Can 'Blended Learning' Be Redeemed?

Abstract

Although the term ‘blended learning’ is widely used, this article argues against it. Two arguments are advanced. The first is primarily philosophical, although it has several pragmatic implications. It proposes that ‘blending’ either relies on the idea of dichotomies which are suspect within the context of learning with technology or else becomes ineffective as a discriminating concept and is thus without purpose. The implication of this is that the term ‘blended’ should either be abandoned or, at the least, radically reconceived. The second argument proposes that learning, from the perspective of the learner, is rarely, if ever, the subject of blended learning. What is actually being addressed are forms of instruction, teaching, or at best, pedagogies. The implication of this is that the term ‘learning’ should be abandoned. The second half of the article attempts to redeem the concept of blended learning by arguing that learning gains attributed to blended learning may have their explanation in variation theory. It offers a new way to conceptualise what is being ‘blended’ that is theoretically coherent, philosophically defensible and pragmatically informative. The article concludes by setting an agenda for further work in this area.

Full text

E–Learning, Volume 2, Number 1, 2005
17
Can ‘Blended Learning’ Be Redeemed?
MARTIN OLIVER
University of London, United Kingdom
KEITH TRIGWELL
University of Oxford, United Kingdom
ABSTRACT Although the term ‘blended learning’ is widely used, this article argues against it. Two
arguments are advanced. The first is primarily philosophical, although it has several pragmatic
implications. It proposes that ‘blending’ either relies on the idea of dichotomies which are suspect
within the context of learning with technology or else becomes ineffective as a discriminating concept
and is thus without purpose. The implication of this is that the term ‘blended’ should either be
abandoned or, at the least, radically reconceived. The second argument proposes that learning, from
the perspective of the learner, is rarely, if ever, the subject of blended learning. What is actually being
addressed are forms of instruction, teaching, or at best, pedagogies. The implication of this is that the
term ‘learning’ should be abandoned. The second half of the article attempts to redeem the concept of
blended learning by arguing that learning gains attributed to blended learning may have their
explanation in variation theory. It offers a new way to conceptualise what is being ‘blended’ that is
theoretically coherent, philosophically defensible and pragmatically informative. The article concludes
by setting an agenda for further work in this area.
Background
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 background section, some definitions of the term will be
identified; these will then be used in the following section as the basis for analysis.
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:
by guest on July 4, 2015ldm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Martin Oliver & Keith Trigwell
18
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. We return to further address
this point later in the article.
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.
Analysis
This section of the article explores the notion of blended learning, starting from the premise that
such a term requires two or more different kinds of things that can then be mixed. The possible
nature of those things, and of their mixing, will be explored through the various sections below.
Mixing E-learning with Traditional Learning
Perhaps the most common ‘blend’ discussed in research publications concerns the mixing of e-
learning and traditional forms of learning. This is a particularly muddled definition, not least
because what counts as ‘e-learning’ is notoriously hard to define. The Department for Education
and Skills (2003), for example, recently provided the following definition:
If someone is learning in a way that uses information and communication technologies, they are
using e-learning. They could be a pre-school child playing an interactive game; they could be a
group of pupils collaborating on a history project with pupils in another country via the Internet
[… etc.] – it all counts as e-learning.
Providing a list, rather than a definition, is interesting: it points to a desire to include, rather than
specify or exclude. Indeed, the excerpt suggests that almost anything that has had any connection
with computers may count as e-learning, and that if in doubt the term can be stretched to include
borderline cases.
The problem with this is that the term is amorphous, lacking any kind of clarity. It is simply
the accretion of cases, with no indication of how new examples should be included or rejected from
the term. There are no principles underlying it.
by guest on July 4, 2015ldm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Blended Learning
19
As soon as a principled position is taken, the term ‘e-learning’ becomes problematic. From an
activity theoretic perspective (Kuutti, 1996), for example, all activities involve a technology of some
sort and there is no particular reason to distinguish between those with and without the ‘e-’ prefix.
Equally, there is no definition of ‘traditional’ learning. This is typically assumed to refer to
face-to-face teaching, often in the form of lectures and/or seminars; however, since forms of
correspondence learning have existed for well over a century (Peters, 1998) there seems to be no
reason for deeming some kinds of teaching as ‘traditional’ and others as not. Indeed, for lecturers
who have begun their careers since the advent of the Internet, there is little reason to assume that
web-based learning is not part of their ‘tradition’ of teaching.
For these reasons, the idea of defining blended learning in terms of these two ‘types’ seems
inappropriate.
Mixing Online Learning with Face-to-Face
A conceptually clearer position arises from descriptions of blended learning as involving a mix
between online and face-to-face teaching. However, on closer inspection this is also problematic.
Dreyfus’s critique of learning from the Internet (2001) provides a useful starting point to
explore this mix. His argument is that learning on the Internet is impoverished, since it results in a
disembodied experience and the production of fragmented, fractured ‘selves’. He contrasts this
with the embodied, unified self that he believes is present ‘off’ the Internet.
The important point of Dreyfus’s critique is that the Internet – or at least, learning online – is
somehow special. His particular concerns are relatively easy to dismiss, resulting from
inconsistencies in his position. Either learners are embodied or they are not: the Internet has no
power to tear them from their bodies. They are no more disembodied sat at a computer than
talking to a teacher, and the relevance of their embodiment to learning is no more problematic
here than if they were watching a television broadcast or reading a book.
Similarly, the notion of ‘self’ is either fragmented (in the postmodern sense of being
distributed, contingent and multiply interpreted) or it is not. It is simply inconsistent to attribute
special powers to the Internet, which is nothing more than an extension of file sharing networks.
This highlights the central problem for this mix: why ‘online’? Arguably, there is nothing
particularly special about the Internet per se. One possible way out of this might be to shift
attention away from learning online and to mediated learning instead; this possibility will be
explored below.
Mixing Media
To avoid the problem of treating online learning as a special case, it can be proposed that the
purpose of blended learning is to explore the mixing of media. As well as being problematic, this
definition is also unhelpful.
The possibility of mixing media for pedagogic advantage is given relatively high profile within
the research literature; Laurillard’s classic text (1993), for example, hinges upon this idea, providing
tables that describe the characteristics of different media in terms of qualities that are mapped onto
her conversational framework. The problem with this is that these tables ‘essentialise’ media; they
present the media as types with fixed (essential) qualities. The result is that Laurillard preserves the
clarity of her argument by dealing in stereotypes. This is in marked contrast to teachers’ experience
of these ‘media’. For example, Laurillard portrays lectures as being primarily, or even exclusively,
transmissive. A study that asked lecturers to describe their lecturing practice (Oliver & Conole,
2002) revealed that what the term ‘lecture’ denoted to them varied according to the topic being
taught, the size of the group, the year students were in, students’ expectations, what else was
happening in the course, and so on. What this illustrates is that pedagogy is a form of practice – a
socially constructed experience, rather than an inherent quality of media. For this reason alone the
idea of mixing media becomes problematic.
However, in addition, there is the question of whether such a definition is useful. Within any
course – indeed, in any learning situation of any duration, formal or otherwise – multiple ‘media’
will be used. (This certainly applies to published work where sessions or courses are analysed;
by guest on July 4, 2015ldm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Martin Oliver & Keith Trigwell
20
potentially, it might not apply to studies of a single particular action or interaction, but such studies
are exceptional.) These may be largely taken-for-granted media such as speech, print and pictures,
but nonetheless their diversity is inevitable in the media-rich society in which we are based.
Consequently, all learning ‘blends’ media (if we are willing to accept the notion of media as
‘types’). As a result, all learning is blended learning. The term does not rule anything out; it has no
discriminatory power. Consequently it is redundant and unnecessary.
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.
by guest on July 4, 2015ldm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Blended Learning
21
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’.
Summary
As the above analysis has shown, by any definition there is little merit in keeping the term ‘blended
learning’ as it is currently understood. It is either inconsistent (and so useless as a way of
understanding practice) or redundant, because it simply describes practice within higher education
more generally, and it attributes to learning something that, in terms of what we know, only
applies to teaching or instruction.
This specification of context is important. There is an explanation for definitions that
emphasise mixing online with face-to-face learning. The term ‘blended learning’ is most widely
used within the training tradition, rather than within public education; there, its importance arises
from the failure of purely online learning to meet the training needs of organisations (e.g. Driscoll,
2002). Blended learning is, arguably, a term introduced to redeem the millions of pounds invested
unwisely in purely online training. It is, in effect, a compromise position that avoids the excess of
either a purely online or a purely face-to-face model of training. The fact that this model is already
prevalent within practice in higher education means that the term is redundant within this context
whilst being meaningful within a corporate training context.
However, this admission of relevance does not redeem the term; instead, it simply hides the
politics of the situation. The emphasis within corporate training is usually upon efficiency, being
concerned with a return on investment. Within education, it has traditionally been on
effectiveness, although recent policies (e.g. National Committee for Inquiry into Higher Education,
1997) have attempted to shift the emphasis towards a cost-driven model. In effect, introduction of
the term ‘blended learning’ allows trainers to adopt practices prevalent within higher education
without having to call what they are doing ‘education’. It is thus a face saving discourse. Ironically,
the adoption of this term by researchers and teachers within higher education leaves us paying
homage to a group who are effectively seeking to redeem their failures by adopting our practices. It
bolsters the subservient relationship of higher education to industry advocated by government
by guest on July 4, 2015ldm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Martin Oliver & Keith Trigwell
22
(National Committee for Inquiry into Higher Education, 1997) rather than recognising that we, not
industry, have achieved expertise, experience and success.
Discussion: redeeming ‘blended learning’
Given the conceptual problems explored above, it may seem that the best course of action would
be to abandon the term entirely. However, there may be some merit in subverting the term (and
the widespread interest in it) and using it to describe an approach that is defensible – one that does
focus on learning.
If there is one thing that has been learnt from recent learning theories such as constructivism,
or the more relational (non-dualist) ideas in which meaning is seen as being constituted in the
relation between an individual and a phenomenon (Marton & Booth, 1997; Prosser & Trigwell,
1999), it is that students will have different experiences of the same context. What it is that teachers
intend their students to learn (e.g. through blended learning) may bear little relation to what it is
that students actually experience. As already noted, to use the term ‘learning’ in blended learning
for what appears to be an instructional approach is to take insufficient account of these recent
developments in learning theory, or put even more simplistically, to be not seeing from the
perspective of the learner. The alternative is to start from this ground and attempt to rebuild
blended learning upon it.
Actual blended learning would involve students learning through experiencing variation in
aspects of what it is that they are studying (their object of study). So, in looking at relations
between learning theories and blended learning, we must start from the position that many
students may not experience the learning environment as one that is blended in ways similar to the
way intended by the ‘instructional designer’. Studies of the use of blended learning claim that they
are associated with improvements in aspects of learning. This suggests that some students are
experiencing something that is different to contexts without blended learning. Some of these
improvements have been attributed to an increase in choice, and there is sufficient research
evidence from the student approaches to learning perspective, especially the work of Ramsden
(Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Ramsden, 1991, 2003), to support this conclusion. Some of the
improvements may also be due to a novelty factor or Hawthorn effect. Research conducted in
contexts where blended learning has been in the mainstream for several years is needed to address
the effects of the latter.
However, it is also possible that some students may be experiencing variation that is a direct
result of their experience of a ‘blend’. If this is variation that they would not experience without the
blend, it could be argued that the blend is supporting learning. Variation theory (Bowden &
Marton, 1998; Marton & Tsui, 2004) may therefore offer an explanation for some of the observed
improvement, and also offer guidance in the development of approaches to teaching and course
design that might lead to actual blended learning, and learning improvement. It is the relation
between variation theory and blended learning that will be explored here.
Variation Theory
The variation theory of learning is based on the idea that for learning to occur, variation must be
experienced by the learner. Without variation there is no discernment, and without discernment
there is no learning. Discernment is at the core of our ways of experiencing the world around us,
according to this way of looking at human experience (Marton & Trigwell, 2000). Discerning
means that a feature of the world appears to the subject, and is seen or sensed by him or her against
the background of his or her previous experiences of something more or less different. Learning
occurs when critical aspects of variation in the object of learning are discerned. Discernment is
about the experience of difference. Sound can only be experienced as a contrast to experienced (or
imagined) silence. If the level of happiness – or sorrow – never varied within individuals, nor
differed between individuals, then happiness – and sorrow – would cease to exist. If we always told
the truth, not only lies but even truth would never have been a part of our awareness.
According to variation theory, it is necessary to experience certain patterns of variation in
order to develop certain ways of seeing. This is true regardless of the particular method of
by guest on July 4, 2015ldm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Blended Learning
23
instruction used, and regardless of the particular way in which educational resources are organised.
It is therefore possible that certain patterns of variation may be experienced in reading a book, in
watching a video, or in participating in a field trip. It is also possible that the use of several teaching
media may help students experience these patterns and this may also be occurring in some blended
learning contexts. In this case, students are discerning variation in critical aspects of the subject
matter that are present in the blend being presented.
While new forms of learning may be made possible by the use of information technology,
one of the reasons why it helps to support learning may not be new, but that in all likelihood
certain new patterns of variation are brought about – patterns which previously were not possible
to bring about. Blends of e-learning with other media may make it easier to help students
experience the variation in the critical aspects of the topic being learnt.
One example of an attempt to do this has been described by Alexander & Cosgrove (1995),
who used the extensive literature on how students described their understanding of key aspects of
electricity to develop a text-based, computer-based and kit-based learning programme for
engineering students. Their aim, when seen from the student perspective, was to help students
experience the variation between their thinking (student knowledge) and the accepted scientific
views (domain knowledge) at the micro-level. The following is their description of the tutorial
package:
The software: The program begins by presenting images of simple electrical phenomena: a flat
battery, a toaster and a power bill. These events suggest electricity has been consumed. Students
are invited to explain these events and identify what their own personal theory is from three
alternate models which have been identified as the common circuit theories held by first year
university students. After identifying the model which best agrees with her/his thinking, the
student plans and undertakes an experiment to decide which of these three theories is best. This
is achieved by predicting what will be seen in the wires of a simple circuit (made up of a cell, two
wires and a light bulb) for their theory. Using an ammeter to detect the direction and rate of
movement of charge, the student identifies the theory that fits best with the experimental test.
When the test result does not agree with the prediction, careful intervention is needed if the two
ideas (the student’s and that supported by the experiment) are to be rendered compatible. This is
attempted by taking the student through a set of progressively more demanding circuits which
challenges their thinking about the amount of electric current in those circuits. Throughout this
section the focus is on the conservation of charge. To achieve this, the flow of charge is
differentiated from whatever it is that causes the charge to move. At the same time, scope for
analogical exploration is provided using two common analogies for electricity: ‘teeming crowds’
and ‘flowing water’.
The kitset: Students’ skills with even simple electrical equipment is known to vary widely, with
some students having had little prior experience with it. To enable those students to become
familiar with the concrete materials around which electrical circuit theory is devised, we have
assembled a kit of simple equipment.
The workbook: The text of the workbook follows closely the on-screen presentation of circuits.
It is aimed at helping students to recognise their own ideas, contrast them with scientific views,
make predictions and then test these ideas with materials in the kitset. (Alexander & Cosgrove,
1995, pp. 5-6, cited in Marton & Trigwell, 2000, p. 390)
The variation in modes of experience offered to students through the relations between the actual
materials in the kitset and the computer simulations conforms to some definitions of blended
learning. But with respect to variation theory, what is particularly apparent in this description is
first, that the students’ focus is directed to the critical aspect of charge conservation, and second,
that variation in this dimension is achieved using simulations aimed at encouraging students to
identify their own views and relating those views to the scientific views. The crucial aspect of this
design is not that it involves a blend of media; rather it is (according to variation theory) the
attempt to help the students experience the critical patterns of variation in topics such as charge
conservation that lead to learning. Interviews with students who used the package show that with
some students this aim was being achieved.
by guest on July 4, 2015ldm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Martin Oliver & Keith Trigwell
24
The Space of Learning (and Blended Learning)
According to this line of reasoning, certain patterns of variation are necessary conditions for certain
forms of learning. So what about teaching and teachers? How might they bring about such patterns
of variation using blended learning?
For teachers or course designers, the question: What variation can be possibly experienced in
a certain situation? is fundamental when it comes to learning to experience or understand
something in a certain way (i.e. when it comes to learning to discern certain critical aspects of a
phenomenon or of a class of situations). From this point of view the space of learning is the
defining characteristic of the conditions of learning. And this is true whether we are talking about
interaction with a computer tutorial, working with one’s peers or participating in classroom
teaching. Runesson (1999) suggests that a teacher’s decision about what aspects of the object of
learning are subjected to variation, and what aspects of the object are subject to variation
simultaneously is part of the definition of good teaching. Good teaching seems thus to have to do
with the nature of the space of learning constituted. This position is strongly supported by some
results suggesting that learners are very sensitive to the pattern of variation constituted in what it is
they are asked to learn and that their way of being aware of this object of learning is very much
shaped by the pattern of variation (Rovio-Johansson, 1999).
Blended teaching methods may be helping to create the appropriate space of learning for
some students. But if it is, it is still largely serendipitous, because the space of learning is not
currently a focus in blended learning design. The redemption of the term ‘blended learning’
requires an approach through which learning might be enhanced by a closer analysis of the critical
aspects of the subject matter that are in variation in the act of using blended learning. Learning that
may result from a designed blend can then be investigated in the same way as learning that may
result from any formal educational setting: by exploring change from the perspective of the learner.
Conclusions
The term ‘blended learning’ is ill-defined and inconsistently used. Whilst its popularity is
increasing, its clarity is not. Under any current definition, it is either incoherent or redundant as a
concept. Building a tradition of research around the term becomes an impossible project, since
without a common conception of its meaning, there can be no coherent way of synthesising the
findings of studies, let alone developing a consistent theoretical framework with which to interpret
data.
Even reinterpreting the term using Peters’s definition of distance pedagogics provides little
promise, although ‘blended pedagogies’ could usefully be applied to situations where different
intensities of interaction between tutors and students need to be considered. What all definitions
lack is an analysis from the perspective of the learner.
More promise arises from consideration of variation theory. Rebuilding the concept of
blended learning from a grounding in learning theory highlights the potential of designing around
varied experiences that may lead to learning. This subversive (but logical) reinterpretation shifts the
emphasis dramatically, from teacher to learner, from content to experience and from naively
conceptualised technologies to pedagogy. Arguably, whether or not the project of subversion
ultimately proves possible, the attempt to shift these established values is worth making and would
constitute a worthwhile redemption of current interest and investment in blended learning.
This position, arguing that the word ‘learning’ be rightfully returned to the learner, suggests
that what is needed in future research is a shift away from manipulating the blend as seen by the
teacher, to an in-depth analysis of the variation in the experience of the learning of the student in
the blended learning context. Variation theory offers one framework for such research.
However, even with such cases, use of ‘blended’ as a special term might be gratuitous. Such
mixes are clearly the norm (certainly in higher education) rather than the exception. As such, if any
special term is required it may be more appropriate to find a term that describes ‘unblended’
pedagogic situations so that these can be questioned and explored. Such refocusing of attention
would, at the least, provide a way of leading researchers out of the obfuscation and confusion that
the term ‘blended learning’ has caused.
by guest on July 4, 2015ldm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Blended Learning
25
References
Alexander, S. & Cosgrove, M. (1995) The Design of an Interactive Multimedia Program to Facilitate
Understanding of Basic Electrical Concepts. Paper presented at the 6th Conference of the European
Association for Research in Learning and Instruction, Nijmegen, September.
Australian National Training Authority (2003) Blended Learning: learning new skills in blending. Sydney:
Australian National Training Authority.
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.
Bowden, J. & Marton, F. (1998) The University of Learning: beyond quality and competence in higher education.
London: Kogan Page.
de Freitas, S. & Mayes, T. (2004) Review of E-learning Theories, Frameworks and Models. Unpublished
project report, Essex University.
Department for Education and Skills (2003) Towards an E-learning Strategy. Bristol: HMSO.
Dreyfus, H. (2001) On the Internet (Thinking in Action). London: Routledge.
Driscoll, M. (2002) Blended Learning: let’s get beyond the hype, E-learning, 1 March. Available at:
http://elearningmag.com/ltimagazine
Entwistle, N.J. & Ramsden, P. (1983) Understanding Student Learning. London: Croom Helm.
Hofmann, J. (2001) Blended Learning Case Study. Available at: www.learningcircuits.org/2001/apr2001/
hofmann.html
Kerres, M. & De Witt, C. (2003) A Didactical Framework for the Design of Blended Learning Arrangements,
Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), pp. 101-113.
Kuutti, K. (1996) Activity Theory as a Potential Framework for Human Computer Interaction Research, in
B.A. Nardi (Ed.) Context and Consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction, pp. 17-44.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Laurillard, D. (1993) Rethinking University Teaching. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Marton, F. & Booth, S. (1997) Learning and Awareness. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Marton, F. & Trigwell, K. (2000) Variatio est mater studiorum, Higher Education Research and Development, 19,
pp. 381-395.
Marton, F. & Tsui, A.B.M. (2004) Classroom Discourse and the Space of Learning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
National Committee for Inquiry into Higher Education (1997) New Approaches to Teaching: comparing cost
structures of teaching methods. Appendix 2, Higher Education in the Learning Society, Report of the National
Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. Available at: www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/
Oliver, M. & Conole, G. (2002) Supporting Structured Change: toolkits for design and evaluation, in
R. Macdonald (Ed.) Academic and Educational Development: research, evaluation and changing practice in
higher education, pp. 62-75. SEDA Research Series. London: Kogan Page.
Peters, O. (1998) Learning and Teaching in Distance Education. London: Kogan Page.
Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (1999)Understanding Learning and Teaching: the experience in higher education.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Ramsden, P. (1991) A Performance Indicator of Teaching Quality in Higher Education: the Course
Experience Questionnaire, Studies in Higher Education, 16, pp. 129-150.
Ramsden, P. (2003) Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Rovio-Johansson, A. (1999) Being Good at Teaching: exploring different ways of handling the same subject in
higher education. Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences 140.
Runesson, U. (1999) Variationens pedagogik. Skilda sätt att behandla ett matematiskt innehåll. Göteborg
Studies in Educational Sciences 129.
Singh, H. (2003) Building Effectiv
e Blended Learning Programs, Educational Technology, 43, pp. 51-54.
Skinner, B.F. (1950) Are Theories of Learning Necessary? Psychological Review, 57(4), pp. 193-216.
Valiathan, P. (2002) Blended Learning Models. Available at: www.learningcircuits.com/2002/aug2002/
valiathan.html
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
by guest on July 4, 2015ldm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Martin Oliver & Keith Trigwell
26
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.
MARTIN OLIVER is a senior lecturer in ICT in Education at the Institute of Education, University
of London, where he is part of the London Knowledge Lab. He has a Ph.D. in Educational
Technology from the Open University, United Kingdom. His main area of research is the impact of
technology on people in higher education, including topics such as evaluation, staff development
and curriculum design; he also researches how people learn from computer games. He is an editor
of the Journal of the Association for Learning Technology (ALT-J). Correspondence: Martin Oliver, London
Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education, 23-29 Emerald Street, London WC1N 3QS, United
Kingdom (m.oliver@ioe.ac.uk).
KEITH TRIGWELL is Reader in Higher Education in the Institute for the Advancement of
University Learning at the University of Oxford, United Kingdom. He has published numerous
articles on university teaching and learning and is co-author with Michael Prosser of the book
Understanding Learning and Teaching (Open University Press, 1999). His current research is
concerned with relations between research and teaching, indicators of variation in approaches to
teaching and the influence of perceived learning environments (including teaching) on student
learning. Correspondence: Keith Trigwell, Institute for the Advancement of University Learning,
University of Oxford, Littlegate House, Oxford OX1 1PT, United Kingdom
(keith.trigwell@learning.ox.ac.uk).
by guest on July 4, 2015ldm.sagepub.comDownloaded from