe it helps improve quality of the courses and degrees, as it helps serve diverse student populations with different learning styles. It also reduces time to graduation which in turn helps save money, both for the universities and the students. At the present day and age, b-learning addresses students’ desires for technology in education. The current generation getting to the universities is quite computer-savvy and technology is a part of their everyday lives. For teachers, b-learning also offers greater insight into students’ studying habits and enables teachers to keep track of students’ progress. So, for all these reasons, these two authors are very much in favour of b-learning at universities.

By suggesting different types of b-learning, Ross and Gage present their idea of how they can be varied. Web-supplemented/ Technology-enhanced courses add online components to classes and enable a more efficient handling of administrative aspects. This also facilitates more online instructional activities. Hybrid/ Reduced Face-time Courses are when labs are conducted online and where one or more days of classes are eliminated or substituted by online coursework. The third type that they suggest is Blended Programmes/ Degrees. This last type includes blended, face-to-face and some fully online courses. According to Ross and Gage, Hybrid Courses seem to be the most innovative path but also the most difficult one. This thesis sheds light on the technology-enhanced aspect of b-learning as that is the approach that was adopted for the writing course.

Ross and Gage make an interesting claim:

In the long-run, almost all courses offered in higher education will be blended. Given today’s growth trends in the use of course management systems, it is almost a certainty that b-learning will become the new

traditional model of course delivery in 10 years (in Bonk and Graham, 2006: p.167).

Most universities are in fact trying to integrate technology into their educational systems. Some universities around the world already have a lot of experience in e- learning and are easily sliding over to b-learning whereas many other universities have still not managed to equip the university with the means or their lecturers with the knowledge to carry out such projects. Some current examples are: The DialogPLUS project was a collaboration between Pennsylvania State University, the University of Leeds, UCSB, and the University of Southampton, 2003; The Blended Learning Unit (BLU) in the University of Hertfordshire, 2005; Blended Learning Innovation Exchange (BLIX) at the University of Calgary, 2008; Expanding Blended Learning Through

Tools and Campus Programs at The American Association and State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) and the University of Central Florida (UCF), 2011; Blended learning @ WBS at University of Warwick, 2010. In this research the design of and the interaction on the b-learning writing module is seen as its main affordances and are thus now reviewed in detail.