You are invited to discuss the question
"Is there a place for this approach in trainer training?"
at http://newstarttrainertraining.blogspot.com.
By Beverley
Walters, MA
For
the purpose of this paper, blended learning is defined as a combination of traditional
classroom and on-line learning models. Combining delivery modalities provides
an efficient and effective educational experience for learners, with the added
value of increased learner accessibility to programs.
Blended learning benefits the (educational)
institution by improving the efficiency of classroom use and reducing on-campus
traffic and the associated need for parking spaces. It is also possible to
apply the blended model in innovative ways to both increase student learning
outcomes and reduce instructional delivery costs. (Dziuban, Hartman &
Moskal, 2004, p. 3)
While
researching blended learning, I quickly recognized that adapting (or modifying)
the current face to face model of the Life Skills Coach Diploma (LSCD) program[1] was
not an option; I would have to transform the program. “Sound instructional
design becomes critical, with the most successful faculty re-evaluating their
course design as a whole rather than looking for chunks to transfer to the Web
while leaving the remaining instruction untouched” (Dziuban et al., 2004, p.
6).
In
reviewing best practices in blended delivery, it was clear that downloading
power-points and reading materials to the on-line environment, while continuing
to meet face to face with learners, does not create an effective blended
learning experience. As I considered the commentary of various authors, I
agreed with the commonly held position that technology should not be used to
replace the instructor; technology should be used by the instructor. “Students
never learn from technology per se; they learn from the strategies teachers use
to communicate effectively through the technologies” (Cyrs, Cyrs & Conway,
2003, General Guideline #1, as cited in Singh & Reed, 2001, p. 5).
In
my examination of blended learning, there were three significant aspects I
considered. The first related to the importance of instructional design. The
second aspect was related to the advantages experienced by learners, instructors
and institutions when they made use of ‘well designed’ blended learning
programs. The third factor for consideration was related to barriers that may
restrict learners, instructors and institutions from experiencing the full
benefit blended programs have to offer.
“A
blended course is defined as a course that combines face to face learning and
distance learning to provide students with the best practices of both delivery
methods” (Hijazi, Crowley, Smith & Shaffer, 2006, p. 67).
It
appeared that blended learning had unlimited potential if each medium was used
to its greatest advantage and if the learning activities that were most suited
to each medium were created exclusively for it.
Every (blended) learning initiative should
start with clarity on the program’s performance objectives. What should
learners be able to do upon completion of the learning program? With that goal
in mind, you need to perform an instructional design analysis, but with some
new twists reflecting the broader range of design options available to you.
Audience analysis is essential to determine which delivery option will be
effective in achieving your performance objective. Content analysis will often
guide you in the selection of the optimal delivery format. (Singh & Reed,
2001, p. 4)
Instructor/designers
are faced with a number of questions that need to be answered. The initial
query is: what do I want students to learn and what is the best medium to
accommodate that learning? “The single most important consideration when
designing a blended learning environment is the learning objective or purpose”
(Singh & Reed, 2001, p. 5).
In
my examination of literature on blended learning, I discovered that there was a
great deal of complexity involved in designing blended learning courses. There
were a number of critical aspects of course design and development that needed
careful scrutiny when preparing to transform traditional classroom models to
blended delivery models. “Creating a blended learning strategy is an
evolutionary process” (Singh & Reed, 2001, p. 2).
Where
to begin? What to blend? Who to consult? These are all critical questions for
instructor/designers. “Maximizing success in a blended learning initiative
requires a planned and well-supported approach that includes a theory-based
instructional model, high-quality faculty development, course development
assistance, learner support, and ongoing formative and summative assessment”
(Dziuban et al., 2004, p. 3). Clearly, the design of blended learning models
requires a great deal of knowledge and expertise when selecting the learning
activities that are most suited to the classroom and others that need to be
uniquely created for on-line.
Rossett,
Douglis and Frazee (2003) stated, “Options for blended learning go beyond the
classroom; they are formal and informal, technology-based and people-based,
independent and convivial, directive and discovery-oriented” (p. 1). Obviously,
creating a well designed blended learning model depends on a number of factors
if blended learning is to be used to its upmost potential.
An
additional factor to consider is the instructor/ designer’s knowledge of course
and curriculum development and their expertise with technology. Singh and Reed
(2001) suggest:
A good place to begin is to supplement
an existing conventional environment with one or two on-line activities, a
resource website or an asynchronous discussion for example. As experience and
confidence are gained, new tools can be introduced and a greater effort put
into redesigning the program. (p. 2)
Another
factor to consider is the institute’s choice of reliable, compatible and user
friendly equipment and technology. “Infrastructure may constrain your delivery
options” (Singh & Reed, 2001, p. 5).
Some organizations see blended
learning as a quick way to break into e-learning, but have no strategy in
place. Research suggests that this group is in the majority. The results of
such blended learning efforts could be disappointing. Sixty-two percent of learning
technology initiatives fail to meet expectations. (Sparks, 2007, p. 1)
Instructors
and students both have high expectations of the educational experience they
participate in. The instructors in the LSCD program create an experiential
learning environment where group interaction is the learning model. These
instructors have abandoned the traditional forms of classroom teaching that did
little more than dispense information. We playfully call these information
lectures, ‘chalk and talk’. Because instructors are so committed to engaging
learners as ‘active participants’ in their own learning, they (and their
students) are not be satisfied with a design for the on-line component of
courses that amounts to little more than ‘click and read’.
Upon
reviewing literature related to the design of blended modalities, it was
evident that various authors considered the engagement of learners and
interaction between learners, technology and course content a primary
characteristic of a well designed blended learning model. “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” (Singh &
Reed, 2001, p. 2).
Rossett
et al. (2003) identified key activities that were achievable and appropriate
for each learning model used in a blended delivery format that strengthened the
overall educational experience for participants. “Live face to face learning
has both formal and informal activities that are advantageous to its design”
(p. 1). Formal activities might include: “role-play demonstrations, workshops,
labs, coaching/mentoring and performance observation” (p. 1). Informal
activities might include: “collegial connections, work teams where observation
and feedback is immediate, role modeling” (p. 1). They identified activities
that were advantageous to the virtual environment as well. They suggested the
following possibilities:
Synchronous virtual collaboration such
as e-mentoring and live e-learning classes; asynchronous virtual collaboration
such as email, online bulletin boards, listservs and online communities;
self-paced learning such as web learning modules, online resource links, video
and audio clips; performance support such as help systems, knowledge databases,
print job aids, and performance tools. (p. 2)
Other
authors addressed the need to create activities for the environment in which
they were best suited. Leonard and DeLacey (2002) identified the value of using
classroom instruction to deliver ‘soft’ skills training:
Learning cannot be reduced to check
lists and PowerPoint slide frameworks. The more ‘soft’ the topic to be learned,
i.e., the more it is based on human behaviour and group-based phenomena, the
more that it must be taught using groups and human interaction. (p. 3)
Chickering and Ehrmann (1996)
discussed leveraging the use of technology:
The range of technologies that
encourage active learning is staggering. Many fall into one of three
categories: tools and resources for learning by doing, time-delayed exchange,
and real-time conversation. New technologies can communicate high expectations
explicitly and efficiently. Significant real-life problems, conflicting
perspectives, or paradoxical data sets can set powerful learning challenges
that drive students to not only acquire information but sharpen their cognitive
skills of analysis, synthesis, application, and evaluation. (p. 3)
The
conclusion that resulted from my exploration into the design of blended
learning models was that blended learning had numerous advantages as long as
each medium of the blend was designed for maximum benefit. “We believe that
combining face-to-face and fully online components optimizes both environments
in ways impossible in other formats” (Dziuban et al., 2004, p. 2). Singh and
Reed (2001), in their discussion of blended learning, supplemented the
statement of Dziuban et al.: “However, it is not the mixing and matching of
different learning delivery modes by itself that is of significance, but the
focus on the learning outcome of each” (p. 1).
“Blended
learning impacts higher education in a positive way by forming the underpinning
of a transformational model that irrevocably alters expectations for students,
faculty, and administrators” (Dziuban et al., 2004, p. 10). There are a number
of student advantages to blended learning reported by the authors I reviewed.
Additionally, instructors who participated in both the instruction and design
of blended learning programs experienced significant advantages as well. And
lastly, institutional administrators found blended learning advantageous as
they experienced less demand on brick and mortar infrastructure while enhancing
accessibility to programs.
“In
2002, Harvard Business School faculty DeLacey and Leonard reported that
students not only learned more when online sessions were added to traditional
courses, but student interaction and satisfaction improved as well” (Rossett et
al., 2003, p. 1).
Meeting
face to face with classmates at the commencement of their program of studies
allows students to socialize and interact with peers, building their learning
community prior to moving to the on-line environment. “Trust among members is
essential and has to be consciously nurtured and supported in the design of
activities; people may feel less free to expose their personal learning tracks
to members of an online community who they do not know well” (Leonard et al.,
2002, p. 2).
Most
adult students have busy schedules and are often balancing the demands of work,
family and education at the same time. One of the benefits of a blended
learning program is the flexibility it gives them. Geographical location is
less relevant and time is self managed rather than scheduled. Students can
log-on when it is convenient for them.
In our own blended learning courses,
we have consistently found high levels of student and faculty satisfaction,
student learning outcomes that are higher than in comparable face-to-face and
fully online courses, and high student demand because of the increased
convenience and flexibility. (Dziuban et al., 2004, p. 3)
Unlike
most classroom experiences, blended learning lets students retrieve course
content material over and over again to ensure they understand it. They can
take time to process information before asking or responding to questions.
Since blended learning is supported by
the use of technology, it allows students to come back and ask the questions
they could not have an answer for during the face to face lecture. They can
easily communicate with their instructors or leave them a question in the
discussion section. (Hijazi et al., 2006, p. 72)
Blended
learning is advantageous to instructors as well. Dziuban et al, reported that
when faculty are properly supported with appropriate professional development
activities, there is a measurable rate of satisfaction with the blended learning
experiences they engage in.
We believe a positive side-effect of
providing a high level of support is that the majority of faculty are satisfied
with their blended learning courses and indicate they would teach another in
the future. Figures measuring faculty satisfaction with blended learning
courses show an 88% satisfied rate compared with 7 % neutral and 5 %
unsatisfied. (Dziuban et al., 2004, p. 7)
Instructors
also experience flexibility in their schedule. They are able to establish
on-line office hours that were suited to their own life/work balance.
Additionally, instructors are free to spend as much time answering individual
questions as they deem necessary. This is a luxury that is often unavailable to
them in a tightly scheduled classroom.
Additionally,
instructors become part of an entire team of support for students. Librarians,
writing support specialists, APA advisors and technical support personnel all
have a role in blended programs. This team approach frees the primary
instructor from fielding questions they feel less qualified to answer.
Unlike traditional classroom learning
in which there is usually a single instructor, in blended learning you might
have multiple individuals, each taking a role in the blend” (Rossett et al., as
cited in Harriman, 2004, p. 3).
Faculty
have discovered that they are able to enhance their technology skills and often
experienced a shift in their instructional role as well when they prepare for blended
programs. They move from being an expert on a subject who must engage students,
to being a facilitator of students as they engage the subject. Dziuban et al.
(2004) discovered that: “Faculty develop and mature as they become more
experienced with delivering instruction in a blended learning format” (p. 7).
“Blended learning helps instructors evolve as designers of active learning
environments, thus becoming much more facilitative in their teaching” (p. 10).
Instructors
have more educational options when designing the distinctly different learning
activities for the live and virtual environment. “Any given instructional
strategy can be supported by a number of contrasting technologies (old and
new); just as any given technology might support different instructional
strategies” (Chickering et al., 1996, p. 1). More choices and more options to
choose from provide instructors with a broader framework for designing an
effective educational experience for learners.
“Organizations
are rapidly discovering that blended learning is not only more time and cost
effective, but provides a more natural way to learn and work” (Singh &
Reed, 2001, p. 8). Literature related to blended learning suggested that the
model provided significant benefit to institutions that aspire to enhance their
outreach capacity, as evidenced by Bow Valley College: “We are creating
new pathways to lifelong learning for busy, working adults, whether we reach
them in Calgary, rural Alberta, or over the internet” (Bow Valley College,
2007, p. 16).
Blended
learning also benefits the institutions by improving the efficiency of
classroom use and reducing on-campus traffic and the associated need for
parking spaces. It is also possible to apply the blended model in innovative
ways to both increase student learning outcomes and reduce instructional
delivery costs. (Dziuban et al., 2004, p. 3)
Unlike the statistics cited earlier by Sparks
(2007), “Sixty-two
percent of learning technology initiatives fail to meet expectations” (p. 1);
proactive institutions can develop policies that support blended learning
initiatives to strengthen their probability of success.
Institutional policies concerning
learning resources and technology support need to give high priority to
user-friendly hardware, software, and communication vehicles that help faculty
and students use technologies efficiently and effectively. Investments in
professional development for faculty members, plus training and computer lab
assistance for students, will be necessary if learning potentials are to be
realized. (Chickering et al., 1996, p. 4)
As
more and more institutions move to the delivery of blended learning programs
that attract learners with ‘adult status’, there is a greater need to ensure a
‘connection to work’ for these learners. This ‘apprenticeship’ style of
education recognizes that people learn more when they can practice more.
“Experts in learning gathered at the ALW were clear that no matter what the
medium through which the educational materials are delivered, students must
have time and opportunity to practice what they are learning (Leonard &
DeLacey, 2002, p. 4).
Leading
edge institutions that promote education to learners with ‘adult status’
recognize the need to provide educational experiences that consider the
characteristics of adult learners when they design programs. As discussed
earlier, these characteristics were identified by Knowles (as cited in Lieb,
1991) and included: “Adults are autonomous and self-directed. They have
accumulated a foundation of life experiences and knowledge. Adults are
goal-oriented and relevancy-oriented. They are practical and they need to be
shown respect” (p. 1). “One of the clearest needs for professional education
today is a link to daily work-‘situated learning’ that results in immediate
positive reinforcement from enhanced job performance” (Leonard & DeLacey,
2002, p. 3).
The
compound advantages of blended learning were clearly summarized by Dziuban et
al (2004)
Blended learning in higher education
is an evolving phenomenon that offers promise for addressing challenges such as
access, cost, efficiency, and timely degree completion. In addition, this
approach will impact aspects of the academy such as faculty development and
rewards, student retention, college and department structure, as well as the
notion of lifelong learning. Our experience is that blended learning is a
transformational force, even at the outer edges of its influence. In a real
sense, “We’ve only just begun!” (p. 11)
Review
of literature revealed three commonly cited obstacles that were considered
restrictive barriers to the success of blended delivery programs. These were:
(1) an institution’s choice of learning technology, (2) student capacity to
learn in a blended environment that uses technology and (3) blended learning
models that are poorly designed. “Institutional policies concerning learning
resources and technology support need to give high priority to user-friendly
hardware, software, and communication vehicles that help faculty and students
use technologies efficiently and effectively” (Chickering et al., 1996, p. 4).
Many
students do not have compatible technology with that of the institution they
are enrolled in. Whether it is incompatible band widths (dial-up versus
broadband) or incompatible software versions (Microsoft Version 2003 versus
Microsoft Version 2007), the institution’s choice of educational technology can
create barriers to learning. Additionally, if adult students need to ‘stay
after school’ to complete assignments on College computers, it often conflicts
with part time jobs and family responsibilities that are common roles for adult
learners. Further, if students are off-site and have to travel to a central
location to access compatible technology, the associated travel costs and child
care costs are not covered by student loans. Mehrotra, Hollister and McGahey
(2001) warned institutions to “choose technologies that are appropriate to the
educational, geographic, social, and economic status of the learners” (as cited
in Harriman, 2004, p. 3).
Just
as the compatibility of technology is important, so is the reliability of
technology. Some of the greatest frustrations and dissatisfaction with blended learning
for Bow Valley College students and instructors alike, is having assignments
due and finding the ‘WebCT’ supported learning platform, Blackboard, is down.
Mehrotra et al. (2001) recommend: “Make plans for an alternative delivery
scheme that can be deployed rapidly if the primary delivery system fails” (as
cited in Harriman, 2004, p. 3).
A third restrictive barrier regarding
technology is identified as the student’s proficiency or deficiency with
technology use. One of the challenges of using advanced technology is “making
sure that learners’ have the prerequisite skills and knowledge to keep pace”
(Sparks, 2007, p. 2). Sparks suggests a number of questions that need to be
answered prior to enrolling students in blended courses:
What is the main competency that
learners should develop while completing this curriculum? What skills must
learners master to successfully achieve this competency? What supporting skills
must learners master to achieve the main ones? What skills must learners have
mastered before they can enter the curriculum? These are called ‘entry skills’.
(p. 3)
In their exploration of blended
learning, Dziuban et al. addressed barriers that some students faced when they
were traditional classroom learners:
Students must come to terms, however,
with the fact that previously successful learning approaches may not be nearly
as effective in the blended environment. In a sense, they must relearn how to
learn. The rhythms of blended courses differ from those in face to face
classes, forcing students to stay actively engaged and connected. For students,
the landscape of learning is drastically altered. (p. 9)
The
final obstacles to be addressed were the complications that arose when a
blended learning model was poorly designed.
In blended learning the instructor has
a wider choice of delivery mediums to combine. With that wider choice also
comes greater complexity and pressure on the instructor and designer. This is
due to the variety of combinations of technology and possibly the lack of patterns
to follow for that particular mix. (Harriman, 2004, p. 3)
The
development of blended delivery programs that increase access for both near and
distant learners is a complex task. Simonson, Smaldino, Albright and Zvacek
(2006) developed a guideline to monitor the quality of distant learning
programs and evaluate their effectiveness. “Distance learning courses will be
periodically reviewed and evaluated to ensure quality, consistency with the
curriculum, currency, and advancement of the student learning outcomes” (p. 2).
Additionally, they recommended professional development for
instructor/designers: “It is important to provide the appropriate developmental
experiences for faculty who are engaged in the delivery of distance learning
experiences” (p. 2). Singh and Reed (2001) addressed the importance of
determining the purpose of activities designed for blended delivery. “The
single most important consideration when designing a blended learning
environment is the learning objective or purpose” (Singh & Reed, 2001, p.
5).
I
conclude the examination of restrictive barriers to the success of blended
programs by addressing the necessity to have a seamless transition between face
to face and on-line learning activities. It appears that the standards for
lesson plan development for classroom instruction are not always transferred to
the on-line environment. This lack of consistency is an impediment to the
success of blended learning programs.
Given that a key dimension of
education is learning which arises from interacting with teachers and peers
(rather than simply interacting with content), the lack of a mature approach to
sequencing of multi-learner activities is a significant blind spot in
e-learning today. This is surprising given that ‘lesson planning’ – the process
of determining the sequence of activities to be followed by a teacher and
students when studying a topic- is well understood in education, but is mainly
absent from e-learning. (Crisp, Thiele, Scholten, Barker & Baron, 2003, p.
593)
References
Bow Valley College. (2007). Annual report. Retrieved October 21,
2007, from
http://bowvalleycollege.ca/about_us/annualreport/2006-2007/index.html
Chickering, A., & Ehrmann, S. (1996), Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. Retrieved February 15, 2009, from http://www.tltgroup.
org/programs/seven.html