Welcome back after the Summer Holidays, I hope you had blast!
This abstract is about what we were talking about the last couple of Lectures. It is a part of one of my university papers (from 2007) regarding e- and distance learning, so open to any discussions.
____________________
The term ‘blended learning’ has gained considerable currency in recent years as a description of particular forms of teaching with technology. However, like so many terms within this field it remains ill-defined. Within this brief section, some definitions of the term will be identified.
Whitelock & Jelfs (2003) opened a journal special issue on this topic with three definitions:
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).
Of these, the first is perhaps the most common interpretation (see, for example, Australian National Training Authority, 2003). The second is also widespread, although sometimes advocated in a more general form as concerning ‘models that combine various delivery modes’ (Singh, 2003), rather than privileging e-learning. Singh also gives a more substantial description that elaborates on the third possibility, based on what he sees as a much richer set of learning strategies or dimensions that can be blended in ways such as: offline with online; self-paced with live, collaborative; structured with unstructured; custom content with off-the-shelf; and so on. However, these three contrasting definitions are not the only ones that have been offered.
Kerres & De Witt (2003), in the same volume as Whitelock & Jelfs’s article, discuss blended learning as the mix of different didactic methods and delivery formats, arguing that these two are independent. Both of these articles draw, in turn, on Driscoll’s summary of her book (2002). In this, she identifies four different ‘concepts’ denoted by this term:
1. combining or mixing web-based technology to accomplish an educational goal;
2. combining pedagogical approaches (‘e.g. constructivism, behaviorism, cognitivism’) 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.
Driscoll summarises by saying, ‘the point is that blended learning means different things to
different people, which illustrates its widely untapped potential’. A similar but more precise
explanation is offered by Hofmann (2001), who proposes that ‘the idea behind blended learning is
that instructional designers review a learning program, chunk it into modules, and determine the
best medium to deliver those modules to the learner’.
Another conceptualisation is provided by Valiathan (2002), who describes blends in terms of
the focus for learning, or ‘intended’ learning:
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.
Here, Valiathan starts to link purposes (some kind of intended learning outcomes) with a mix of
media and approaches to teaching. In doing so, however, she combines resources, learning and
pedagogy as if they were of the same type.
The feature that all these examples and definitions share, is that they are all described from
the perspective of the teacher, the instructor or the course designer.
This array of definitions is not, in itself, helpful. The breadth of interpretations means that
almost anything can be seen as blended learning, and consequently that use of the term does not
help us to understand what is being discussed. There also appear to be several category errors,
where properties are attributed to things in inconsistent ways.
In the next section, this array of conceptualisations will be analysed to see whether a consistent, analytically useful concept of blended learning can be identified.
References:
Hofmann, J. (2001) Blended Learning Case Study. Available at: www.learningcircuits.org/2001/apr2001/hofmann.html
Valiathan, P. (2002) Blended Learning Models. Available at: www.learningcircuits.com/2002/aug2002/valiathan.html
Driscoll, M. (2002) Blended Learning: let’s get beyond the hype, E-learning, 1 March. Available at: http://elearningmag.com/ltimagazine
Whitelock, D. & Jelfs, A. (2003) Editorial: Journal of Educational Media Special Issue on Blended Learning, Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), pp. 99-100.
____________________________
