Introduction

The use of educational technology (ET) continues to change the way students learn both within the physical and non-classroom environment. Focus has shifted from solely using ET within the school to using it at home and on the move for both student and educator. This shift has resulted in a form of learning referred to as blended learning. Blended learning makes use of both the school classroom as well as online environments to support and teach curriculum. This curriculum is delivered via various eLearning techniques. eLearning is the use of electronic mediums to teach students. As blended learning and eLearning both make use of computer (electronic) hardware and software, there is a need for the lay person, teacher, parent and administrator, to understand what is the most beneficial way to make use of these learning platforms/techniques.

Statement of Topic

The purpose of this research is to determine the specifics of ET and blended learning when being used co-operatively. As blended learning becomes more of a gradual norm within the education system, for both students and teachers, focus has to be placed on what will avail from making use of ET and blended learning collaboratively. Understanding this, it could then be hypothesised that ET and blended learning will provide a wider potential for successes in learning. The purpose of this review is to affirm the noted benefits of each and how past successes with regards to technology in classroom can be implemented and incorporated using both classroom and non-classroom technologies.

 Literature Review

Preface

The intention of this literature review is to examine how practices involving the use of ET and blended learning have supported learning within the K-12 and post-secondary realms of education. By examining a number of recent academic resources, that captures a view of present day issues surrounding this topic(s), a developing consensus will hopefully become apparent to eLearning through the use of ET in a blended learning situation.

Understanding the Current State of eLearning

eLearning, (or variant capitalization/hyphenation of it) is a process by which students learn material that is not taught to them from an educator or instructor directly. It makes use of electronic (the “e” in eLearning) mediums, or ET, to deliver content and curriculum to students. eLearning is a technology based process, and as such, does not remain static. It has evolved over time, just as technology has evolved. Today, typical eLearning instructional media will be shared via the internet, CD/DVD, workstations and non-volatile memory (ex. USB drives). These mediums allow for both synchronous and asynchronous communication.

As with any delivery platform, eLearning can be very multidimensional. A timely account of this is The eLearning Experience: General Truths and the Chinese Learning Experience by Lin-Ching Chen Wang et al (2011). It outlines the goals and obstacles that any eLearner would experience, as well as, the process of establishing effective distance education in China based on practices established by Southwest University (SWU). This is an interesting case example, because China presents many challenges based on its geographical size and gaps of communication backbone in the overly rural areas of the country. Wang et al (2011) observations can be concluded below:

Goals	Obstacles
Deliver education to students who would otherwise not have access to it.	Lack of trained instructors who are familiar with eLearning/distance education.
Save money vs. traditional brick and mortar schools.	Students having to deal with asynchronous learning.
Standardization of learning outcomes for students across a large geographical area.	Lack of choice due to oversight of government.
	Limited bandwidth to handle media rich content. End user limitations due to availability of technology and training.

 

While I found these observations to be very relevant to the state of eLearning in both Canada and China, they were more just general rationalizations developed with little raw data to support them. Yet, from an educator’s perspective, this glimpse into the current state of eLearning in China exposes some of the issues present in today’s schools and educational institutions. As Wang et al (2011) note, “we are all trying to provide more and better education for more and more diverse populations, and we all have available to us the same set of technologies and strategies.”

This last comment leads me into my next paper that addresses the human aspect of eLearning, something I feel Wang et al failed to speak to given the comparisons they were drawing between Chinese students and other eLearners worldwide. The paper is entitled, eLearning for Pluralism: The Culture of eLearning in Building a Knowledge Society, by Gulsun Kurabacak (2011). The author attempts to rationalize the need for pluralism[1] in the delivery of education content via eLearning. Using experts in the field of education, Kurabacak (2011) used qualitative and quantitative research to, as identified by the author, “to highlight the electronic aspects, applications and issues surrounding online culture to discuss and analyze cultural effects on eLearning.” Through the use of surveying, 27 experts (14 females and 13 males) report their findings on what is the most important aspect of eLearning in the context of pluralistic learning. Of notable theorizing by Krabacak (2011), is that eLearning for pluralism, therefore, should generate new forms and tools of gathering data, manipulating and storing knowledge, transforming information, and working together over distance and time to build a knowledge society efficiently, and transfer global knowledge effectively to the new contexts of social justice. An objective reader, with regards to this study, may question who these experts were, even given the Delphi study methodology – no credentials were provided. As well, some of the drawn conclusions, while proactive, did little to highlight the already existing challenges faced by students in a face-to-face classroom/institution.

Understanding the Current State of Blended Learning

While eLearning continues to shift in the mediums of use, blended learning is gradually moving away from its early days of limited usage to a more practical and expected usage. Blended learning differs from eLearning, as it is an instructional approach, where the latter is the delivery mechanisms of content. From Blended Teaching and Learning, Liz Pape (2010) writes, “that with blended learning, teachers can use online tools and resources as part of their daily classroom instruction … (this) blended teaching helps teachers find an approach that is more engaging for this generation of students.” As I will discuss further on, the choice of online tools is not really the determining factor in moving from traditional to blended learning. Understanding the pedagogy to effective instruction is the most important part, not just simply becoming aware of web 2.0 technologies as Pape (2010) suggests.

Connecting these approaches, as Liz Pape identified, becomes the crucial aspect of blended learning today. Linda De-George Walker and Mary Keefe (2010) attempt to highlight the need for this pedagogical approach to blended learning in their paper entitled, Self-determined blended learning: a case study of blended learning design. The authors’ state (2010), “Time-poor students with commitments to family, earning, wellness, sport, technology and other interests are demanding a range of access points to learning and information.”  These access points are what make up this case study. The authors (professors) were involved in taking a traditional face-to-face course and making it more accessible to a variety of students:

“Consequently, the course was remodelled so that, irrespective of campus or mode of enrolment (on-campus or off-campus), all students were positioned as adult learners and had the opportunity to choose how they wished to engage with the course according to their own personal learning needs, preferences and situations. Thus, a blended learning design response was envisaged; one that incorporated face-to-face, online and self-directed learning experiences.” (Walker and Keefe, 2010, p. 4)

This approach, as indicated by the authors, is the current state of blended learning today. It is not about the technology, but about the students. I was impressed to see that blended learning environment they constructed did not penalize students who did not engage in all module based activities. While the results of this case study are enticing, some questions can be raised about the validity of the data collected to support the students’ appreciation of this blended course (simple interviews and surveys we conducted; no use of a test group to the control group). For those who are interested in developing a blended learning environment, this paper would be a good place to begin. As Walker and Keefe (2010) substantially conclude about blended learning today, “… it is not the role of the teacher to prescribe the nature of the blend, but to develop courses with multiple means of representation, expression and engagement and to scaffold and support students in the creation of their own individualised blend.”

Making Use of eLearning Tools in a Blended Learning Environment

Mikko Vesisenaho et al (2010), provide a clear example of how eLearning tools and blended learning have merged into one uniform teaching platform. In their paper entitled, Blended learning with everyday technologies to activate students’ collaborative learning, the reader is presented with the overall goal: “The aim is to stress the possibility to create flexible, collaborative learning environments using ICT (information and communication technologies) where needed instead of traditional computer laboratories (Vesisenaho et al., 2010, p. 272). By conducting two case studies that made use of qualitative and quantitative methods, the authors were trying to gauge the level of collaborative involvement of the students by measuring their use of shared lecture notes (Qaiku; a Finnish micro blogging site) and overall engagement in a wiki. The later was measured for satisfaction of the process through a post activity survey. From this study, the reader can see how information and communication technologies can become educational technology that supports blended learning. As the authors (2010) conclude, “mobile technologies and social software allow new ways for designing teaching and learning situations.” While this paper speaks highly to the benefits of using these technologies, little if anything is addressed with regards to challenges or barriers in implementation on a wide scale basis. A critical reader may ask and wonder why some students did not even use the social software to share lecture notes? Examining this marginalized group might have provided a clearer picture of what would then be expected on a large scale trial if one were to occur.

This leads me to an article created by Jennifer Hoffman (2011), entitled, Top Ten Challenges of Blended Learning. She breaks down many of the concerns of blended learning into categories (technical challenges, organizational challenges, and instructional design challenges) that present problem and solution. One of her particular challenges speaks directly to the evolution of blended learning through the use of eLearning instructional techniques and ET. She writes (2011), “Instructional designers need to go through a thorough evaluation to validate learning objectives and determine appropriate assessment methodologies before determining how to deliver content for each learning objective.” Simply stated, do not choose the medium (software) first, but think of what the learning goals and criteria would be for the student(s). While no direct evaluation technique was mentioned, Bates and Poole’s (2003) SECTIONS[2] framework would be a good starting point. Applying Hoffman’s challenges and SECTIONS to the above mentioned paper by Vesisenaho et al, the reader might better come to understand that blended learning and ET cannot be simply combined for efficiency or glitter.

Synthesis / Challenges / Horizon

In examining each of the above mentioned articles and papers, the reader becomes aware of how powerful a tool ET, eLearning and blended learning can be. By looking at the these instructional tools and techniques, it is evident that there is a need to further study how each medium, while individual in nature, are fusing together to create a new learning standard that is electronic, networked, mobile, and global. Educators are witnessing how eLearning tools are continuing to evolve to take advantage of global networks that distribute information not just for the benefit of one student, but on behalf of a community, province or country as a whole, (supposedly) free of ignorance, stereotypes and prejudice.

Binding these current eLearning and ET tools is the instructional strategy known as blended learning.  Educators have come to realize that providing a multidimensional approach to curriculum delivery benefits a much larger audience of learners than the traditional brick and mortar classroom or the independently completed at home course work. This benefits the student because he/she can choose which means motivates them the most. As well, it provides an excellent platform for students to work collaboratively in and outside of the classroom, at any time or place.

From an educator’s perspective, there remain some obstacles to taking all these eLearning tools and incorporating them effectively in a blended environment. As noted and implied by the authors here within, the choice of technology should be the last component decided upon when planning for blended delivery. This design aspect of blended learning should be foremost in its distribution. In Characterising effective eLearning resources, Littlejohn et al (2006) state, “ (the) increasing emphasis on learning design is raising awareness of the importance of being able to adapt resources into new forms, and communicate and reuse them to support different kinds of activities within different contexts.” Therefore, in the blended environment, any current technology can be become involved in the learning theatre, just as we are seeing with mobile learning. As eLearning and ET have evolved over time, I suspect we will see a continual evolving of blended learning, even the name itself.

Conclusion (Significance and Implications)  

Students and educators today are in a position that will likely be viewed as the first steps in the emergence of true blended and distributed learning. It will be more student directed than teacher directed and make use of mobile technology as a collaborative means of sharing knowledge and learning.  Roy Sleator (2010), in his article entitled The evolution of eLearning : Background, blends and blackboard…, highlights this by forecasting that the, “mobile telephone (of which there are over one billion users) is a trusted, personal device with internet access, smart card usage, and a range of possibilities for allowing the distant learner to remain constantly in touch with the institution, learning materials and fellow students, while at home, at work, or travelling.” As mobile devices and other ET become the supposed backbone of blended learning, there are a few particulars to consider. The classroom and teacher exist in a controlled environment. There is no barrier between the student and his/her teacher in this manner. In a blended environment, when outside of the classroom, the student must rely on hardware and software that could compromise the overall learning experience due to technical and bandwidth issues. More so, the sheer number and diversity of mobile devices, as mentioned by Sleator, leads to questions of quality control, not just amongst student and teacher, but that of the institution and content provider (likely the educator him/herself). I feel that the next decade (and beyond) will be a time of trial and error within the field of education, as both students and educators try to sort out how to best make use of eLearning and ET within the instructional strategy of blended learning.

 References

Bates, A.W. and Poole, G. (2003). Chapter 4: A framework for selecting and using technology. in In Effective teaching with technology in higher education: Foundations for success. (pp. 77). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.

De George-Walker, L and Keeffe, M. (2010). Self-determined blended learning: A case study of blended learning design. HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, 29(1), 1.

Hofmann, J. (2011). Top ten challenges of blended learning. Retrieved November 26, 2011, from http://www.trainingmag.com/article/soapbox-top-10-challenges-blended-learning

Kurubacak, G. (2011). eLearning for pluralism: The culture of eLearning in building a knowledge society. International Journal on e-Learning, 10(2), 145.

Littlejohn, A., Falconer, I., & Mcgill, L. (2008). Characterising effective eLearning resources. Computers and Education, 50(3), 757.

Pape, L. (2010). Blended teaching and learning. The Education Digest, 76(2), 22.

Vesisenaho, M., Valtonen, T., Kukkonen, J., Havu-Nuutinen, S., Hartikainen, A., & Karkkainen, S. (2010). Blended learning with everyday technologies to activate students’ collaborative learning. Science Education International, 21(4), 272.

WANG, LIH-CHING CHEN, SONG, JIHUA and LIU, GEPING. (2011). The eLearning experience: General truths and the chinese eLearning experience. International Journal of Instructional Media, 38(3), 225.