Blended Learning Part 1

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.
____________________________

Bric à Brac or some useful hints....

Kia Ora!

I just listed some of the ideas we had in the last couple of lectures mostly relying on notes I was taking during your work. We worked out different helpful instruments that may be used to generate new knowlegde or transfer it from one to another.

Here are some of your suggestions:

A wiki is a website that any user can edit – right there live on the webpage, in real time – as well as read.  In its purest sense this means that any visitor to the site is also an author, with no technical controls on what they add or delete and no gatekeeping editorial process prior to posting; in more limited forms it means any user within a defined group who has access to the wiki – a project team working on collaborative documents, for example.

Using a wiki to teach content can be benefical. It provides opportunities for students to have their own input, change, add or delete text. Wikis have been found fantastic to coordinate group assignments etc. For example I have used a wiki during a group assignment. We all needed to communicate and found email dificult because you could only email one person at a time. However, wiki gave us the chance to communicate on a document that each member could access and share. The following PMI (Plus Minus Interesting) Chart is highting the benefits and negative things about using a wiki to teach a particular conent.

The Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats for using blogs to teach content - a SWOT Analysis

TPACK - Theoretical Pedagogy and Content Knowledge is a way of adding technology to the Pedagogical Content Knowledge that is being taught. TPACK is a theoretical framework designed to allow experts of a particular content area to support learning as well as develop their teaching with technology. It is also about building relationships between technology and teaching therefore transforming teaching practices.
The diagram below represents the blending of content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge otherwise known as PCK (Pedagogical Content Knowledge).

Before PCK was existent technology were considered to be separate. Technology was seen as an Independent knowledge domain show below. However this is no long the case. Content knowledge, Pedagogical knowledge and technology subsequently form an overlay providing opportunity for good teaching which required and understanding of how technology relates to the pedagogy and content. TPACK is shown below.

Content Knowledge relates about actual subject matter. Pedagogical Knowledge relates to the processes and practices or methods of teaching and learning. Technology Knowledge relates to standard and advanced technologies. Pedagogical Content Knowledge is how elements of the content can be arranged for more effective teaching.
Technological Content Knowledge is about the manner in which technology and content are related.
Technological Pedagogical Knowledge of the existence components and capabilities of technologies as they are used in teaching and learning therefore how teaching may change as a result of using particular technologies.