One thing I want you to know edfriends, is that there is not a clear definition of blended learning as of yet. According to Anthony Picciano, a reliable academic source, "There is no generally accepted definition of blended learning” (2014, p. 3). Believe that. Blended learning is some combination of online learning and face-to-face learning, but the benefits, constraints, and models are still being fleshed out. I know this can be frustrating, especially if you, like me, are currently implementing a yet-to-be-defined concept. But, this tension is also a good thing. Accepted definitions can stop us from thinking and questioning and I'm not ready for us to to stop thinking through and questioning how best to implement blended learning.
In higher ed, blended learning is generally addressed through hybrid courses. The class meets less days of the week, and in lieu of those face-to-face meetings, they meet and work online. The good news here is that academic outcomes appear to at least remain the same, students are happier, and these models simplify scheduling classroom space (Baepler, Walker, & Driessen, 2014). In K-12 education, the Christensen Institute has provided a definition that is generally accepted. I hesitate to post it here because it is so often cited and gets us thinking in a particular direction (it also takes up a lot of blog space). The state of Ohio has essentially used this definition in their soon-to-be-approved operating standards addressing the concept. Here's what most concerns me about the origins of the Christensen Institute definition. The three key writers of most materials are Harvard MBAs working in conjunction with, for the most part, charter schools and other organizations created to advance the charter school movement. That's not a problem in and of itself, but readers in education should understand that they are using business theory, not pedagogical theories or cultural theories, as a lens to promote blended learning in schools and that public schools have been a peripheral part of their work. What is a problem, is that there are no competing voices in the K-12 blended learning world. We need voices from trained educational researchers and we need them soon.
As a PhD in Education, here's my take on the current state of affairs. Revised in 2010, the US Department of Education (2010) released a meta-analysis, which compiled all of the peer-reviewed research on the educational outcomes of online vs. face-to-face vs. a combination (blended) of the two and found slight gains in blended learning over either purely online or face-to-face. This is promising and this is something we should be studying further. Having said that, what makes blended learning blended learning? The answer is a core of integrated online content, created by teachers or purchased, that provides student control and flexibility within brick-and-mortar institutions. This means that blended learning is not just a new arrangement of the classroom environment, but a student-centered pedagogy. The technology facilitates flexibility and student control that was previously impossible (or at least incredibly difficult) with one human instructor.
The power of blended learning is in a more personalized and flexible school experience. I'm particularly interested in what can happen in a public high school if students have a day or two "freed up" by the use of online content. What sorts of authentic learning experiences could be taking place during a school day? Internships? Interdisciplinary work? Volunteering? Start-ups? And how could this also benefit an overworked teacher? Could a day of "office hours" benefit the quality of teaching that takes place face-to-face?
One serious concern I have at this moment is the choice of online content. I think teachers are our most valuable resource in designing high quality, pedagogically correct online content on an LMS like Schoology, but this requires time and training in online course design. Purchasing content is easier and some solutions are so comprehensive that it is very tempting to allow a company to make a lot of instructional decisions for you. Don't get me wrong, there are some great for-purchase products out there, but most of the ones I would feel comfortable recommending, like membean or TenMarks, are programs meant to cover a relatively rote portion of content. The full-course products that I have discovered alongside of teachers mirror lecture-based, cognitivist, filling-the-pail pedagogies. I think, we, as an educational community can create and share our own higher quality online content, but I will write that post on another day.
In higher ed, blended learning is generally addressed through hybrid courses. The class meets less days of the week, and in lieu of those face-to-face meetings, they meet and work online. The good news here is that academic outcomes appear to at least remain the same, students are happier, and these models simplify scheduling classroom space (Baepler, Walker, & Driessen, 2014). In K-12 education, the Christensen Institute has provided a definition that is generally accepted. I hesitate to post it here because it is so often cited and gets us thinking in a particular direction (it also takes up a lot of blog space). The state of Ohio has essentially used this definition in their soon-to-be-approved operating standards addressing the concept. Here's what most concerns me about the origins of the Christensen Institute definition. The three key writers of most materials are Harvard MBAs working in conjunction with, for the most part, charter schools and other organizations created to advance the charter school movement. That's not a problem in and of itself, but readers in education should understand that they are using business theory, not pedagogical theories or cultural theories, as a lens to promote blended learning in schools and that public schools have been a peripheral part of their work. What is a problem, is that there are no competing voices in the K-12 blended learning world. We need voices from trained educational researchers and we need them soon.
As a PhD in Education, here's my take on the current state of affairs. Revised in 2010, the US Department of Education (2010) released a meta-analysis, which compiled all of the peer-reviewed research on the educational outcomes of online vs. face-to-face vs. a combination (blended) of the two and found slight gains in blended learning over either purely online or face-to-face. This is promising and this is something we should be studying further. Having said that, what makes blended learning blended learning? The answer is a core of integrated online content, created by teachers or purchased, that provides student control and flexibility within brick-and-mortar institutions. This means that blended learning is not just a new arrangement of the classroom environment, but a student-centered pedagogy. The technology facilitates flexibility and student control that was previously impossible (or at least incredibly difficult) with one human instructor.
The power of blended learning is in a more personalized and flexible school experience. I'm particularly interested in what can happen in a public high school if students have a day or two "freed up" by the use of online content. What sorts of authentic learning experiences could be taking place during a school day? Internships? Interdisciplinary work? Volunteering? Start-ups? And how could this also benefit an overworked teacher? Could a day of "office hours" benefit the quality of teaching that takes place face-to-face?
One serious concern I have at this moment is the choice of online content. I think teachers are our most valuable resource in designing high quality, pedagogically correct online content on an LMS like Schoology, but this requires time and training in online course design. Purchasing content is easier and some solutions are so comprehensive that it is very tempting to allow a company to make a lot of instructional decisions for you. Don't get me wrong, there are some great for-purchase products out there, but most of the ones I would feel comfortable recommending, like membean or TenMarks, are programs meant to cover a relatively rote portion of content. The full-course products that I have discovered alongside of teachers mirror lecture-based, cognitivist, filling-the-pail pedagogies. I think, we, as an educational community can create and share our own higher quality online content, but I will write that post on another day.