Blended Learning Implementation in Universities - Essay Example

Blended Learning Implementation in Universities Introduction Blended learning is a buzzword in contemporary education research. The body of literature describing the benefits of blended learning in higher education constantly increases. Blended learning exemplifies a dramatic departure from both face-to-face education and online learning and uniquely combines the features of both approaches. Blended learning is believed to benefit students in higher education, by extending the reach of the learning content and enhancing the quality of students’ learning outcomes. Unfortunately, not all universities have a clear view on how blended learning can be implemented. The goal of this paper is to highlight the most important points and offer a strategic framework for the development and implementation of blended learning strategies in higher education. The paper includes the definition and discussion of blended learning, the main criteria of effectiveness in blended learning environments, possible ways to implement blended learning in the classroom, and a common framework for higher education institutions seeking to implement the blended learning approach. Blended learning: models and implementation Regardless of the goals and objectives of blended learning in universities, the process of implementing blended learning models in higher education mandates the development of strong and complex program implementation frameworks. The overall process of developing and implementing blended learning programs includes the following elements: institutional, pedagogical, technological, design, evaluation and management, support and ethics (Singh 2003). This is actually a unique and extremely useful implementation framework that was proposed by Singh (2003). By addressing all these elements, universities can consider the various sides of the implementation process and create a learning program that results in meaningful learning experiences. The overall process of implementing blended learning strategies in universities begins by considering the institutional elements of the blend (Singh 2003). Universities need to assess their preparedness to deal with blended learning and decide whether it possesses technical and personnel capabilities required, to guarantee that all learners have equal access to blended learning instruments. At this stage of implementation, universities need to perform a detailed needs analysis, to understand what learners need and how blended learning can satisfy their needs. This is the planning stage of the implementation process in blended learning, which must include both strategic and operational aspects (Garrison & Kanuka 2004). In strategic terms, universities must necessarily evaluate the needs, objectives and goals of blended learning, its potential benefits, costs and the availability of resources (Garrison & Kanuka 2004). Operational planning has to be considered, in order to operationalize the goals and objective of blended learning and turn them into an action plan (Garrison & Kanuka 2004). For example, universities may develop advertising strategies to engage learners in blended contexts or attend to the needs of managing technologies effectively. Then follow the pedagogical and technological considerations. Universities that seek to implement blended learning approaches must decide upon the content to be included in the blend, the learning objectives to be met, and the learner needs (Singh 2003). In other words, here education professionals link the needs of learners to the learning objectives and the instruments to be used, to help learners meet these learning objectives. For example, if learners are expected to develop a new product or marketing model, then product simulation can become an essential component of the blend (Singh 2003). Once these delivery methods are identified, universities can proceed to decide upon the types of technologies to be used in blended learning. Here, technical requirements have to be defined and addressed, including the most suitable learning management system, types of servers, security and accessibility of software, as well as bandwidth and technical infrastructure (Singh 2003). Interface design and evaluation are the next stages of blended learning implementation. It is no secret that, for blended learning to be effective and relevant, each element of the blended learning program should be related to the user interface. The latter must be user-friendly and easy in use. All elements of the blend should be integrated in ways that enable the learner each all delivery types and content available to them and switch easily between them (Singh 2003). For example, learners in higher education institutions will attend a classroom lecture and then strengthen their knowledge with the help of lecture notes provided online. In blended learning, learners will be able to switch between these modes or attend to them simultaneously. Once the blended program is developed, its usability should be evaluated and clarified. According to Singh (2003), education professionals in universities should use a different and appropriate method of evaluation for each delivery type used within the blend. Technological components of blended learning and the face-to-face content should be evaluated separately. This is how universities can create the full and complete picture of the program’s effectiveness and usefulness in achieving the desired learning objective. In addition, the management dimension has to be considered, so that universities can successfully manage the multiple ways of delivering the learning content (Singh 2003). Finally, resources required to implement the program and learning have to be delineated and supplied. The ethics dimensions of the blended learning program need to be taken into account. Certainly, these are the general elements that can be successfully used across a variety of contexts and disciplines. However, many universities may need an advice on what models and strategies fit different learning situations. It is imperative for university professionals to consider the content included in blended learning strategies against its stability and urgency. In other words, the main questions to be answered include whether the content will last for one or more years, whether the content can change within the next couple of months, whether the information presented to learners has staying power, etc. (Rossett et al. 2003). These are just some of the sample questions that need to be answered at the very first stages of blended learning implementation. The choice of particular blended learning techniques will depend upon the quality of the answers given to these questions. Rossett et al. (2003) offer an extremely useful scheme of analysis and implementation, depending on the urgency and volatility of the learning content. Universities can use this scheme as a guide in the process of implementing blended learning strategies. Fig.1. Urgency and stability of the learning content (Rossett et al., 2003). Blended learning is extremely flexible and manageable. As such, there are no blended learning solutions that could be used in all learning situations. The process of implementing blended learning systems will depend on numerous factors, including the nature of the discipline and the target learner. Simultaneously, education professionals can choose any combination of various learning methods to meet their learning objectives. These may include traditional lectures, grand rounds and seminars for medical students, bulletin boards and kiosks, videoconferences and virtual classrooms, as well as emails, electronic performance appraisal systems, websites and palm pilots for students learning psychiatry (Cucciare, Weingardt & Villafranca 2008). These diverse elements of learning can be combined to form so-called anchor, bookend and field blends (Cucciare, Weingardt & Villafranca 2008). Anchor blends are those which start with broad learning experiences and gradually transform into smaller and independent experiential clusters (Cucciare, Weingardt & Villafranca 2008). For example, universities can develop anchor models of blended learning, by providing students with general learning experiences (such as training manuals and textbooks) and concrete experiences (through website simulations and email assessments). By contrast, the bookend blend in universities can operate through a combination of textbooks and manuals, training workshops and supervision – this blend is particularly important for students in the medical field and enables them to develop exemplary practical skills (Cucciare, Weingardt & Villafranca 2008). Here, universities can also apply to the so-called field blend, which is inherently learner-centric and provides adult learners with a broad range of active learning resources (Cucciare, Weingardt & Villafranca 2008). Field blends may consist of workshops, telecoaching, telecoaching and email feedback, as well as traditional lectures and teleassessments (Cucciare, Weingardt & Villafranca 2008). In these learning environments, students have greater chances to achieve skills proficiency and professionalism. What seems important is that, to implement blended learning strategies, university professionals must ensure that students are motivated to learn and possess the required degree of self-regulation and autonomy. Self-regulation is a crucial component of success in blended learning. Generally, self-regulation can be defined as “the extent to which learners are meta-cognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active in achieving their learning goals” (Lynch & Dembo 2004). Self-regulation is important, because self-regulated students are motivated to learn. Self-regulated learners demonstrate good perceptions of self-efficacy and can plan and carry out various behaviors needed to achieve their learning goals (Lynch & Dembo 2004). Self-regulated learners are goal-oriented, which creates the basis for the successful implementation of blended learning strategies (Lynch & Dembo 2004). These learners usually display better internet self-efficacy, which plays a crucial role in the effectiveness of blended learning decisions, as well as time management skills that enable university students to effectively manage their blended learning time (Lynch & Dembo 2004). This being said, universities that seek to implement blended learning solutions should be able to assess, manage and regulate students’ self-regulation skills. Despite the broad recognition of the importance of self-regulation, few university educators have knowledge and skills to help students develop their self-regulatory abilities (Zimmerman 2002). Moreover, education professionals and teachers rarely ask students to self-assess their skills (Zimmerman 2002). As the scope of web-based and blended learning interventions in higher education increases, the need to develop and sustain self-regulated learners becomes even more urgent. Most universities have everything needed to develop self-regulated learners and, consequentially, successfully implement blended learning strategies. For example, blended learning can be implemented together with the simplest self-regulation techniques, such as scheduling and organizers, self-reflection and self-assessment online journals, instructional techniques that teach students to set and achieve their goals (Whipp & Chiarelli 2004). Of huge importance is encouraging students to seek help from their supervisors – help-seeking is one of the central criteria of self-regulation in students (Whipp & Chiarelli 2004). Self-regulated learners will enhance the learning capacity of blended learning techniques in universities. Simultaneously, supervisors should provide regular feedback and support (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick 2006; Whipp & Chiarelli 2004). These are just some of the basic methods universities can use to ensure the success of blended learning implementation. There are no universal blended learning solutions. The use and applicability of blended learning models varies across situations and circumstances. However, universities can choose from several important modes and models and find the one that best meets their needs and the needs of learners. These include skill-driven, attitude-driven, and competency-driven models (Valiathan 2002). Skill-driven models are implemented to help students learn specific knowledge and skills (Valiathan 2002). These models demand constant and timely feedback from educators/ instructors and can be implemented by means of a self-paced but scheduled learning plan, instructor-led sessions and overviews, synchronous and asynchronous labs and procedures. Feedback can be provided in printed or e-mail forms (Valiathan 2002). Attitude-driven models are used to deliver the content needed to help learners develop new behaviors and attitudes (Valiathan, 2002). These models rely on constant peer-to-peer interactions, and the technologies used in these learning blends have to facilitate these interactions. Attitude-driven models can be implemented through Webinars, group projects that can be completed either online or offline, simulations and role-playing activities, etc. Finally, universities can use competency-driven blended learning models, which enable university students to capture tacit knowledge and use it in practice (Valiathan 2002). Competency-driven models of blended learning require that students constantly interact with experts in their profession or discipline, and the technologies used must allow university students to have and communicate with their mentors. Knowledge repositories are critical components of all attitude-driven models (Valiathan 2002). For example, universities can use skills-driven models to help students develop better critical thinking skills. This being said, the process of implementing the model can start with a brief announcement of the new program for students, through both online and offline communication instruments, such as emails and posters. Once a group of students is created, they are invited to participate in a classroom seminar (or Webinar), whose goal is to provide an overview of the course, its goals and instruments, as well as the intended outcomes. As previously mentioned, skills-based models of blended learning are usually implemented through self-paced but scheduled learning plans (Valiathan 2002). These plans can incorporate the features of e-books and online tutorials, further supplemented by offline books, articles and on-job training. In case students have questions or concerns, they can contact their supervisors either through instant messaging and emails, or during face-to-face meetings. Again, the results of students’ learning can be demonstrated in class, as well as through online simulations and during web meetings (Valiathan 2002). A blend of workbook assignments and online simulations can be used for testing knowledge and skills, whereas feedback can be provided by means of email, messaging, print reports and face-to-face meetings. At the end of the course, students can pass an online or (and) printed test and attend the closing online or classroom session. This is just one example of how blended learning in universities can be implemented. At all stages of the proposed learning strategy, students must have an opportunity to choose among multiple methods of knowledge delivery. This is the essence of blended learning, which will lead university students to the desired end. Conclusion Blended learning is a relatively new but extremely promising approach to learning. Blended learning exemplifies a unique integration of classroom and technological methods of knowledge delivery, which enable greater student flexibility and better efficiency of all learning processes. Blended learning is particularly useful in higher education, where students demand flexibility and independence. It is clear that, while implementing blended learning strategies, universities must consider the institutional, pedagogical, technical, management and ethical aspects of blended learning. Self-regulation in students should be considered, since only self-regulated learners can achieve success and meet their learning goals in university blended learning. Blended learning must be implemented in ways that meet learners’ needs and allow them to freely access all modes of knowledge delivery available to them. Blended learning should be developed and delivered, to enables students to monitor their progress, encourages help-seeking behaviors and provides regular feedback. Skill-based, attitude-based and competency-based models can be used, to help students expand their knowledge and switch easily among the various models of content delivery in online and offline learning environments. However, there is no universal implementation model, and universities must always consider the uniqueness of their learning environments and its implications for blended learning. References Cucciare, MA, Weingardt, KR & Villafrance, S 2008, ‘Using blended learning to implement evidence-based psychotherapies’, Clinical Psychology Science and Practice, vol.15, pp.299-307. Garrison, DR & Kanuka, H 2004, ‘Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education’, Internet and Higher Education, vol.7, pp. 95-105. Lynch, R & Dembo, M 2004, ‘The relationship between self-regulation and online learning in a blended learning context’, The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, vol.5, no.2, [online], http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/189/271 Nicol, DJ & Macfarlane-Dick, D 2006, ‘Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in Higher Education, vol.31, no.2, pp.199-218. Rossett, A, Douglis, F & Frazee, RV 2003, ‘Strategies for building blended learning’, ASTD, [online], http://www.astd.org/LC/2003/0703_rossett.htm. Singh, H 2003, ‘Building effective blended learning programs’, Educational Technology, vol. 43, no.6, pp. 51-54. Valiathan, P 2002, ‘Blended learning models’, ASTD, [online], http://www.astd.org/LC/2002/0802_valiathan.htm. Whipp, JL & Chiarelli, S 2004, ‘Self-regulation in a web-based course: A case study’, Educational Technology Research and Development, vol.52, no.4, pp.1-29. Zimmerman, BJ 2002, ‘Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview’, Theory into Practice, vol.41, no.2, pp.64-70. Read More