BLENDED LEARNING

BLENDED BLENDED LEARNINGLEARNINGBLENDED BLENDED LEARNINGLEARNING

„…„…becausebecause peoplepeople are no are no

single-method learners !“single-method learners !“

Technology Enhanced Learning

2

Overview

1. What is blended learning?2. Blended learning theories3. Blended learning design/ingredients4. Blended learning models5. How to build an effective blend6. ALN principles for blended

environments7. Blended works – here´s proof


3

What is blended learning?

… a solution that combines several different delivery methods, such as collaboration software, Web-based courses, EPSS and knowledge management practices.

… learning that mixes various event-based activities, including face-to-face classrooms, live e-learning and self-paced learning.


4


a planned combination of approaches

• Coaching by a supervisor• Participation in an online class• Breakfast with colleagues• Competency descriptions• Reading on the beach• Reference to a manual• Collegial relationships• Participation in seminars, workshops,

online communities


5


Blends are characterized by …

… customization… integration

… purpose… flexibility

… redundancy


6

Blended learning theories

“Learning theories aren´t like religion. You don´t have to pick Catholic or Baptist or Muslim, and shun the others. The goal is to have the right theory for the right situation.”

Allison Rossett


7

Blended learning theories

The situation is dependant upon……the people you serve…the nature of the skills they must

master…the context in which they are to

perform situational instructional design

model


8

BLENDED LEARNIN

G THEORYVygots

ky

Piaget

Gery

Bloom

Merrill

Gagné

Clark

Keller

A blend of learning theories


9

Blended learning design

5 key ingredients for blended learning:

1 Live events2 Self-paced learning3 Collaboration4 Assessment5 Performance support materials


10

Ingredients for blended learning

Collaboration

Performance support materials

Live Event

Assessment

Self-paced learnin

g

Live events

Self-paced learni

ng

formal and informal, technology- and people-based, independent and convivial, directive and discovery-oriented


11

Ingredient 1: Live events

• live, synchronous events are main “ingredient” of blended learning

• nothing can replace the ability to tap the expertise of a live instructor

• J. Keller “ARCS-Model” of Motivation


12

Attention

gaining and (!) keeping the learner´s attention

+ begin class by telling a joke+ or by polling the learners with a

thought-provoking question= engaged online-learners, who are

prepared for learning


13

Relevance

learners only stay focused when they believe the training is relevant to their specific situation

+ use examples or analogies familiar to the audience

+ show how course information can be used to solve real problems


14

Confidence

learners must have confidence in their skills and abilities in order to remain motivated

+ make classroom expectations clear+ give learners ample time to practice

their new skills= experience of success and

confidence


15

Satisfaction

learners must be satisfied with the results of their learning experiences in order to remain motivated

+ provide learners with opportunities to use new skills


16

Ingredient 2: Self-paced learning

• self-paced, asynchronous learning events add significant value to the blended learning equation

• must be based on effective implementation of traditional and modern instructional design principles

Multimedia and Modern Design Theory


17

Ruth Clark (2002):• The Multimedia Principle

adding graphics to text can improve learning

• The Contiguity Principle placing text near graphics improves learning

• The Modality Principle explaining graphics with audio improves learning


18

Ingredient 3: Collaboration

• humans are social beings the power of learning is augmented when opportunities for meaningful collaboration exist

• 2 types of collaboration produce effective results:peer-to-peer peer-to-mentor


19

Ingredient 4: Assessment

• enables learners to “test out” of content they already know, fine-tuning their own blended learning experience

• measures the effectiveness of all other learning modalities and events

6 Levels of Cognitive Learning (B. Bloom, 1956)


20

6 Levels of Assessment1 Knowledge2 Comprehension3 Application4 Analysis5 Synthesis6 Evaluation

“higher level” assessment


21

Ingredient 5: Performance support

materials• most important ingredient

promotes “learning retention and transfer” to the work environment

• several flavors:printable referencesjob aidsPDA downloads


22

Blended learning models

NIIT categorizes blended learning intothree models:

Skill-driven learning Attitude-driven learning Competency-driven learning


23

Skill-driven learning model

combines self-paced learning with instructor or facilitator support to develop specific knowledge and skills

requires regular feedback and support from the trainer, facilitator or peer


24


Blended learning that´s skill-driven mixes interaction with a facilitator through e-mail, discussion forums and face-to-face meetings with self-paced learning, such as Web-based courses and books.

analogous to a chemical reaction


25


Survey by the Masie Center (2000)88% of learners and 91% of managers recommend that the trainer should be an active part of the online training program. They placed a high value on having the trainer monitor progress and contact the learner, evaluate online project-work, build and facilitate an online-community and be available via email or threaded discussion to respond to content questions.


26


Combining self-paced learning with facilitator support …

keeps the learner from feeling isolated

assists in the successful completion of the self-paced modules

works best when people are learning content at the knowledge or application levels


27


Techniques to incorporate skill-driven learning include:

creating a tightly scheduled group learning plan

using instructor-led overview and closing sessions

using synchronous learning labs providing support to learners

trough email


28

Skill-driven blended learning plan

Technology-based techniques

Non-technology based techniques

Announcement LMS, email push flyer, mail, phone

Overview session email, Webinar traditional classroom

Self-paced learning

Web-based tutorial, e-books, EPSS

articles, books, job-aids

Query resolution email, FAQ, instant messenger

face-to-face meeting

Demonstration Web meeting, simulations

traditional classroom

Practice simulations workbook assignment

Feedback email face-to-face meeting, print report

Closing session email, Webinar traditional classroom

Certification Web-based test print test


29

Attitude-driven model blends traditional classroom-based

learning with online collaborative learning events

mixes various events and delivery media to develop specific behavior

at times, the nature of the content, as well as the desired outcome (developing attitudes and behavior) necessitates the inclusion of collaborative learning


30

Attitude-driven model

content that deals with developing new attitudes and behaviors requires peer-to-peer interaction and a risk-free environment

For example soft skill courses: Role playing


31

Attitude-driven blended learning plan



Announcement LMS, email push flyer, mail, phone

Overview session email, Webinar traditional classroom

Self-paced learning

Web-based tutorial, e-books, simulations

articles, books, workbooks

Query resolution email, FAQ, instant messenger

face-to-face meeting with expert

Assessment simulations print test

Practice simulations role-playing with peers

Collaborative session

Webinar, chat role-playing with peers

Feedback and Closing session

email, Webinar traditional classroom


32

Competency-driven model

blends performance support tools with knowledge management resources and mentoring to develop workplace competencies

to capture and transfer tacit knowledge, learners must interact with and observe experts on the job

for learning that facilitates the transfer of tacit knowledge


33

Competency-driven blended learning plan



Assign guides or mentors

email phone

Create a community

space on the Internet or intranet

study groups

Practice email, discussion groups, simulations

workshops, face-to-face meetings, phone

Hold discussion discussion forums, chatface-to-face meetings, workshops, phone

Resolve queries email, instant messenger

face-to-face meeting

Capture learningstories and data compiled in a knowledge repository

white papers


34

How to build an effective blend…

• Consider:stability & urgencytouches & costslearning resources & experience


35

Long development

Short development

TIME TO IMPLEMENT

stable

volatile

CONTENT

STABILITY

Simulations

Scenarios

Workshops

Web learning modules

Video & Audio CD/DVDs

Online communities

Live e-learning

Mentoring

E-mentoring

Online resource links

On-the-job training

Online bulletin boards

Print job aids

Email

Workbooks

Role modeling

Collegial connections

Live e-learning

Documentation


36

HighLow

COSTS

TOUCHES

Human

System

On-the-job training

Coaching

Online communities

Email

Role modeling

Mentoring

Instructor-led classroom

Workshops

Live e-learning

Workbooks

Online knowledge databases



Simulations


Scenarios

Performance support tools

Online help systems


37

Independent

Social

EXPERIENCE

Instruction

Extensions

LEARNING

RESOURCES Live e-learning

Live simulations

On-the-job training

Workshops

Workbooks

Documentation

Scenarios



Coaching

Mentoring

Listservs

Online communities

Email

Work teams

Print job aids

Online help systems


Online self-assessments


38

How to build an effective blend…

Deliver assets and guidance Work cross-functionally Encourage independence & conviviality Focus on flexible options for employees &

customers Put people in the middle of the blend Communicate, communicate, communicate Embrace redundancy Take on key initiatives and measure results


39

12 ALN Principles for blended environments

1) Begin with a shared vision of how technology can improve teaching and learning.

2) Develop efficiences in cost and scalability.

3) Identify ways to meet the needs of individual learners.

4) Provide continuous support for role adjustment.


40

5) Provide active institutional support and recognition for faculty.

6) Ensure learning design appropriately integrates face-to-face and online components.

7) Promote metacognitive reflection on the process of learning.

8) Provide timely feedback and clear expectations for response time.


41

9) Integrate student services.10) Plan early for course development.11) Provide continuous training &

support.12) Choose appropriate technology.


42

What are the advantages of blended learning?

• greater access to a range of appropriate, personalized and individualized learning, teaching and resources

• greater accommodation for learners and teachers of diverse ages, styles, expertise, nationalities and cultures, who can connect from multiple settings such as homes, workplaces, libraries, countries,…


43

What are the advantages of blended learning?

• greater flexibility and cost effectiveness in terms of mission, scalability, breadth, time, value and infrastructure

• greater student and faculty satisfaction


44

Blended works – here´s proof

Dean et al. (2001)study about the effectiveness of combined delivery modalities for distance learning and resident learning providing several linked options for learners, in addition to classroom training, increased what they learned


45


DeLacey & Leonard (2002)technology and distance in education at the Harvard Business School students not only learned more when online sessions were added to traditional courses; their interaction and satisfaction improved as well


46


Thomson & NETg (2003) speedier performance on real world tasks by people who learned through a blended strategy – faster than those studying through e-learning alone


47


Thomson Job Impact Study (1999) focused on teaching elements of Microsoft Excel to three different groups of people

group 1: blended approachgroup 2: e-learning approachgroup 3: control group/no training


48

Group 1• 5 Excel scenario-based exercises

that provided a realistic business situation that could be applied to real-world tasks

• arranged in ascending order of difficulty

• access to supporting materials (NETg Excel Fundamentals Learning Objects, online mentors, FAQs, relevant Web sites)


49

Group 2• completed standard NETg E-

learning Excel Fundamentals course

• no scenarios, but the same Excel learning objectives

• option of consulting with an online mentor, FAQs, book links, pertinent Web sites


50

Results Group 1 showed a 30% increase in

accuracy of performance over Group 2 159% more accuracy than the untrained

Control group (Group 2: 99%) Group 1 completed real-world tasks

41% faster than the e-learning group (SBEs enhanced the learners understanding of procedural knowledge)


51

Results having access to mentors within

the online instruction was essential to the success of both groups, but particularly to the SBE participants


52


Rovai & Jordan (2004)Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses

68 graduate students – 3 groups


53

• Group 1/traditional course:3 hours face-to-face time/weektextbook study assignmentslecture with class-wide discussionssome collaborative group workindividual work


54

• Group 2/blended course14 face-to-face hours/semestergroup simulationsproject presentationsguest speakersinteractive videosdiscussionsBlackboardSM e-learning systemasynchronous dialogues


55

• Group 3/fully online courseBlackboardSM e-learning systemtextbook study assignmentscollaborative online discussion topicsauthentic assessment tasks


56

• InstrumentationCCS Classroom Community Scale20 self-report items/ 2 scales:

Connectedness(cohesion, community spirit, trust,

interdependence)

Learning(sharing educational goals, experiencing

educational benefits by interacting with others)

5-point-Likert-scale


57

Results blended courses produce a

stronger sense of community among students than either traditional or fully online courses

trad. course

blended course

fully online course

connectedness

30.78 34.91 28.83

learning 34.03 36.17 33.01


58


Benbunan-Fich & Hiltz (1999)Impacts of asynchronous learning networks on individual and group problem solving: A field experiment140 students – 4 groups

Task: Solving an ethical case scenario2x2 factorial designwith/without ALN x alone/group


59

• Individual/manual conditionsolved case individually, in an in-class exercise

• Individual/online conditionsubmitted their individual responses in a computer conference

• Group/manual conditionteam members solved case by interacting in a face-to-face session

• Group/online conditionteam members interacted asynchronously for a week using computer conference as the only means of communication to discuss and solve the case


60

• ResultsTeamwork Effects Result

length of reports G>I

Solution satisfaction G>I

Online effects

solution quality O>M

length of reports O>M

Interaction Effects

length of the reports GxO

self reported learning GxO

Group Perception

collab. learning perception GO=GM

perception of discussion quality

GO<GM


61

• Results ALN enhances the quantity and

quality of the solutions to an ethical case scenario

combination of teamwork with ALN-support increases the student´s perceptions of learning

seems that ALN is equally suited for collaborative learning activities as traditional synchronous methods


62

Thanks for your attention!


63

References

Barbian, J. (2002). Blended works: Here´s proof. Online Learning Magazine. Available: http://www.onlinelearningmag.com/onlinelearning/magazine/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1526767

Benbunan-Fich, R. & Hiltz, S.R. (1999). Impacts of asynchronous learning networks on individual and group problem solving: A field experiment. Group Decision and Negotiation, 8, 409-426.

Carman, J.M. (2002). Blended learning design: Five key ingredients. Available: http://www.knowledgenet.com/pdf/Blended%20Learning%20Design_1028.PDF


64

DeLacey, B.J. & Leonard, D.A. (2002). Case study on technology and distance in education at the Harvard Business School. Educational Technology and Society, 5, 13-28.

Julian, E.H. & Boone, C. (2001). Blended learning solutions: Improving the way companies manage intellectual capital. An IDC White Paper. Available: http://suned.sun.com/US/images/final_IDC_SES_6_22_01.pdf

Lefoe, G., Gunn, C. & Hedberg, J. (2002). Recommendations for teaching in a distributed learning environment: The student´s perspective. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 18, 40-56. Available: http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet18/lefoe.html

Moore, J.C. (2004). ALN Principles for blended environments: A collaboration. Available: http://www.aln.org/publications/books/alnprinciples2.pdf


65

Rossett, A., Douglis, F. & Frazee, R.V. (2003). Strategies for building blended learning. Learning Circuits, ASTD online magazine. Available: http://www.learningcircuits.org/2003/jul2003/rossett.htm

Rovai, A.P. & Jordan, H.M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning.

Valiathan, P. (2002). Blended learning models. Learning Circuits. Available: http://www.learningcircuits.org/2002/aug2002/valiathan.html

BLENDED LEARNING

Documents

Transcript of BLENDED LEARNING