INTRODUCTION
It is becoming clear that blended learning has the potential to transform higher education (Bonk & Graham, 2006; Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Garrison & Vaughan, 2007). With the acceptance that higher education must more actively engage students in meaningful learning experiences, institutions of higher education are exploring blended learning course and program redesigns. The status quo with a reliance on the lecture to transmit information is being seriously questioned. The focus here is on exploring blended learning as an innovative approach to the design of teaching and learning in higher and distance education. Strategic action plans for the adoption of blended learning approaches will also be outlined.
BLENDED LEARNING DESCRIBED
The promise of blended learning is to combine the strengths of face-to-face and online learning. Considering the innovative nature of blended learning, any description of blended learning must reflect the transformational potential of the concept. It is crucial to emphasize that blended learning is not just a technological enhancement of more traditional approaches such as the lecture. In short, it is not simply layering on technological options to inherently deficient face-to-face educational practices.
From this perspective, the key assumptions of a blended learning design are:
• Thoughtful integration of face-to-face and online learning
• Fundamentally rethinking the course design to optimize student engagement
• Restructuring and replacing traditional class contact hours (Garrison & Vaughan, 2007)
These assumptions reflect a new way of thinking about higher education. There are no arbitrary prescribed proportions of face-to-face and online experiences here. The defining feature is the purposeful focus to combine the best features of face-to-face and online collaboration to engage students in meaningful and worthwhile learning experiences. In essence, blended learning expands the range of educational possibilities and encourages educators to re-consider basic assumptions and approaches. As we shall see, blended learning represents a way of thinking and an approach that avoids traditional zero sum scenarios where more of one means less of another. The blending of face-to-face and online teaching and learning create the conditions where educators can have, concurrently, interaction with independence and effectiveness with efficiency.
While the conceptual understanding of blended learning may be relatively easy to grasp, the range of possibilities and practical design challenges are complex. The important distinguishing feature of blended learning concerns the pedagogical possibilities created for specific purposes through the creative integration of face-to-face and online learning.
PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES
The focus of blended learning is not on the enabling technology. The true potential of blended learning is the educational possibilities that technology affords. Blending is about the effective integration, fusion even, of face-to-face and online learning depending on the educational need and purpose. As such, there is virtually an infinite range of possibilities. Notwithstanding this reality, we begin by providing three generic scenarios that provide a concrete vision of the possibilities of a blended learning design.
Scenarios
The three scenarios are large enrolment courses, small class courses and limited access courses. (For a more detailed description and discussion see Garrison & Vaughan, 2007) These courses encompass the major design challenges faced by higher education institutions. The first scenario reflects the work of Carol Twigg and the PEW Course Redesign proj ect which has demonstrate d that large enrolment courses may have the greatest pay-off for blended course redesigns (Twigg, 2003). These are typically large enrolment introductory lecture classes with little opportunity for interaction with the professor or peers. The core challenge is to redesign a large lecture class to be more engaging while maintaining or reducing the time commitments for the professor. The first step in this process is to critically re-evaluate the role ofthe lecture. Typically this means eliminating one or all of the lectures to be replaced with more engaging online tutorials, discussion and help rooms, self-assessment as well as face-to-face work groups, labs and opportunities to engage the professor or TAs for individual help. When a lecture is retained it is used to introduce and structure the curriculum and core ideas. During the lecture class, students do not sit passively. They have the opportunity to periodically interact in small groups and may report back through personal response systems. In a blended design, the lecture is seen as a motivational activity that provides coherence and structure.
The second scenario applies to small and medium sized classes often used to deliver second and third year courses. These blended learning redesigns can be managed with modest investment of time and resources. Typically they use Internet and communications technology to access course content and create communities of inquiry focused on active learning and problem solving that values critical and creative thinking processes and outcomes. While more effective and efficient use of the professor’s time may be the goal, the primary benefit is that students approach their learning collaboratively and in a deep and meaningful manner. Combining face-to-face and online discussions makes possible the inclusion of all students in meaningful discourse that is simply not possible in a face-to-face context due to time and personality constraints. Much of the course may be focused on applying content acquired through the website (using pre-recorded lectures and documents) and through small group collaborative assignments and projects.
The third scenario addresses the needs of continuing education courses that are not easily accessible to working professionals. The challenge is to address issues of access, convenience, and experiential learning without sacrificing the integrity of a higher education experience. Such courses may benefit from an extended face-to-face class perhaps on the week-end, followed by monthly evening classes or synchronous lectures using technologies such as Elluminate Live. The key is to design the learning experience such that students have time to apply concepts in their workplace, reflect upon the results, and maintain contact with the class through online forums. Participants in such courses invariably report that this approach is more useful, satisfying and convenient.
Certainly three scenarios do not do justice to the full range of possibilities; however, they should give some insight into how traditional classrooms can be fundamentally transformed using blended learning designs. Moreover, these scenarios are based upon collaborative-constructivist approaches to learning (Garrison & Archer, 2000). This philosophical perspective has been operationalized through the Community of Inquiry framework (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000) and applied rigorously to the blended learning context (Garrison & Vaughan, 2007). It is worthwhile to briefly explore what a collaborative-constructivist perspective means for blended learning course designs.
Framework
An organizational framework provides the advantage of coping with the complexity of blended learning practice. A “framework not only provides a means to shape practice but also to reflect upon and make sense of outcomes” (Garrison & Vaughan, 2007, p. 13). The Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework consists of three core elements – social presence, cognitive presence and teaching presence. Each presence is essential to a community of inquiry. The presences are opera-tionalized with specific categories and indicators. The presences overlap in the sense ofbeing interdependent. Each influences the others and develops progressively over time. Considerable research has confirmed the validity and importance of the framework and an understanding of the role of its constituting elements (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007).
Social presence reflects the need for open communication, group cohesiveness and personal relationships. Notwithstanding the purposeful nature of a community of inquiry, establishing social presence is crucial to creating and maintaining communication and cohesion. Cognitive presence goes to the core and purpose of the inquiry process. It is defined by the Practical Inquiry Model (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2001) with its genesis in Dewey’s work. The model reflects four critical thinking and reflection phases – triggering event, exploration, integration and resolution.
The third element in the CoI framework is teaching presence (Garrison & Anderson, 2003). Teaching presence is the catalyst and guiding force for a meaningful and worthwhile collaborative educational experience. The developmental categories of teaching presence are design, facilitation and direct instruction. In a blended learning context, teaching presence assumes an increasingly important role. It provides unity, balance and leadership. Teaching presence also helps students gain metacognitive awareness of the learning process as operationalized by the Practical Inquiry Model.
While there is considerable interest directed toward blended learning, the pedagogical implications are less certain. The pedagogy of blended learning just described is not commonly found amongst faculty. It must be introduced and faculty must be guided and supported in the re-design process. Large scale adoption of pedagogically sound blended learning designs requires an institutional strategy and instructional design support.
ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFORMATION
To date, higher education institutions have been notorious resisters to innovation in the classroom. However, this is changing as academic leaders are recognizing that the traditional values of higher education are being compromised by larger classes resulting in limited faculty student interaction, critical discourse, and meaningful learning activities, all of which contribute to student isolation. This reality, along with persistent funding challenges, has precipitated the rethinking of dated approaches to teaching and learning. Some institutions have begun to map action plans.
Institutional Change
Blended learning course redesign has become the catalyst for fundamental pedagogical change in higher education. A primary reason from an administrator’s perspective is that blended learning requires modest financial investment for substantial academic return. Many institutions are drafting position and policy documents and proactive senior administrators are committing resources to implementing action plans focused on improving the effectiveness and efficiency of teaching and learning through course redesigns. Strategic action plans for the adoption of blended learning approaches include the following:
1. Raise institutional awareness, build support, and cultivate collaborative leadership
2. Develop institutional policy, strategic plans and achievable goals
3. Provide sustained incentives and recognition
4. Build instructional development and course redesign support programs
5. Invest in technology infrastructure
6. Design prototypes and ensure early successes
7. Create systematic evaluation strategies and accountability procedures
8. Review learning spaces and scheduling practices
9. Establish continuous communication strategies
10. Keep senior administration informed and on-side
11. Create a task group to address issues, challenges and opportunities and recommend new directions
12. Update and refine policies, goals and support programs (Garrison & Vaughan, 2007, p. 171)
Institutions of higher education must address changes in pedagogical and technological expectations. Resolute leadership is required to remain competitive. At the same time, developing and implementing policy and plans is a considerable challenge and risk for institutional leaders. Certainly we know that new leadership approaches are demanded. What are the leadership characteristics that are required to position institutions of higher education for the 21st century?
Institutional leadership for blended learning course redesign must get beyond empty rhetoric. It means systemic change and requires a substantive understanding of the potential cost-benefit of blended learning approaches. From the perspective of student learning, most large institutions of higher education need to be revitalized. They need to be reminded of their traditional values and approaches. It is this vision along with two-way communication skills and courage that must shape the leadership for blended learning. This means the courage to direct resources and ensures the right people are in place to sustain the effort and ensure success. This will most assuredly mean collaborative leadership. No one person can lead such a transformative initiative.
Convergence
Interestingly, in practice, we see both conventional and distance education institutions of higher education moving toward blended learning designs. Distance education institutions are increasingly enhancing the independent study of their course packages with interactive online learning. A key distinguishing feature of distance education has been the use of technology. Distance education has traditionally been reliant on technology. However, more recently, we are witnessing the increased adoption of communications technology by conventional institutions to address the quality of the learning experience through increased interaction and collaboration and the creation of communities of inquiry (Garrison & Kanuka, 2007). Campus-based institutions are enhancing the passive lecture with access to online information, discourse and collaborative activities
While both distance and campus-based institutions are offering access and convenience with the adoption of blended approaches to learning, in the future, the distinguishing feature for both will be the quality of the learning experience as measured by student engagement and support. The forced choice between access and quality is fast becoming an anachronism. There is a growing interest in blended learning designs characterized by convenient, flexible and sustainable communities of learners. Communications technology in general and, blended learning in particular, is certainly “flattening” the higher education landscape. As a result, distance and campus-based institutions are examining their traditional instructional paradigms. While we fully support distance education institutions adopting blended approaches to enhance student engagement, the question remains as to how far distance education institutions will go toward adopting blended learning designs that challenge their core principle of independence and access.
CONCLUSION
The initial resistance toward online and technologically mediated teaching and learning has all but disappeared. Communications technology has been enthusiastically embraced by most sectors of society. The educational community has been one of the last to embrace communications technology. Blended learning has been perhaps the major conceptual and practical design breakthrough and catalyst in bringing higher education into the modern age of communication. But technology is only a tool. It is what we do educationally with the technology that is the focus of blended learning designs. Blended learning is about enhancing student engagement and the quality of the learning experience in higher education. The real catalyst and purpose of blended approaches is a more relevant and meaningful learning experience congruent with the needs and demands of the 21st century.
KEY TERMS
Blended Learning: The thoughtful integration of face-to-face and online learning that reflects a fundamental rethinking of the teaching-learning transaction.
Cognitive Presence: A process of practical inquiry distinguished by discourse and reflection for the purpose of constructing meaning and confirming understanding.
Collaborative-Constructivism: Approaches to learning that fuse individual construction of meaning and collaborative validation of understanding.
Community Of Inquiry: A framework that reflects a collaborative-constructivist approach to learning.
Online Learning: Networked synchronous and asynchronous communications that support purposeful learning communities.
Social Presence: The ability to identify with a group, communicate purposefully, and develop interpersonal relationships.
Strategic Action Plan: An organization plan with specific goals, a schedule of concrete actions, and measurable outcomes.
Teaching Presence: The design, facilitation and instruction directed toward creating and sustaining a community of inquiry.
