Content uploaded by Ali Sharaf Al Musawi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ali Sharaf Al Musawi on Apr 20, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Musawi / TUSED / 8(2) 2011 3
Blended Learning
Ali Sharaf Al MUSAWI
1
1
Assoc.Prof.Dr., Sultan Qaboos University, Instructional and Learning Technologies, COE, Sultanate of Oman
Invited Paper
The original language of the article is English (v.8, n.2, June 2011, pp.3-8)
INTRODUCTION
Blended (or hybrid) learning is a way through which instructors may use various forms
of delivery to enhance their students' learning. Many institutions widely blend their course
offerings preferring this mode over single one to give more choices of interaction and
participation to their clients and enable instructors to select tools and components from
diverse 'pool' of blending options. This is particularly important for science education when it
comes to practical skills. The students need to acquire these skills while practicing them in
laboratory sessions supported by pre-post online interactions to measure their achievement of
instructional objectives.
Definition
Blended learning can be defined as a delivery method that combines a variety of
traditional and non-traditional instructional techniques, tools, and approaches to design,
develop, manage and evaluate the learning process; and a blended program is one where
between (30-79%) of the program content is delivered online (Allen, Seaman & Garrett,
2007).
It is a combination of students' needs, technological feasibility, and a professional
preference toward face-to-face instruction to provide a perfect environment that combines the
best features of face-to-face, videoconferencing, and online instruction. These media are
designed to complement each other and promote learning processes (Khan, 2005).
The Benefits of Blending
1. Flexibility: it offers self-learning modules that may be completed by the student at
his/her pace and/or time to enhance/substitute the classroom instruction.
Correspondence Author email: asmusawi@squ.edu.om © ISSN:1304-6020
TÜRK FEN EĞİTİMİ DERGİSİ
Yıl 8, Sayı 2, Haziran 2011
Journal of
TURKISH SCIENCE EDUCATION
Volume 8, Issue 2, June 2011
http://www.tused.org
Musawi / TUSED / 8(2) 2011 4
2. Accessibility: combining various delivery methods with instructor-led instruction should
extend the students' access and choices to learn knowledge from any location until face-
to-face meetings take place.
3. Feasibility: while it is sometimes expensive to produce Web-based content of high
quality, live face-to-face instruction also involves expensive facilities, transportation,
buildings, and payments. Blended learning can reduce and balance these costs to the
minimum by combining various delivery methods that use simple self-paced materials,
documents, case studies, recorded events, text assignments, and PowerPoint
presentations.
Design and Use of Blended Learning (ASSURE Model)
1. Analyze institutional and pedagogical contexts.
Blended learning designers should analyze the preparedness of the institution in terms
of: technical/financial infrastructure (e.g. Hardware, software, servers, bandwidth,
security), administration and personnel, and ethical/political philosophy (e.g. copyright
regulations, admissions procedures, and course offerings).
Designers should look into learners' characteristics and needs (audience analysis) to
know their demographic information, academic levels, geographic distribution, prior
knowledge, and anxiety level. They need to identify the ethical issues involved in
delivery processes. Issues such as equal opportunity, cultural diversity, and internet
accessibility should be addressed in a way that does not offend learners. Special needs
learners should be provided with alternate opportunities to learn.
Designers should also determine learning content best to be delivered (content analysis)
and analyze it in line with the pre-determined learners' characteristics. They should
determine concept sequence, design, development, and strategies in a blended learning
method (Dziuban, Moskal & Hartman, 2005).
Designers need then to state learning objectives (goal analysis). These objectives are
behaviorally described to promote active participation, discussions, and critical
thinking.
2. Select appropriate instructional modes and forms.
Blended learning designers should develop their blended delivery techniques in a way
that enables every learner to go through the same experience of the blended
components.
Instructional modes such as: interaction, discussion, moderation, demonstration,
tutorials, simulations, role-playing, modeling, debate, field trips, case studies, and
lectures presentations can be used to construct learning processes in the following
forms (Dziuban, Moskal & Hartman, 2005; Khan, 2005):
A. Blending offline and online learning: This form is a combination of traditional
classroom (offline) with Internet/Intranet (online) learning as in the case of a
Web-based program and an instructor-led classroom.
B. Blending self-paced and live, collaborative learning: This form involves either
learner-controlled on-demand self learning or dynamic knowledge-sharing
collaborative learning among many learners. Both include a regulatory change or
new product followed by a moderated, live, online, peer-to-peer discussions.
C. Blending structured and unstructured learning: A combination of active
Musawi / TUSED / 8(2) 2011 5
conversations and documents from unstructured learning events with on-demand
structured knowledge repositories.
D. Blending custom content with off-the-shelf content: Off-the-shelf generic self-
paced content can be customized with a blend of live experiences (classroom or
online) or with content customization. Using off-shelf standardized objects opens
the door to improve the user experience while minimizing cost.
E. Blending learning, practice, and performance support: Supplementing learning
(beginning a new job-task) with practice (using job-task simulation models) and
just-in-time performance support tools that facilitate the appropriate execution of
job-tasks. New tools provide packages of computer based work, collaboration,
and performance support tools.
3. Select appropriate technology and resources.
Blended learning designer, at this stage, need to create blended environment and tools
of delivery and select from myriad combinations of technologies that can be used in
blended learning environments and best fit the learning prescribed modes/forms. These
technologies may include: learning management system, content management system,
reusable learning objects, wireless technologies, peer-to-peer collaboration tools,
digital libraries, online games, assistive technologies, digital portfolios, e-books,
intelligent agents, tablet PCs, virtual worlds, language support, Weblogs, Wikis,
massive multiplayer, handheld devices and wearable technologies in addition to
physical classroom and face-to-face media/technologies (Bogle, Cook, Day & Swan,
2009). For example, scientific concepts such as velocity, momentum, and friction
should be designed in a way that utilizes the technological innovation and multimedia
abilities in forms of learning objects.
Designers should also perform the interface design and ensure its usability in order to
facilitate interactivity through the user interface. They need to ensure that the user
interface integrates and supports various components (such as: structure, navigation,
arrangement, and help) to enable the student to toggle between them.
Designers need to organize and offer various offline and online resources for students.
These resources may be provided in forms of: consultation, private tuition, FAQs,
email/chat help, library, and website links.
4. Use resources, and methods.
At this stage, the management of the blended learning should be conducted.
Infrastructure, facilities, and logistics to use and implement blended delivery modes
should be secured. This involves more work than that of a single mode delivery
(Kirwin, Swan & Breakwell, 2009).
The following processes such as: LMS administration, materials upload, students'
registration and enrollment, and class scheduling and allocation should be completed
at this stage too. Since learners in the online part of the blended education are located
in different time zones, implementers (instructors, facilitators, moderators, tutors,
technicians) should ensure their accessibility to servers.
Instructors should deliver the course materials for the students in blended mode to
achieve intended learning outcomes using traditional and online instructional strategies
considering factors such as: learner outcome satisfaction, balance of delivery, tutor and
peer engagement, workload, selected technologies, perceived career benefit, and
student satisfaction.
Musawi / TUSED / 8(2) 2011 6
The on-campus part of the blended education should be considered as a critical aspect
of the development of a learning community. While such communities could be
developed online, face-to-face interaction with other students and the implementers
greatly facilitate communication and support experience during the online part. Online
materials can be learned in a synchronous or asynchronous format. Instructors may
consider a number of adjustments to further enhance the communication aspects of the
blended learning (Bonk & Graham, in press).
5. Request interaction/participation.
In this stage of the blended instructional process, activities should focus on learners'
engagement through reports, presentations, discourses, small group debates, and
threaded discussions.
Depending on the blend format, students should interact in face-to-face or online
environments with their colleagues and instructors.
6. Evaluate and review.
At this stage, instructors should qualitatively and quantitatively asses their students'
achievement of learning outcomes, performance, participation in the discussions,
contribution to activities, and understanding of concept explained (Ramsey et al.,
2009).
Designers and implementers should evaluate the usability of the blended learning, the
effectiveness of its components, and the feasibility of the delivery mode used.
Summary of the Literature Findings
Research evidence shows that (Allen, Seaman & Garrett, 2007; Freddolino, Blaschke &
Rypkema, 2009; Kirwin, Swan & Breakwell, 2009):
1. A dramatic rise in using blended learning approaches to occur in the coming years
prevailing especially in workplace learning settings where it acts as a replacement for or
extension of face-to-face environments.
2. Blended learning is generally not part of an institutional transition strategy from face-to-
face to fully online courses, but rather a discrete option which institutions choose on its
own merits.
3. There was a small but significant grade improvement for blended learning courses over
entirely online courses but it is difficult to attribute this grade increase to the mode of
course delivery.
4. The mode of delivery of course content does not affect student satisfaction or the ability of
students to perform well in formal assessment.
5. There are always technological challenges and the blended learning must always seek to
be on the cutting edge of technology, at the same time providing support for students and
instructors.
CONCLUSION
While learning technologies and delivery media continue to evolve and progress, it
seems that organizations (corporate, government, and academic) favor blended learning
models over single delivery mode programs. Courses with reduced classroom meetings or seat
time will grow as this reduces the organizational physical and financial burdens and
Musawi / TUSED / 8(2) 2011 7
simultaneously can increase learning outcomes. While the role of the instructor will definitely
continue to shift with various instructional skills including coaching, mentoring, and
counselling, the next few years may also witness a specialist certificates and perhaps even
postgraduate degrees for blended learning instructors. Learners, on the other hand, will be less
tied to traditional calendars for learning where they will be situated in a company or other
type of work setting and report back daily or weekly through web cams, asynchronous
discussions, desktop videoconferencing, instant messaging, and wearable computing devices
(Bonk & Graham, in press). This means that blended learning will increasingly involve
authentic, on demand, and mobile learning mode by the use of handheld devices; especially
cell phones to bring pictures, charts, graphs, animations, and video-clips that the learner can
manipulate through online case-learning, scenario learning, simulations and role play, and
problem-based learning.
Musawi / TUSED / 8(2) 2011 8
REFERENCE
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., & Garrett, R. (2007). Blending In: The Extent and Promise of
Blended Education in the United States; Sloan-C: USA; Retrieved on 10/6/2009 at:
http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/Blending_In.pdf
Bogle, L., Cook, V., Day, S. & Swan, K. (2009). Blended Program Development: Applying
the Quality Matters and Community of Inquiry Frameworks to Ensure High Quality
Design and Implementation, Journal of the Research Center for Educational
Technology (RCET), 5(2), 51-66, Summer 2009; Retrieved on 10/6/2009 at:
http://www.rcetj.org/files/2009summer/RCETJ_5_2_blendedlearning2.pdf
Bonk, C. J. & Graham, C. R. (Eds.). (In press). Handbook of blended learning: Global
Perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing; Retrieved on
10/6/2009 at: http://www.publicationshare.com/c083_bonk_future.pdf
Dziuban, C., Moskal, P., & Hartman, J. (2005). Higher Education, Blended Learning and the
Generations: Knowledge is Power-No More, In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.),
Elements of Quality Online Education: Engaging Communities. Needham, MA: Sloan
Center for Online Education, 2005; Retrieved on 10/6/2009 at:
http://tlc.ucalgary.ca/documents/chuck.doc
Freddolino, P., Blaschke, C. & Rypkema, S. (2009). Increasing Access to Graduate
Education: A Blended MSW Program, Journal of the Research Center for Educational
Technology (RCET), 5(2), 27-50, Summer 2009; Retrieved on 10/6/2009 at:
http://www.rcetj.org/files/2009summer/RCETJ_5_2_blendedlearning2.pdf
Khan, B. (2005). Managing e-Learning Strategies: Design, Delivery, Implementation and
Evaluation, Information Science Publishing: USA.
Kirwin, S., Swan, J., & Breakwell, H. (2009). Comparing Online Learning with Blended
Learning in a Teacher Training Program, Journal of the Research Center for
Educational Technology (RCET), 5(2), 67-74, Summer 2009; Retrieved on 10/6/2009
at: http://www.rcetj.org/files/2009summer/RCETJ_5_2_blendedlearning2.pdf
Ramsey, C., Hawkins, A., Housner, L., Wiegand, R., & Bulger, S. (2009). Finding the Recipe
for the Best Blend: The Evolution and Assessment of a Blended Master’s Degree
Program, Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology (RCET), 5(2), 3-
26, Summer 2009; Retrieved on 10/6/2009 at:
http://www.rcetj.org/files/2009summer/RCETJ_5_2_blendedlearning2.pdf