Blended Learning Models

 Category: IT Education Blended Learning Models B Charles R. Graham Brigham Young University, USA IntroductIon Technological advances and wide...
Author: Clarissa Morton
8 downloads 0 Views 1MB Size


Category: IT Education

Blended Learning Models

B

Charles R. Graham Brigham Young University, USA

IntroductIon Technological advances and widespread access to information and communication technologies (ICTs) have facilitated the rapid growth of blended learning approaches in both higher education and corporate training contexts. In 2002, the president of Pennsylvania State University expressed his belief that blended learning was “the single greatest unrecognized trend in higher education” (Young, 2002, p. A33). At the same time, the American Society for Training and Development also identified blended learning as one of the top 10 emergent trends in the knowledge delivery industry (Finn, 2002). Since then, the visibility of blended learning environments has increased dramatically in both formal education and corporate training settings. At the third annual Sloan-C Workshop on Blended Learning and Higher Education, Frank Mayadas, the program director for the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, predicted that “by 2010 you will be hard pressed to find a course that is not blended” (Mayadas, 2006). There is increasing interest in the concept of blended learning as evidenced by greater numbers of books, journal articles, and trade magazine articles that directly address issues related to blended learning. This article will provide an overview of current models of blended learning and provide references to the most recent resources in this emergent area of research and practice.

bacKground Definition The use of the term blended learning is relatively new in both higher education and corporate settings. In higher education, the term “hybrid course” was often used prior to the emergence of the term “blended learning,” and now the two terms are used interchangeably. Because term is relatively new, there are still ongoing debates regarding the precise meaning and relevance of the term (Driscoll, 2002; Graham, Allen, & Ure, 2003; Laster, 2004; Masie, 2005; Oliver & Trigwell, 2005; Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003). However, the most commonly held position is that blended learning environments combine face-to-face instruction with technology-mediated instruction (Graham, 2005; Graham et al., 2003). This definition highlights the ongoing convergence of two archetypal learning environments: the traditional

Figure 1. Blended learning combines traditional face-to-face and computer mediated instruction

face-to-face (F2F) environment with the distributed (or technology-mediated) environment (see Figure 1).

purposes There are many reasons why a blended approach to learning might be selected. The three most common reasons for blending listed in the literature are: • • •

To increase learning effectiveness To increase convenience and access To increase cost effectiveness

Often educators adopt a blended approach in order to explore tradeoffs between more than one of these goals simultaneously (e.g., increasing the convenience to students afforded by an asynchronous distributed environment without completely eliminating the human touch from the F2F environment). While blended learning is appealing to many because it enables one to take advantage of the “best of both worlds” (Morgan, 2002; Young, 2002), blended learning environments can also mix the least effective elements of both F2F and technology-mediated worlds if not designed well.

models The concept of blended learning is simple and elegant. However, there are numerous ways that blended learning

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Blended Learning Models

Figure 2. Different levels where blended learning can occur

can be implemented in a wide variety of different contexts. For this reason, it is important to share successful models of blended learning so that all can benefit. Sharing models of blended learning can help to facilitate the purposeful and disciplined adoption of appropriate blended learning strategies. This section of the article will present several models of blended learning. Because of space constraints it is not possible to share all of the details of the models, but a rich

set of references is provided that will allow the reader to find additional details for the examples of interest. It is important to understand that blending occurs at many different levels including the institutional level, the program level, the course level, and the activity level (see Figure 2). Typically, models at the course and activity levels have instructor stakeholders who are primarily interested in issues of learning effectiveness and productivity. Blended learning that occurs at the program and institutional levels typically has administrator stakeholders who are often driven by issues of cost effectiveness and expanding access of the learning to untapped audiences. Specific examples of blended learning at each of these levels can be found in The Handbook of Blended Learning (Graham, 2005) and The Encyclopedia of Distance Learning (Graham & Allen, in press). Because there is such a wide range of possible blends in the different contexts, it can be helpful to think of three major categories of blends: enabling blends, enhancing blends, and transforming blends. Table 1 contains a description of each category and specific examples for each. The distinctions here are particularly important when considering the impact of blended learning on learning ef-

Table 1. Three categories of blends with examples Category

Enabling Blends

Description Enabling blends primarily focus on addressing issues of access and convenience. They often use information and communication technologies as a way to provide “equivalent” learning experiences to the predominant face-to-face modality.

Examples 1. 2. 3.

4.

Enhancing Blends

Enhancing blends allow for incremental changes to the pedagogy. They are often characterized by the inclusion of supplemental online resources and/or the implementation of online activities that are small in scope when compared to the overall course.

5.

6.

7.

Transforming Blends



Transforming blends allow for a significant change in pedagogy that facilitates active learner construction of knowledge.

8.

9.

Many of the for-profit institutions like University of Phoenix (Lindquist, 2005) have models that focus on making educational opportunities available to those who do not have access due to time and location constraints. National University has a teacher preparation program geared toward access and flexibility (Reynolds & Greiner, 2005). Many international education and training programs are also focused on providing access (e.g., World Bank, Jagannathan, 2005, Mexico’s Red Escolar program, Acuña Limón, 2005, etc.). University of Glamorgan, Wales (Jones, 2005) has a continuum of e-learning that includes four levels, the first two of which represent enhancing blends: (1) Basic ICT usage (e.g., PowerPoint presentations) and (2) E-enhanced ( e.g., access to online resources, use of Bb for productivity such as announcements, lecture notes, etc.). University of Waikato, New Zealand (Wright, Dewstow, Topping, & Tappenden, 2005) has a model for enhancing F2F courses that includes levels such as “Supported Online” (e.g., traditional F2F with access to materials provided online) and “Somewhat Online” (e.g., includes an online course component for on-campus students). University of Central Florida, U.S. (Dziuban, Hartman, Juge, Moskal, & Sorg, 2005) has a model that includes “W courses” (e.g., fully online), M courses (e.g., mixed, reduced F2F contact courses), and E courses (e.g., Web enhanced courses). E courses use online or Web components to enhance a traditional F2F course. Use of instructional simulations such as the Virtual Audiometer and Virtual Chem Lab at Brigham Young University are changing the ways in which students learn and solve problems (Graham & Robison, in press; West & Graham, 2005). Authentic learning environments that bring real world contexts into the classroom (Oliver & Trigwell, 2005) or integrate formal learning with workplace learning (Collis, 2005; DeViney & Lewis, 2005; Singh, 2005) can be supported through the use of blended learning approaches. Mixed reality technologies facilitate the blending of F2F and virtual worlds and are transforming the kinds of learning and performance support that is taking place in industrial and military contexts (Kirkley & Kirkley, 2005; Wisher, 2005).

Blended Learning Models

Figure 3. Three paths for designing blended learning environments

B

Figure 4. Two ways of moving from a traditional F2F learning environment to a blended learning environment

fectiveness. An enhancing blend might serve as a steppingstone to a more transformative blend, or it might end up superficially impacting student learning (Graham & Dziuban, submitted; Graham & Robison, in press).

higher education models In higher education the primary path to blended learning is from a predominantly F2F environment to a blended environment (see Path 1 in Figure 3). There is also a path (though much smaller) from an entirely distributed environment to a blended environment (see Path 2 in Figure 3). Path 3 (see Figure 3) occurs most often in corporate contexts when new programs and courses are developed from scratch to meet an emerging need. Models that involve Path 2 movement typically occur with the goal of adding “human touch” to a distance course or program where access to the F2F environment is possible

but less convenient. In these cases we see blends including a limited number of F2F events such as a residency requirement (Offerman & Tassava, 2005; Pease, 2005), F2F orientations and/or final project presentations (Lindquist, 2005), or optional F2F help sessions for struggling learners. Faculty adoption of blended learning that involves Path 1 movement occurs via gradual change or systemic change (see Figure 4). Most often it occurs via gradual change or what Collis and van der Wende (2002) call “stretching the mould.” This involves exploration and adoption of blended learning strategies such as enhancing a course with online resources and activities. At first, F2F contact time may not be reduced because enhancements are small and exploratory. As online activities become more successful and more integral to the course, faculty reduce their F2F contact time to accommodate the online activities. Researchers have documented the tendency among many faculty designing blended learning 

Blended Learning Models

courses to keep adding online components to the traditional course without eliminating anything. This phenomenon is known as the course-and-a-half syndrome (Kaleta, Skibba, & Joosten, in press). To date, systemic change has not been as wide spread as gradual change toward blended learning. Systemic approaches to designing blended learning involve whole course redesign. Some of the best documented cases of course redesign efforts involving blended learning come from the Program in Course Redesign supported by the PEW Charitable Trusts (Twigg, 2003). The goal of this project was to see if 30 large enrollment courses from across the United States could be redesigned using technology to simultaneously provide both reductions in cost and gains in learning outcomes. The majority of the course redesign efforts involved moving from a traditional course delivery to a blended learning approach. Table 2 outlines five specific models of blended learning that resulted from the efforts.

corporate and military models Blended learning in corporate settings is driven by the desire to improve return on investment (ROI) of training dollars. This means driving down the costs and trying to increase the impact of training. Bersin and Associates (2003) studied blended training in major programs that impacted over 100,000 employees at 15 large corporations. They found that the ROI for blended learning programs was 100%+ in almost every case and much larger in some cases. Similarly,

IBM documented a 17:1 ROI for deployment of its blended learning leadership management program (Lewis & Orton, 2005). Blended learning models in corporate settings are even more varied than in higher education settings. F2F human interaction is arguably the most powerful learning intervention and the most costly (Lewis & Orton, 2005). Data show that instructor led training (ILT) is still by far the most prevalent mode of training delivery (Ziob & Mosher, 2005). So, most blended learning models seek to use human interaction strategically and replace much of the F2F interaction with interactive simulations, performance support systems, or technology mediated interactions with colleagues that eliminate the need for expensive travel. For example, IBM has a four-tiered approach where learners have access to a performance support database, interactive learning simulations, a live-virtual collaborative learning environment, and F2F learning laboratories. Learners in the program begin with 26 weeks of self-paced online learning after which they participate in a five-day in-class learning lab. The F2F lab experience is followed by a 25-week online learning experience that focuses on application of skills and knowledge (Lewis & Orton, 2005). Similarly, Oracle’s leadership training program (Hanson & Clem, 2005) and Avaya’s sales training program (Chute, Williams, & Hancock, 2005) both used limited and strategically placed F2F sessions embedded within a wide variety of computer-mediated and self-paced activities to reach their goals. The use of technology to facilitate training is

Table 2. Models developed from 30 course redesign efforts sponsored by the PEW charitable trusts (Twigg, 2003) Model

Supplemental Model

Replacement Model

Description • • • •

Lecture portion of class kept intact Supplemental online materials provided Online quizzes Additional online activities

• • •

Reduction of in-class meeting time Replacement of face-to-face (F2F) class time with online activities Online activities can take place in a computer lab or at home



Student chooses learning options • Lecture • Online • Discovery laboratories • Individual projects • Team/group activities • And so forth

• •

Eliminates class meetings Substitutes a learning resource center with (1) online materials and (2) on-demand personal assistance

• • •

All online learning activities No required F2F class meetings (In some cases) optional F2F help

Buffet Model

Emporium Model

Fully Online Model



Blended Learning Models

facilitating a greater integration between formal learning and informal or workplace learning (Collis, 2005; DeViney & Lewis, 2005; Singh, 2005). Increasingly, learners are able to engage with a formal instructor at a distance and have learning activities and assignments mediated in the local context by a manager or mentor. A second corporate model that is worth mentioning can be seen in the Cisco Networking Academy (Dennis et al., 2005; Selinger, 2005). The Cisco Networking Academy is a global training program for Internet technology skills that is implemented in more than 150 countries across the world and has over 400,000 enrollments. The academy provides centralized Web-based curriculum, online assessments, and tracking of student performance. At each academy site instructors are able to use the Web-based content and customize it to support the specific needs of their local students. This approach allows courses to be offered as Web-based training or instructor-led training, or a blend of both to best accommodate the learning preferences and work styles of the learners (Selinger, 2005). This blended approach also facilitates cultural adaptation and localization of curriculum to meet diverse cultural needs. Finally, military and some high-tech industrial contexts are employing mixed reality environments that blend F2F interactions with interactions in a virtual world (Kirkley & Kirkley, 2005). For example, the U.S. military is training with live-virtual-constructive learning exercises, which meld the real world with the simulated world. Wisher (2005, p. 527) writes about one such exercise with the task of conducting an amphibious assault that involved “seventeen military units (live), six simulators (virtual), and twenty one simulations (constructive).”

future trends It is hard to predict exactly what the future holds for blended learning environments. It is very likely that the use of blended learning in both higher education and corporate contexts will continue to grow. In fact, there may come a time when the traditional learning environment is predominantly a blended learning environment and it no longer makes sense to use the adjective “blended.” An example of this is the fact that the University of Central Florida has considered dropping its (E)nhanced course designation because virtually all the university courses have a Web presence (Dziuban, 2006). There is likely to be an increased focus in higher education on the transformative potential of blended learning (Garrison & Kanuta, 2004; Graham & Robison, in press). Rather than focus on whether blending is happening or not, universities will focus more on the quality of the blend and seek to understand how faculty can be trained and supported to teach in blended learning environments.

There is evidence that administrators and students in K-12 environments (particularly in high school and home school settings) are beginning to explore the possibilities of blended learning. Corporate and military contexts are likely to be the ones that continue to push the technological envelope, exploring the use of more expensive technologies, although increasingly simulations may be used in K-12 and higher education classrooms. Finally, Bonk, Kim, and Zeng (2005, p. 560) make 10 predictions related to blended learning in the future: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

the increased use of mobile devices in blended learning greater use of visualization tools and hands-on learning in blended learning increased learner input in the design of their own learning programs increased connectedness, community, and collaboration increased authenticity and on-demand learning stronger ties between work and learning calendaring system will need to change and be more flexible programs will begin to include blended learning course designations instructor roles will increasingly move toward that of mentor, coach, and counselor blended learning specialist teaching certificates will emerge

conclusIon During the past decade, distributed learning has made huge strides in popularity in both higher education and corporate sectors of society. The use of technology has increased access to educational resources and facilitated communication in a way that was not previously possible. Despite the strengths that online learning environments provide, there are different strengths inherent in traditional F2F learning environments. The current trend toward blending both online and F2F instruction is a positive direction and merits increased attention and study. Because the possibilities inherent in a blended environment are so vast, it is important that we begin to develop and share successful models of blended learning at all the different levels (see Figure 2) and contexts in which it can occur.

references Acuña Limón, A. (2005). Tecnológico de Monterrey in México: Where technology extends the classroom. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learn-



B

Blended Learning Models

ing: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 351-359). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing. Bersin & Associates. (2003). Blended learning: What works?: An industry study of the strategy, implementation, and impact of blended learning. Bersin & Associates. Bonk, C. J., Kim, K.-J., & Zeng, T. (2005). Future directions of blended learning in higher education and workplace settings. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 550-567). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing. Chute, A. G., Williams, J. O. D., & Hancock, B. W. (2005). Transformation of sales skills through knowledge management and blended learning. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 105-119). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing. Collis, B. (2005). Putting blended learning to work. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 461-473). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing. Collis, B., & van der Wende, M. (2002). Models of technology and change in higher education: An international comparative survey on the current and future use of ICT in higher education. Enschede, NL: Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, University of Twente. Dennis, A., Bichelmeyer, B., Henry, D., Cakir, H., Korkmaz, A., Watson, C., et al. (2005). The Cisco Networking Academy: A model for the study of student success in a blended learning environment. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 120-135). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing. DeViney, N., & Lewis, N. J. (2005). On-demand learning: How work-embedded learning is expanding enterprise performance. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 491-501). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing. Driscoll, M. (2002, March 1). Blended learning: Let’s get beyond the hype. E-learning, p. 54. Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Juge, F., Moskal, P., & Sorg, S. (2005). Blended learning enters the mainstream. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 195-208). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing. Finn, A. (2002). Trends in e-learning. Learning Circuits, 3(11). Retrieved from http://www.learningcircuits.org/2002/ nov2002/finn.htm

0

Garrison, D. R., & Kanuta, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105. Graham, C. R. (2005). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3-21). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing. Graham, C. R., & Allen, S. (in press). Designing blended learning environments. In C. Howard, J. V. Boettecher, L. Justice, K. D. Schenk, P. L. Rogers, & G. A. Berg (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance learning (2nd ed.). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference. Graham, C. R., Allen, S., & Ure, D. (2003). Blended learning environments: A review of the research literature. Retrieved May 29, 2006, from http://msed.byu.edu/ipt/graham/vita/ ble_litrev.pdf Graham, C. R., & Dziuban, C. D. (submitted). Core research and issues related to blended learning environments. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. Graham, C. R., & Robison, R. (in press). Realizing the transformational potential of blended learning: Comparing cases of transforming blends and enhancing blends in higher education. In A. G. Picciano & C. D. Dziuban (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives. Sloan Consortium. Hanson, K. S., & Clem, F. A. (2005). To blend or not to blend: A look at community development via blended learning strategies. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 136-149). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing. Jagannathan, S. (2005). Blended e-learning in the context of international development: Global perspectives, local design of e-courses. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 444-458). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing. Jones, N. (2005). E-college Wales, a case study of blended learning. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 182-194). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing. Kaleta, R., Skibba, K., & Joosten, T. (in press). Discovering, designing, and delivering hybrid courses. In A. G. Picciano & C. D. Dziuban (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives: Sloan Consortium. Kirkley, J. R., & Kirkley, S. E. (2005). Expanding the boundaries of blended learning: Transforming learning with

Blended Learning Models

mixed and virtual reality technologies. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 533-549). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing. Laster, S. (2004). Blended learning: Driving forward without a definition. In J. C. Moore (Ed.), Engaging communities: Wisdom from the Sloan Consortium (pp. 153-162). Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. Lewis, N. J., & Orton, P. Z. (2005). Blended learning for business impact. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 61-75). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing. Lindquist, B. (2005). Blended learning at the University of Phoenix. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 223-234). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing. Masie, E. (2005). The blended learning imperative. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 22-26). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing. Mayadas, F. (2006). Keynote address at the Sloan-C Workshop on Blended Learning and Higher Education: Blended Learning, Localness, and Outreach. Chicago, IL. Morgan, K. R. (2002). Blended learning: A strategic action plan for a new campus. Seminole, FL: University of Central Florida. Offerman, M., & Tassava, C. (2005). A different perspective on blended learning: Asserting the efficacy of online learning at Capella University. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 235-244). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing. Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can ‘blended learning’ be redeemed? E-learning, 2(1), 17-26. Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning systems: Definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-234. Pease, P. S. (2005). Blended learning goes totally virtual by design: The case of a for-profit, online university. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 245-260). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing. Reynolds, T., & Greiner, C. (2005). Integrated field experiences in online teacher education: A natural blend. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 209-220). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing.

Selinger, M. (2005). Developing an understanding of blended learning: A personal journey across Africa and the Middle East. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 432-443). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing. Singh, H. (2005). Blending learning and work: Real-time work flow learning. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 474-490). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing. Twigg, C. (2003). Improving learning and reducing costs: New models for online learning. Educause Review, 38(5), 28-38. West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2005). Five powerful ways technology can enhance teaching and learning in higher education. Educational Technology, 45(3), 20-27. Wisher, R. A. (2005). Blended learning in military training. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 519-532). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing. Wright, N., Dewstow, R., Topping, M., & Tappenden, S. (2005). New Zealand examples of blended learning. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 169-181). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing. Young, J. R. (2002, March 22). ‘Hybrid’ teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online instruction. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A33. Ziob, L., & Mosher, B. (2005). Putting customers first at Microsoft: Blending learning capabilities with customer needs. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 92-104). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing.

Key terms Affordances: Features of an environment or artifact that “afford” or permit certain behaviors. Blended Learning Environment: A learning environment that combines face-to-face and computer-mediated instruction. Distributed Learning Environment: A learning environment where participants are not co-located and use computer-based technologies to access instruction and communicate with others. Hybrid Course: Another name for a blended course. Typically a course that replaces some F2F instructional time with computer-mediated activities. 

B

Blended Learning Models

Performance Support Systems: Systems that are designed to improve human performance through many different kinds of interventions including but not being limited to instructional interventions.



Return on Investment (ROI): A measurement evaluating the gains versus the costs of an investment. Technology-Mediated Learning Environment: Another name for a distributed learning environment.