# Blended Learning in K-12/Guiding Principles of Blended Learning

|previous=Blended Learning's Lesson Design Process|Designing a Lesson
|next=Success Tips}}
```
### Guiding Principles

A definitive statement of what constitutes the best combination of
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and face-to-face learning
experiences is impossible. No such statement exists for the best
combination of traditional practices much less for the newer world of
blended learning. Singh & Reed (2001) state \"Little formal research
exists on how to construct the most effective blended program designs\"
(p. 6). However, observers have begun to collate principles that, at
least anecdotally, lead to greater success.

*One note before continuing. Most of the literature about blended
learning design comes from work in business training and post-secondary
education. The author makes the assumption that those principles are
generally applicable to K-12 education as well.*

A theme that emerges is that the instruction methods, whether on-line or
face-to-face, are the means, not the end. \"Students never learn from
technology per se. They learn from the strategies teachers use to
communicate effectively through the technologies\" (Cyrs, Cyrs, and
Conway, 2003, General Guideline #1). It follows that the single most
important consideration when designing a blended learning environment is
the learning objective or purpose. It is tempting to assert that it is
the _only_ consideration. However, not only would
that lead to this exposition being overly brief, as desirable as that
might be for writer and reader alike, it would also mean ignoring the
essential truth that all learning occurs in and is shaped by a context.
Important dimensions of this context include (Singh & Reed, 2001, p. 5):

:\***Audience.** What do the learners know and how varied is their level
of knowledge? Are the learners geographicaly centralized or
geographicaly dispersed? Are the learners here because they wish to be
or because they have to be?

:\***Content.** Some content lends itself well to on-line situations.
Other content, a complex and detailed procedure for assembling a valve
train, for example, may work best in face-to-face setting.

:\***Infrastructure.** If physical space is limited, more of the
instruction could be placed on-line. If students do not have access to
high band width connections, on-line video streaming would be a poor
choice.

With purpose and context in mind, the designer can select, combine, and
organize different elements of on-line and traditional instruction.
Carman (2002) identifies five such elements calling them key
\"ingredients\" (p. 2):

1.  **Live events.** These are synchronous, instructor-led events.
    Traditional lectures, video conferences, and synchronous chat
    sessions such as elluminate are examples.
2.  **Self-Paced Learning.** Experiences the learner completes
    individually on her own time such as an internet or CD-ROM based
    tutorial.
3.  **Collaboration.** Learners communicate and create with others,
    e-mail, threaded discussions, and, come to think of it, this wiki
    are all examples.
4.  **Assessment.** Measurements of learners\' mastery of the
    objectives. Assessment is not limited to conventional tests,
    quizzes, and grades. Narrative feedback, portfolio evaluations and,
    importantly, a designers reflection about a blended learning
    environments effectiveness or usefulness are all forms of
    assessment.
5.  **Support Materials.** These include reference material, both
    physical and virtual, FAQ forums, and summaries. Anything that aids
    learning retention and transfer.

It is useful, though ultimately reductive, to think of the interaction
between context and ingredients for a given learning objective as a
rectangular matrix. The intersections suggest the method the designer
should use. The danger of this metaphor is the suggestion that each
purpose, context, and ingredient combination deterministically lead to a
matching method. Such is not the case. The point to the designer is to
think in terms of those conditions, and others unique to her particular
circumstance, as she orchestrates learning activities and creates her
blended environment.

                   Live Events   Self-Paced Learning   Collaboration   Assessment    Support Materials
  ---------------- ------------- --------------------- --------------- ------------- -------------------
  Audience         *method~1~*   *method~2~*           *method~3~*     *method~4~*   *method~5~*
  Content          *method~6~*   *method~7~*           *method~etc~*                 
  Infrastructure                                                                     

  : For Learning Objective α

McCracken and Dobson (2004) provide an example of how learning purpose,
context, and blended learning ingredients lead particular learning
methods. They propose a process with \"five main design activities\"
(p.491) as a framework for designing blended learning courses. The
process is illustrated with a case study of the redesign of a class at
The University of Alberta called Philosophy 101 (pp. 494 - 495):

-   **Identifying learning and teaching principles.** The teaching and
    learning goals were described as requiring active participation,
    sustained discussion, and, most importantly, inquiry and critical
    analysis.
-   **Describing organizational contexts** Team teaching with three
    professors and up to eleven graduate teaching assistants to engage a
    class of 250 students in dialogue around ethical and political
    philosophy.
-   **Describing discipline-specific factors** The designers are
    described as being concerned about stereotypes of philosophy as
    \"bearded men professing absolute truths\" (p.495). The desire was
    to represent philosophy as an activity, not a set truths to be
    absorbed.
-   **Selecting and situating appropriate learning technologies**
    Learning activities focused on the process of engagement: presenting
    and defending a thesis and responding to opposing views. For
    example, a face-to-face lecture would feature contemporary ethical
    dilemmas with newspaper headlines or a video clip. Or, the
    instructors would stage a debate in which they would assume the role
    of a philosopher under study and then argue from the philosopher\'s
    point of view. Online threaded discussion supplemented small group
    seminar sections.
-   **Articulating the complementary interaction between classroom and
    online learning activities** In the Philosophy 101 example, it was
    noted how the face-to-face engagement was complemented by more
    deliberative, asynchronous discourse.

Even this simplified description illustrates the multilayered,
multifaceted nature of blended learning environments. With such a large
canvass, the most important design principle might be to start small.
\"Creating a blended learning strategy is an evolutionary process.\"
(Singh and Reed, 2001). A good place to begin is to supplement an
existing conventional, environment with one or two on-line activities, a
resource website or an asynchronous discussion for example. As
experience and confidence are gained, new tools can be introduced and a
greater effort put into redesigning the program. It is hoped that this
chapter will help teachers reach that goal.

This
chapter\'s
previous section is about Designing a
Lesson.
The next section describes Success
Tips.

## Additional Resources

See also the developing Wikitext Contemporary Educational
Psychology/Chapter 9: Instructional
Planning
for additional suggestions and ideas about designing and planning
lessons.
