A useful reflective on blended learning from four perspectives.
The literature on blended learning is dominated by insider accounts of its introduction in campus-based courses, generally using a learning management system and often including online discussions. These reports are often highly descriptive and factors that might promote successful blended learning are often hidden in the form of concluding observations, and recommendations and rarely identified more explicitly. The recommendations that follow are grouped under four headings which have been developed from the emergent literature, where there is an overall emphasis on pedagogic factors.
Institutional success factors
• Blended learning models should be developed that respond to local, community or organisational needs rather than using a generic approach (Sharpe, Benfield, Robert and Francis (2006). However, Mason and Rennie (2006) advocate putting the learners’ needs first, ahead of the context or the biases of the teacher in making such choices.
• It is important that the institutional building blocks are in place including organisational readiness, sufficient technical resources, motivated faculty, good communication and feedback channels with students (Tabor, 2007).
• There is room for staff to develop their own meanings for blended learning, currently poorly defined to include face-to-face classes and active learning and build commitment to the concept (Sharpe, Benfield, Robert and Francis (2006).
• Blended learning should be introduced as a scholarly and transformative redesign process within the institution, that rebuilds the course rather than simply adding on technology (Sharpe, Benfield, Robert and Francis, 2006: Littlejohn and Pegler, 2007; Garrison and Vaughan, 2008).
• There should be institutional practice of carrying out regular evaluations and publicising the results (Sharpe, Benfield, Robert and Francis, 2006).
Regarding teachers
• The importance of, and need for, continuing professional development for teachers with sufficient time for development should be acknowledged (Vaughan, 2007).
• Ongoing pedagogical and technical support through membership of a blended community of practice is a proven model that sustains such teacher innovation (Garrison and Vaughan, 2008).
• The importance of dealing with teachers’ fears of loss of control, lower student feedback grades and general uneasiness about the impact of online learning on classroom relationships should be considered (Vaughan, 2007).
• The impact on teachers’ workloads must be taken into account. Littlejohn and Pegler (2006) identify the costliness in terms of both institutional and teacher investment and suggest the creation of shareable and reuseable digital resources in an effort to ensure that blended learning is sustainable.
Regarding students
• Students’ learning maturity and readiness for blending learning with its demands for independent learning must be considered (Tabor, 2007).
• Student expectations, especially their ideas that fewer face-to-face classes mean less work and the need to develop more responsibility for their learning and time management skills must be taken into account (Vaughan, 2007; Tabor, 2007).
• Consistent and transparent communication around the new expectations is needed in order to help students understand the blended learning process (Sharpe, Benfield, Robert and Francis (2006).
Pedagogic considerations
• The combination of the virtual and physical environments should be made on the basis of an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each environment as well as the appropriateness of choice to the learners involved.
• Examples of good practice in the online discussion literature can inform blended learning design, for example, Meyer (2004). Walker and Arnold (2004) have extended this by providing a pedagogical framework where the different phases of the course utilise the strengths of the different media and add value to the learning activities.
• The importance of a strong integration between the two environments (Garrison and Kanuka (2004). More recently, Garrison and Vaughan (2007) have operationalised the integration requirement in a four phase model which is anchored around the face-to-face environment. A sequence of activities before, during, after and in preparation for the next face-to-face session are described with suggestions for various technology options which incorporate the strengths of both environments. The central role of the face-to-face environment in the model provides the comfort of a traditional learning environment for students and teachers. The model also reflects existing good practice where teachers
often plan courses around the idea of learning activities ‘before, during and after’ class.
• Careful consideration of the role of the teacher. In her research, Gerbic (2006) found that encouragement, reminders from the teacher and discussion of the rationale for addition of online discussions was not especially effective in connecting online discussions to the classroom and the course and the new online environment was marginalised by the students. The more effective process involved the teacher providing feedback on the quality of the online discussion in the face-to-face class and activities which prepared and skilled students for their online activities. The teacher’s attention in class to the new virtual environment legitimised it as part of the course and endorsed its
importance for learning.
