Blended Learning Part 3

This being Part 3 of our discussion about Blended Learning we are finally reaching the peak of this years Summer School.

One more day to go!

Mixed Contexts

Implicit in some of the definitions is the idea that what may need to be blended are different contexts within which learning takes place. The primary contrast drawn in the definitions is between instruction and work as contexts. The challenge to this position is essentially the same as the challenge to mixing media. The idea of a ‘context’ is hard to pin down, since it is in part psychological, reflecting individuals’ awareness of their situation. Even from an analytical perspective, problems arise, since the context in which someone learns (say, a classroom) is typically different from the context in which they might envisage applying what they have learnt (say, at home) or performing it (say, under exam conditions). The notion of imagination is important here, since even without access to another context learners are likely to envisage themselves using or performing what they learn in other situations (Wenger, 1998). And also, as before, in a case with any duration, it is unavoidable that multiple contexts will be experienced. Consequently, all learning can be argued to blend contexts, and the term once again becomes redundant.

Mixing Theories of Learning

One suggestion in the definitions of blended learning is that the mix consists of ‘pedagogical approaches’ (Driscoll, 2002), by which she means ‘constructivism, behaviorism, cognitivism’, etc. It is possible that the emphasis here is upon pedagogy (a possibility to be explored later), but on the face of it what is being proposed is a mix of theories of learning. This possibility is relatively easy to dismiss, since many theoretical positions have arisen out of oppositions. Cognitivism, for example, was an attempt to challenge Skinner’s position – which forms a central tenet of behaviourism – that we do not need a theory of mind to explain learning (Skinner, 1950).
Since such theories can be thought of as tools or as positions, it would be possible to argue that several such positions could be held. However, although it might be possible for one person to switch positions, even swapping between them, this does not imply that they can ‘mix’ them. At this general level such theories are irreconcilable and irreducible (de Freitas & Mayes, 2004); to take multiple positions is not ‘mixing’ but simply being inconsistent.

Mixed Learning Objectives
Another position proposed by the definitions involves blending different kinds of intended learning outcome. Driscoll (2002), for example, mentions blending skill-driven, attitude-driven and competency-driven learning.
This position maintains some consistency, but for design rather than learning. It is easily argued that what a teacher intends to be a learning outcome is distinct from what a student actually learns (e.g. Barnett, 1994). The teacher may be primarily concerned with skills, for example, but the learner will not ‘turn off’ their learning of attitudes and competences (on this classification) simply because the teacher does not deem them to be relevant. This rules out the term ‘blended learning’, but might permit the modified term ‘blended learning design’. However, instructional design and learning design both already exist as terms, and both are used to describe situations for which different (or multiple) learning outcomes can be designed (Beetham, 2004). The idea of ‘blending’ adds nothing to these perspectives; it is, again, redundant.

Mixed Pedagogics

The final blend that will be considered here concerns mixing pedagogic approaches. At a general level this, too, falls prey to the critique that cases of any duration will inevitably blend pedagogic approaches, leaving the term redundant. However, one position that is worth exploring more carefully is that advocated by Peters (1998). In his analysis of distance learning, he differentiates between physical distance and pedagogic distance. He refuses to classify distance learning as being all study where the tutor is geographically remote, since some pedagogies (such as lecturing) are similar whether the lecturer is present or being broadcast and others (such as a tutorial dialogue) can be recreated using technologies such as telephones. Instead, he distinguished between approaches where there is a ‘pedagogic distance’ between tutor and student. This position can be characterised as being about the intensity of interaction between the two roles. ‘Distance
pedagogics’ are differentiated from other forms of pedagogy by the infrequency of interaction. On this account a stereotypical lecture consisting exclusively of presentation is a form of distance pedagogics whether students are present or not.
It might be possible to challenge the boundary between these ‘forms’ of pedagogics in terms of the cut-off level of intensity that marks an approach as being of one type or the other. For example, even a book can be revised in response to readers’ comments. This possibility becomes important when considering whether a regularly updated course website is a form of distance pedagogics – how often does it have to be adapted in order to be classified as not distant? However, treating this as a continuum (rather than as a dichotomy) would preserve the distinction whilst avoiding this problem.
There are two consequences of this move, however. Firstly there is the question of why different intensities of approach should be blended. What is the purpose of seeking to incorporate low-intensity pedagogies? Is this to create space for reflection, or because they are cheaper? Secondly, there is the matter of terminology. This blending is not about learning per se; it is thus misleading to call it ‘blended learning’. Instead, if a term must be used, this should be abandoned in favour of ‘blended pedagogics’ or even ‘blended teaching’, or (to maintain a student focus) ‘learning with blended pedagogies’.


References:
Barnett, R. (1994) The Limits of Competence. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education/Open. University Press.
Beetham, H. (2004) Initial Positioning Report. JISC programme on pedagogies for e-learning.
Driscoll, M. (2002) Blended Learning: let’s get beyond the hype, E-learning, 1 March. Available at:
http://elearningmag.com/ltimagazine
de Freitas, S. & Mayes, T. (2004) Review of E-learning Theories, Frameworks and Models. Unpublished
project report, Essex University
Peters, O. (1998) Learning and Teaching in Distance Education. London: Kogan Page.
Skinner, B.F. (1950) Are Theories of Learning Necessary? Psychological Review, 57(4), pp. 193-216.
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.